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.

"There are no legions, only scattered warbands that have are absolutely random."

 BoomWolf wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.

That claim is true though, the problem does not lay in the riptide itself, but spesifically in the ion accelerator.
A HBC riptide is a fair deal.

And we'll just ignore that they are the most survivable MC in game having an enate immunity to double T ID and a 2+ save right?

I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop. In comparison to any of the more balanced MCs out there, especially those that don't get Thrust Moves (>.&gt A riptide the most absolute bastardized creation of GW since the removal of EW from the Daemons Dex all together. (And those 2++ re-rollables but you can blame GW for their absolute fail in terms of Grimoire + forewarning as their BRB Psyker spells and the access most armies have to it now, Tzeentch daemons being the disgusting jerks they are)

180 points base, actually.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
180 points base, actually.

Well, 180 plus the 40 points in the ion accelerator and stimulant injector that everyone runs him with. (Yes, I know, I'm sure people do run them differently, but that setup is stupidly effective)

On topic:

I think I'm just going to list a few of the rules that people at a nearby game store were using, despite evidence to the contrary:

1. You don't roll for consolidate, it's always a flat 3" (I've shown him the actual rule 3 weeks in a row, he continues to tell people it's 3")
2. You only get the Aegis Defense Line's 4+ cover save if the model is within 2" of the wall, any further out and it's a standard 5+.
3. As long as more than half the unit is in cover, the entire unit gets a cover save (which is understandable, because that was how it worked in 5th edition)
4. If a vehicle is an assault vehicle, you can always get out of it no matter what speed it moved
5. You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against witchfire, because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and THEN shooting it at a target
6. Long Fang packs can't split fire even when the Pack Leader is alive, because they do not have the split fire special rule.
6a. Long Fang packs CAN split fire, but they have to roll a Leadership test as with Split Fire, because the Pack Leader gives them the Split Fire special rule (different person).

How I dealt with it: decided to stop going there, because I enjoy playing by the rules of the game and not having to adjust to whatever random house rule is in effect that week.

GoliothOnline wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.

That claim is true though, the problem does not lay in the riptide itself, but spesifically in the ion accelerator.
A HBC riptide is a fair deal.

And we'll just ignore that they are the most survivable MC in game having an enate immunity to double T ID and a 2+ save right?

I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop. In comparison to any of the more balanced MCs out there, especially those that don't get Thrust Moves (>.&gt A riptide the most absolute bastardized creation of GW since the removal of EW from the Daemons Dex all together. (And those 2++ re-rollables but you can blame GW for their absolute fail in terms of Grimoire + forewarning as their BRB Psyker spells and the access most armies have to it now, Tzeentch daemons being the disgusting jerks they are)

Note, I said "fair" not "weak".

HBC riptides are still good, as they are still horridly hard to kill, but what they become fair because they have far less firepower, incredibly low firepower for its price actually.
Without that potentially cover-ignoring AP2 pieplate, he struggles to provide the high-threat status that makes people shoot at him despite how hard it is to remove him, and takes away his ability to threaten you from across the field-every codex can present shooting units that deal far more dakka/point then the HBC riptide.

A riptide is not OP because of its range, its AP2 pie in a markerlight army, its jetpack manuverability, or his durability-its the combination that spins out of control, and once you brake the combo apart, one way or another-and the HBC does not have the combo as he lacks the range, and the firepower.

I highly disagree. At the price point the thing is at, with all the toys it gets, the thing is still waaaaaaay more durable than anything under 250-300 points has any right to be.

If there was such a thing as a 40k "draft" tournament, similar to Magic's booster drafts, even if every non apoc unit in the game were present, a HBC riptide would still be a high contender for first round pick.

Maybe it's just me as a general, but if my troops can stay alive, I can FIND a way to make them do something useful. I don't care if they're armed with blowguns.

"B-but I give it a suboptimal load out!" Does not make the unit NOT broken. It DOES make you a player that's somewhat respectful of the balance and your opponents' game experiences, since you see it as off the rocker enough to self nerf it a bit.

But no, even the HBC version is undercosted, just by virtue of the nigh-invincible body that it sits on being undercosted.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
"There are no legions, only scattered warbands"

Ha ha ha! Hilarious!

 da001 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
"There are no legions, only scattered warbands"

Ha ha ha! Hilarious!

And it's what Phil Kelly said at Games Day a couple years ago.

I only really have one: "You need [Insert Unit/Army/Allies/Latest Netlist/Ubercombo thing here] to win" and it's mutation: "If you play [Insert anything that isn't considered to be the best of the best by the internet here] you'll never win."

May Cegorach ahve mercy on my soul for this:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
Games Workshop should allow the Grots to have their own army in the future and their own codex of course.

Story could be a good amount of Grots have joined together, combining their powers or just working together to take revenge on the Orks.

HQ
Grot with pointy stick

Elites
Grots with slingshots

Troops
Grots


This may seem unbalanced but they could make it balanced, just look at robot zombie people, they are all powerful and they have their own codex and army.

It's an older thread, but it checks out. I was about to not post.

"Omg, I hate GW. Let's play 40k."

Derp?

 krazynadechukr wrote:
"Omg, I hate GW. Let's play 40k."

Derp?

Why?

Is there a requirement to like the company that makes the game, in order to like the game?

 krazynadechukr wrote:
"Omg, I hate GW. Let's play 40k."

Derp?

I don't like Turbine, but I still play DDO, despite them doing what seems to be their best effort at killing their own game.

 Idolator wrote:
My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the topic title. I never saw anything in the rules that lead me to believe that they are "permissive" as such. To me they are just "descriptive" of how to play the game. I agree that they often 'appear' permissive, because that is that is a natural way to explain something and keep it relevant. That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules. Most reasonable people are able to interpret the rules and play the game without knowing anything about "permissive" or "restrictive" principles. People who adhere to a staunch "permissive" rule-set end up with a broken non-functioning game, which just proves the idiocy of the whole idea.

The ridiculous example that sprung to mind was someone insisting that 5th ed Rage (usr) was impossible because it required you to check LOS, and "the rules don't 'permit' you to check LOS during the movement phase".

 Smacks wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the topic title. I never saw anything in the rules that lead me to believe that they are "permissive" as such. To me they are just "descriptive" of how to play the game. I agree that they often 'appear' permissive, because that is that is a natural way to explain something and keep it relevant. That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules. Most reasonable people are able to interpret the rules and play the game without knowing anything about "permissive" or "restrictive" principles. People who adhere to a staunch "permissive" rule-set end up with a broken non-functioning game, which just proves the idiocy of the whole idea.

The ridiculous example that sprung to mind was someone insisting that 5th ed Rage (usr) was impossible because it required you to check LOS, and "the rules don't 'permit' you to check LOS during the movement phase".

Heck, man. In sixth edition alone there are numerous examples where no permission is given. Search lights prevent a targeted unit from receiving any benefits from night fight....but none of night fight's effects are listed as benefits. Which causes all manner of arguments as to which of the effects are to be considered benefits to the targeted unit, because no permission to receive a benefit is ever given. When it is obvious that all of the effects of night fighting are beneficial to unit that would be the intended target.

It's just a list of rules. Some of those are rules permit you to do things, some are rules that restrict you from doing things, some do both at the same time, some give you partial permission and leave out key parts.

Movement rules tell you that you can move your units up to their maximum distance. Giving both a permission to move and a restriction on distance, all the while neglecting any mention as to which direction is permissible.(so you have no permission to choose which direction that they are going) We all know that you can choose the direction of movement (most of the time) but it doesn't fit in with the "permissive rules" point of view.

 Smacks wrote:
That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules.

That's how game rules work, though. The rules define what is possible within the structure of the game. If something isn't defined, it simply isn't a part of the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules.

That's how game rules work, though. The rules define what is possible within the structure of the game. If something isn't defined, it simply isn't a part of the rules.

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The Imperium is the good guys.

The Swarmlord is so cool.

The Tau are good guys.

Abaddon is so stupid. He's never won a battle.

The God Emperor is a good guy.

[Battle where my army lost] was a Pyrrhic victory.

1) Battle of Terra
2) Battle of Macragge
3) Battle of Armageddon I, II and III
4) Battle of the Fang
5) Battle of Prospero

Chaos is based on belief.

Chaos is based on belief, so there are Imperial Gods.

Chaos is based on belief, so there are Imperial Gods, and that means there are good Gods that are going to defeat Chaos.

There are only four Chaos Gods.

[My favorite Primarch] is going to come back and feth gak up.

1) Lion'el Jonson
2) Rowboat Gullyman
3) Rogal Dorne
4) Perturabo
5) Leman Russ
6) Alpharius
7) Jaghatai Khan
8) Vulcan
9) Corvus Corax

The God Emperor is a broth made up of Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, and Jim Jones.

Traitors are bad guys.

It makes sense for a Legion to be only [insert stupid guesstimate] guys but still conquer the whole universe.

1) 1
2) 10,000
3) 100,000
4) 200,000
5) The Duke Boys and the trusty General Lee
6) 250,000

 LoneLictor wrote:
The Imperium is the good guys.

The Tau are good guys.


5) The Duke Boys and the trusty General Lee

I like those first two there. Both are really, really bad evil in the worst of ways. One is hell bent on the extermination of everything else the other is hell bent on expanding for the greater good of The Tau Reich.


Those Duke Boys might pull it off though, one day the mountain lions'll get 'em but the law never will!

 LoneLictor wrote:

The Swarmlord is so cool.

This one is meh, people are allowed to like characters and think they are cool

 LoneLictor wrote:

[My favorite Primarch] is going to come back and feth gak up.

1) Lion'el Jonson
2) Rowboat Gullyman
3) Rogal Dorne
4) Perturabo
5) Leman Russ
6) Alpharius
7) Jaghatai Khan
8) Vulcan
9) Corvus Corax

This is why I'm glad I like the Night Lords, because when the "discussion" about primarchs returning comes up I don't get dragged into it.

 Idolator wrote:

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.

Do you really need a rule that specifically states "You can move your models in any direction" in order to do so? Is it not enough to specify the max distance you can move them, how many times you can pivot during the move, or that you can't move them off the table, or within 1" of enemy models, the effects of terrain on said movement, etc.? I guess you do, since I once saw someone point out that in 5th edition you could get around the Rage rule by moving your models backwards, then turning them around at the end of the move, so they technically couldn't "see" enemy units while moving and so weren't forced to move towards the nearest visible unit...

Man, game design is hard.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Do you really need a rule that specifically states "You can move your models in any direction" in order to do so?

It's good games design to do so, at the very least.

But yes, if you're going to design a system that works around models being able to freely move in any direction, the rules should say so. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they can do so, or if (as I have seen asked in the past) they're supposed to just move 'forwards'. It's not at all uncommon for people to assume that models in 40K have to move in straight lines... again, because the rules never explain how the movement actually works.

Man, game design is hard.

Well, no, game design is easy. Good game design is hard.

 insaniak wrote:
Well, no, game design is easy. Good game design is hard.

Not really, it just requires some effort.

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't really think it is as poorly written as some say. I DO think there is a current flaw in the writing of the newer books, where they build in combinations of rules to work in tandem but do not expressly say so -- but this is likely because they have some kind of data that tells them what we all already know, that there are players who prefer to trawl through and find these epic rule combos (which sell kits) rather than make them explicit.

I really do not think the example given about movement is a good one. It says a model moves X inches...by not specifying further it still basically says X inches, and I don't need it to say "in any direction" afterward (even though it does indirectly imply this in places). I don't need it to tell me I can bend the tape, either; X inches is X inches. So in ways I consider it to be decently written, as they have to waste less time with minutiae.

I run a club and have for 6 years now; no new player has ever asked me such a question.

What does this have to do with the thread, you ask? My number one thing I hear day in and day out that is just drek:

"The rules for this game are so bad it's unplayable."

It is pretty much unplayable according to strict RAW. My favourite example is how all non-vehicles that don't have eyes (the majority of models in the game) don't have permission to draw line of sight.

I love GW!

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It is pretty much unplayable according to strict RAW. My favourite example is how all non-vehicles that don't have eyes (the majority of models in the game) don't have permission to draw line of sight.

Strict RAW leads to all sorts of things I just have to laugh at in general. GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.

I can agree that that if rules are being written for something like a computer then they need to follow a strict structure, and every eventuality needs to be covered no matter how banal. Even minor spelling mistakes will throw a computer off.

However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose. It is obvious that you can check LOS at any time. In fact just by looking at the table most people will instantly see all but the most difficult shots without even consciously trying. To say that you can't do this without permission is on a par with saying that "You can't stand in the same room as the game" and "you can't breath while playing (or hold your breath either) because the rules don't permit it".

I'm not saying that humans don't deserve well written rules, and there are certainly many examples from 40k that are unclear or need to be FAQed. However the Rage example I quoted was never one of them. It is beyond clear how it works. The people who insist it can't be played are either insane pedants of just being deliberately difficult.

There is also the issue that rules (especially for humans) should be concise, so they are easy to learn and digest. I would disagree that making a rule (that is already clear) longer just to appease pedants constitutes "better" writing. People don't need or want rules that are written in the painful kind of detail required by computers, it would be far more annoying to sift through than it would ever be helpful.

GoliothOnline wrote:
I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.

So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.

Nah, they're not comparable at all.

"The new Guard codex needs allies to be competitive."