Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

Why? Is there an Eldar rule that forbids Blood Angels to shoot back?

Yeah. The rule where they get to take all my models off the board in 3 turns. I have nothing to shoot back with. The shots I do take usually don't accomplish much vs AV 12 4+ cover save.

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

Why? Is there an Eldar rule that forbids Blood Angels to shoot back?

Yeah. The rule where they get to take all my models off the board in 3 turns. I have nothing to shoot back with. The shots I do take usually don't accomplish much vs AV 12 4+ cover save.

That's not an Eldar rule. Thats a "person who doesn't understand what a game is" rule.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

Why? Is there an Eldar rule that forbids Blood Angels to shoot back?

Yeah. The rule where they get to take all my models off the board in 3 turns. I have nothing to shoot back with. The shots I do take usually don't accomplish much vs AV 12 4+ cover save.

That's not an Eldar rule. Thats a "person who doesn't understand what a game is" rule.

How so? These Eldar lists are legal, I assure you.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

Why? Is there an Eldar rule that forbids Blood Angels to shoot back?

Yeah. The rule where they get to take all my models off the board in 3 turns. I have nothing to shoot back with. The shots I do take usually don't accomplish much vs AV 12 4+ cover save.

That's not an Eldar rule. Thats a "person who doesn't understand what a game is" rule.

How so? These Eldar lists are legal, I assure you.

Not everything that is legal is appropriate. Not to mention that the concept of "legal" cannot exist in a wargame depending on mutual consent. Legality implies enforcement through .. well .. force.

That doesn't cut it, because not everyone's definition of appropriate lines up. That's why we have rules that EVERYONE has to abide by. GW made these builds legal, and opened the floodgates.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

Why? Is there an Eldar rule that forbids Blood Angels to shoot back?

Yeah. The rule where they get to take all my models off the board in 3 turns. I have nothing to shoot back with. The shots I do take usually don't accomplish much vs AV 12 4+ cover save.

That's not an Eldar rule. Thats a "person who doesn't understand what a game is" rule.

How so? These Eldar lists are legal, I assure you.

I'm not saying they're not. What I am saying is that you can just say "Hey would you mind toning the list down a bit? I don't have a chance and it sucks." and they should say "Oh sure thing how does *alternative list* sound?

Martel732 wrote:
That doesn't cut it, because not everyone's definition of appropriate lines up. That's why we have rules that EVERYONE has to abide by. GW made these builds legal, and opened the floodgates.

See... you are putting far too much thought into the rules, hamstringing your own enjoyment.

I'd encourage you to ignore and change more rules, do more free-form stuff, to wean yourself of that particular crutch.

Again... "legal" is a meaningless category in something requiring consent.

That's not the way my group works. Lists are constructed and then opponents chosen to prevent list tailoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That doesn't cut it, because not everyone's definition of appropriate lines up. That's why we have rules that EVERYONE has to abide by. GW made these builds legal, and opened the floodgates.

See... you are putting far too much thought into the rules, hamstringing your own enjoyment.

I'd encourage you to ignore and change more rules, do more free-form stuff, to wean yourself of that particular crutch.

We play RAW.

Then play differently. Seems pretty simple to me.

Martel732 wrote:


We play RAW.

Well, try playing 40K instead.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


We play RAW.

Well, try playing 40K instead.

You play a game using its rules? Or are you just pointlessly obfuscating again?

I'll go with the latter.

If you go strict RAW then you take a way of describing something and use it as an excuse to be an idiot.

 Grimtuff wrote:


You play a game using its rules? Or are you just pointlessly obfuscating again?

I'll go with the latter.

Most people claiming to play "RAW" purposefully ignore the higher-order of instructions situated throughout the rulebook in boxes such as "Spirit of the Game" or "Forge the Narrative".

As noted previously, these take precedence over things like point values, armour saves or weapon strengths, and the later were, as the rulebook says "Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."

If you're serious about playing "by the rules"; start there.


If you "house-rule" those boxes out of the game, you can't really blame GW if the result isn't to your liking.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:


Because it is a logical fallacy to believe that a balanced game presents you only with vanilla.

Again, people keep saying that, but I've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence.

Only because you're simply ignoring the evidence placed in front of you. There are, currently existing in 40K, units in every Codex that are simply non-starters. If you add them to any list, for any purpose or any play-style of game, you are actively reducing your chances of actually winning a game against any other army, built with a different list, even if you and your opponent are playing armies from the same Codex. While some units are viable in certain scenarios, and are less-than-ideal in others, a balanced ruleset would work to bring these non-starter units, and the less-than-viable units (as the game currently exists), to a point where the player with such an army has a fair-to-middling chance of winning a game, even if they're bringing an assault-focused army against a TauDar Rip-Wave gunline.

Will playing an assault-based army against a gunline-based army be an uphill battle? Yes, of course.
Should playing an assault-based army against a gunline-based army be as close to an auto-lose as to make virtually no difference? No, of course not.

But the second scenario is where 40K currently sits. Certain lists and certain armies, regardless of list, are basically not worth the trouble of setting up on the table against certain other armies and lists, because there is simply no viable way (outside of pure, dumb luck) for said lists and armies to meaningfully engage the army on the other side of the table. Currently present in the game are army-builds that are demonstrably superior to other armies, and in which those superior armies (even certain mono-Codex builds) simply deny any advantage or counter the other army presents. Yes, Tau gunlines fold like napkins in melee... unfortunately for the assault armies, actually getting into melee is a very remote possibility.

GW's method of dealing with this problem? They say "Don't play that way". Which is stupid, from both a gameplay standpoint and a business standpoint. They wrote the Codices, they built the models... and now they're telling us "Don't buy these books or buy these models". This is double-facepalm territory.

In a balanced ruleset, using the above examples, an assault-based army would have a decent chance of coming to grips with a gun-line based army, assuming that the general of the assault army plays intelligently and is not cursed by the dice gods that day. Sure, the gunline army will have the advantage of having a few turns of what is, basically, free shots against the assault army, but a balanced rule-set would provide for a decent chance for the assault army to get into melee with the gunline (maybe missing a few squads, because gak happens, or some of its squads missing a good chunk of its members). This scenario, then, brings it down to the skill of the generals involved, rather than simply the lists they brought and a bucket of dice.

In such a scenario, then, you have a real opportunity for a narrative game. Let's say you have a SOB army that is heavily weighted in Sisters Repentia and PEs. because you want to have a choppy Sisters army, against a Tau gunline. As currently written, the rules of the game permit almost no chance for the SOB army to even get into melee with the Tau. In a balanced ruleset, both armies have a real chance at victory. In the narrative sense, either you have the Tau Empire succeeding in its goals of defending its Sept World, or you have the Sisters successfully dislodging a Cadre from an Imperial world, or defending an Imperial Shrine against the Xeno invaders, or whatever the storyline is behind the battle. If this battle began with the Sisters defending a Shrine in the center of the table, and the Tau deploying on three out of four sides of the table, in the current iteration, the victory is foregone to the Tau at the very outset. There's absolutely nothing an assault-based army can do in this scenario to have a hope of victory. With a balanced ruleset, however, the general of the Sisters Army could, playing intelligently, force the Tau into the open, or distract the Tau's fire, or otherwise would have rules-based tools available for getting their PE and Repentia into assault with the Tau. Sure, the Sisters may still not win, their assault units might get chewed up with Overwatch or fail to capitalize on a gap they've forced in the Tau lines, or whatever... but the difference here is, with a ruleset that is balanced for both shooty armies and assault armies, the assault army had a chance.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


We play RAW.

Well, try playing 40K instead.

So, you're saying that 40K has no rules, then?

I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.

What. World. Do. You. Live. In?

" "Spirit of the Game" or "Forge the Narrative"."

Listen to what I am saying. The problem with this approach is getting everyone to agree on what these things are or should be. These are not rules, because they can not be parsed into meaningful statements.

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Epic butcher. Read his fluff. Read his rules. Play him on the table top. He is a perfect tabletop incarnation of his own fluff. Every aspect is bailed down and represented brilliantly. Look at the model. Friend and foe, butchered at his feet. Perfect, considering all his attacks are indiscriminate. Look at his arcane dementia rule - his arcane ability ebbs and flows, he is incredibly unstable - represented perfectly. Look at his spells - they perfectly capture his inner rage and anger and desire, no, need to close with the enemy. Look at his special rules - homicidal maniac. Look at his feat - perfectly designed to represent his rage literally boiling over and infecting his whole army. Look at the rules where his rage infects and spills over into his warjacks. They're angrier and more aggressive than warjacks controlled by any other caster.

Sounds like a fun guy.

I'll take 5 of him for a little "Butcher's guild" type-list. They could be his brothers. Or a cloning-experiement gone wrong.

Not keen on the Warjacks themselves. Gonna leave those out though.

We could play a scenario on a really small strip of table representing narrow alleys between butcher-shops, kinda like the Oldboy Hallway fight, but in the steampunk-fantasy version. Perhaps with some Zombicide zombies swarming about attacking everyone for extra mayhem.

I'll pitch it the next time I see a Warmachine player. If they take me up on it, I'll happily start looing into Warmachine more heavily.

This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.

There is only one butcher though... He'd badass enough on his eon though. I dunno. 5 butchers? Make it seven (seven butchers), and see how many guys it takes to bring them all down. Could have potential. As a nice, fun, once off. Sure.

To be truer to the fluff though zwei - there is only one butcher. Thankfully, he enjoys running around with his berserker mates in the doom reavers. They'd be a good bodyguard.


Build a game around it? Hmm... I'd rather stick with the 'real' fluff rather than a home brew... Rather than five butchers (IMO a bit silly), put butcher in a city with his doom reaver compatriots and run every bane and mechanithrall you can get your hands on at him. Now that could be epic.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.

What. World. Do. You. Live. In?

Try it.

Or better yet, try gaming without even counting the point values or the victory points. It's a good way to get people more used to other types of games to ease into the 40K-mindset. Less bureaucracy too, which is also a plus. Pure gaming.

" Pure gaming."

But pointless gaming since there is no longer any construct to make decisions meaningful. It's like flipping a coin for 5 hours.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.

What. World. Do. You. Live. In?

Try it.

Or better yet, try gaming without even counting the point values or the victory points. It's a good way to get people more used to other types of games to ease into the 40K-mindset. Less bureaucracy too, which is also a plus. Pure gaming.

K

*sets Revenant Titan on Skyshield with 9 Farseers behind it*

Go.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.

What. World. Do. You. Live. In?

Point of order...

To be fair, a lot of games don't use points values either... There are other ways to balance, or organise games though. Things don't need to be equal, depending on what you're looking for. Should they be? Hmm...

I think the fundamental disconnect here is that people *aren't'* reasonable. They aren't going to back off until the rules *prohibit* the overpower builds.

Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

You know that, with a balanced ruleset, you would be able to play with both unequal points values and also not have to have that in order to create a balanced scenario, right?

That's something you don't seem to be grasping. Having one side playing with 500 points and the other side playing with 1000 points is a way of attempting to force a battle to fit a scenario or storyline, but requires such disparity because, at even points value, the narrative arc is somewhat crippled. Using my previous example of the Sisters defending a Shrine against the Tau, in order to provide the option for a narrative that isn't "and the Sisters all died because the Tau shoot through walls and everything else", you have to limit the Tau to, like, 500 points, and give the Sisters, like, 1250pts.

With a balanced ruleset, each army could have 1000pts and the narrative could still go either way, victory or defeat, which makes for exciting storylines in campaign play.

It sounds like your opponent is supposed to self-police. That's what this is boiling down to.

 azreal13 wrote:
Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

I've answered it several times.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

I've answered it several times.

Not really, but I surmised your answer above. You claim we aren't even playing the game.

The people here are reasonable, and we have all agreed to modify rules, disallow silliness and such. Makes for a far better game. It saddens me that folks in your area are not of the same mind.

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

I've answered it several times.

Not really, but I surmised your answer above. You claim we aren't even playing the game.

You are certainly playing your game.

The odd thing is... it's not the game the game designers propose, nor do you appear to be having fun, and yet you are blaming the Game Designers for the fact that you're not having fun.

But no, that wasn't related to the Pentinent Engine, or at best very, very, very broadly.