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.

Why people are ok with 2++ reroll able saves, wave serpent spam, wraith knights, and tau. But they are agaibst seeing a baneblade or stompa across the table?

I would venture a quick guess that they have units that are in first category, yet do not have units in the second category. Off the top of my head.

They want what will win, and they don't want you to have what will beat it. Simple.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Why people are ok with 2++ reroll able saves, wave serpent spam, wraith knights, and tau.

Most people aren't okay with it. TO went through massive efforts in 6th to try and prevent 2++ rerolls. The others have been complained about non stop since their release.

But they are agaibst seeing a baneblade or stompa across the table?

Are these the same people or people with different opinions? Because if they are different people.... That's your answer
If it's the same people, they probably don't exist.

The reason why people are against baneblades and superheavies is because it changes the scale of the game even further than it already is. It opens the door for lots of things they either don't know about or don't think they can prepare for.

Are they?

Hang on, I can do this too:

"Why do people refuse to paint their own armies, but demand that others should paint theirs?"

Ill help you out mate dont worry.

Step one: Ask the person who is making these demands or rules.

Step two: Think and reason on his answer to step one.

Step three: Formulate the answer from step one combined with your ideas from Step two and you have your answer.

If this fails, review Step one and see if you managed to do that correctly. If not it may be a good chance to practice step one and see if you can ask again. Repeat until you have your answer.

In all seriousness though I dont think this is an issue at all.

Indeed. Given the lack of any sort of actual examples or corroboration in the initial post, this reads very much like just another attempt to stir up arguments.

Moving on.