I did a search for "officer of the fleet" and nothing came up, so I'm starting a new thread. Apologies if this has already been discussed.
I'm wondering what my fellow Guard commanders' thoughts are on taking the Officer of the Fleet advisor to help out against flyers now that 6th is out? It just hit me today that of a sudden, Officer of the Fleet might be more worthwhile as a relatively inexpensive way to help combat flyers. He wasn't too useful in 5th, but with it being mandatory for flyers to start in reserve, we may start seeing a lot more enemy in reserve, and if we can keep those flyers off the board for one more turn, that's one turn less of them strafing us (especially since the Hydra isn't that great a pick without interceptor and you can only take 1 Aegis Defence Wall). This is mitigated by the fact that everything automatically arrives turn 4, but I'm thinking having flyer spam need a 4+ versus a 3+ on turns 2 and 3 could be worth 30 points.
I think it is an excellent choice if you expect flyers. It's cheap and gives you a little breathing room against flyers, no matter how many are brought. It's also good against things not flyers, so it gives you some times to work. I think it's something you'd want with an army that started with most everything on the board, so you could make the most of the early turns.
I guess it depends on whether you're planning to bring flyers/AA of your own, or just take the hits and focus on the objectives.
If you're bringing counters, the OoF is terrible since you want your opponent's flyers to arrive first (so you come out of reserve and with yours and get the first shot). The last thing you want to be doing is penalizing their reserve rolls and helping them hold back the flyers and get the first shot when yours are forced to arrive. And even with ground-based AA you want the target flyers in ASAP so you can shoot them before your opponent's ground units finish killing your Hydras and quad guns.
On the other hand, if you plan to just take the damage, the OoF is decent since it's a small price to pay for a reasonable chance of denying a shooting phase to at least one enemy flyer.
He's one of my favorite upgrades in the game. I only take him in tourney games though, as he tends to draw a lot of hate. You have to realize, his whole job is to just sit there and screw with the opponent's plans. Take him with an astropath, and now your army comes in on 2+'s, and the opponent on +4. If you run lots of stormtroopers, flyers, and marbo, this can be a big deal.
If you're running a shooty army (so always then) he is essential. He makes reinforcements arrive piecemeal. Even against flyer spam lists, he spreads out the flyers, allowing you to focus fire and kill them better. Against deepstrike heavy lists like Daemons, he can really hurt them, and give you the time you need to regroup and fight back. He can even force your opponent to reroll the outflank roll if you want. For 30pts, he's a steal. Yeah, occassionally you get opponent's who don't reserve, where he becomes a 30pt ablative wound, but when he does get to use his ability, he more than makes up for it.
If anyone is spamming enough flyers that you need to take an upgrade to space them out, you probably won't have the firepower to deal with them; spaced out or not.
You're better off taking three autocannons for that price. Or refusing a game against flyer-spam.
Source: I've spammed flyers against OoTF. It doesn't do enough to bother me. Worst case scenario, all of my flyers come in on turn 4. Guess what that means; you get tabled turn 4.
If anyone is spamming enough flyers that you need to take an upgrade to space them out, you probably won't have the firepower to deal with them; spaced out or not.
You're better off taking three autocannons for that price. Or refusing a game against flyer-spam.
Source: I've spammed flyers against OoTF. It doesn't do enough to bother me. Worst case scenario, all of my flyers come in on turn 4. Guess what that means; you get tabled turn 4.
I'm not buying this argument. The point isn't to delay all of the flyers, it's that it delays some of them, which lets the IG army pick them off piecemeal. Assuming that IG (of all Codices) wouldn't have enough firepower to take down fliers if they're spaced out doesn't feel very reasonable to me.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm not buying this argument. The point isn't to delay all of the flyers, it's that it delays some of them, which lets the IG army pick them off piecemeal. Assuming that IG (of all Codices) wouldn't have enough firepower to take down fliers if they're spaced out doesn't feel very reasonable to me.
The problem is that your AA units are going to be the top priority target for a flyerspam list. They have a very limited life expectancy, so your AA firepower is going to be dropping quickly as the game goes on. Keeping 1-2 of the opposing flyers in reserve just means that your opponent gets to keep a larger second wave safe from return fire as the last of your AA dies, instead of on the table and facing intact Hydras/quad guns/etc. And remember, we're talking about the difference between 4+ and 3+. It's not like you're forcing them to come in one at a time over the next five turns, which is what you seem to have in mind. Meanwhile you've spent almost half the cost of a Hydra giving your opponent exactly what they want*, instead of on more AA guns!
And, like I said, this is especially true if your AA is based on flyers of your own. Whoever brings their glass cannon aircraft in first tends to lose the dogfight, so your OoF is just helping your opponent hold another flyer or two in reserve where they can come in unopposed next turn and shoot down your flyers before they can react.
Finally, note that this is all said on the assumption that you're playing a generic all-comers list, not a dedicated anti-flyerspam list. This means that you have a very small number of units which are effective against flyers (and at least one of them is probably a flyer of your own), so 50% of the flyerspam list's aircraft is still enough to focus fire and remove the key threats very quickly. If you're going really heavy on the AA then things change a bit and the flyerspam list wants a bigger alpha strike. This makes the OoF a bit more valuable I guess, but if you're list tailoring like that you suck and should quit wargaming.
*Ideally the reserve rolls would give the flyerspam army its anti-tank guns on turn 2 (to remove the opposing AA), followed by its anti-infantry, AA fighters and transports on turn 3-4. Getting reserves on a 3+ in 6th gives you a better alpha strike, sure, but it tends to result in a few too many units from the ideal second wave arriving on turn 2 when the opposing AA is still a threat and/or their ideal targets haven't been shot out of transports/arrived from reserve/etc. Dropping reserves to a 4+ still gives you a solid alpha strike, but reduces the chance of the "all of my objective holders came in early and got shot down" problem.
If you have took a lot vendettas....
I know the advice should be you want your flyers out after the enemy to get the first shots at each other.
But if you bring on 6 vendettas and there are only half the enemies flyer or none at all then the vendettas can keep themselves entertained.
Then the enemy flyers coming on piecemeal should mean you do not get too many dogfights to deal with.
Interesting thoughts posted here. I can see both sides, but personally, I think I'd rather have one less flyer on the board. If more of them show up turn 2, it won't help that all your AA is still on the board.
I had the idea to add Officer of the Fleet to a 1850 tournament list I'm tinkering with, where I'm happy with the first 1810 points and don't know what to do with the last 40. Not particularly heavy AA (just a quad gun) ... suppose I could scrounge 35 points elsewhere to come up with a lone Hydra but since the Hydra is useless against non-flyers/skimmers now, I thought an OoF might be a better all-round choice since he works on non-flyer reserves also.
If anyone is spamming enough flyers that you need to take an upgrade to space them out, you probably won't have the firepower to deal with them; spaced out or not.
You're better off taking three autocannons for that price. Or refusing a game against flyer-spam.
Source: I've spammed flyers against OoTF. It doesn't do enough to bother me. Worst case scenario, all of my flyers come in on turn 4. Guess what that means; you get tabled turn 4.
This doesn't really hold water. If you have a flyer heavy list, not getting them in = really bad. Your inferior ground forces are now on their own, getting their asses handed to them. Your chances of being tabled have just increased by a lot, and all those expensive flyers now have much less time to do real damage.
The way you have written it, it sounds like it is an advantage to get all your planes in turn 4 instead of all your planes spread from turn 2-4, that is ridicolous. The longer the planes are on the board, the more killing power they are able to deliver.
Subjective "evidence": I rolled up the "-1 to enemy reserves" and had an OotF against a flyer heavy necrons list. My opponent didn't get a single plane in before turn 4, and by then, I had almost wiped his ground forces, having all secondary objectives and I was in control of the relic in my own DZ. There was no way my opponent could somehow take advantage of this situation to "wipe" me with his planes. They were instead left way to much to do between hunting down AA and my planes, going after my relic and nearby scoring units, my warlord or my linebreaker. My opponent was left helpless because of a cheap upgrade and a warlord trait.
The OotF is great value in 6th. For flyer heavy lists, the astropath should also be considered.
Except even two flyers can cause havoc amongst an unfit army. Any good flyer list is going to have ground-countermeasures against AA, and enough staying power to sit around for a while.
Yeah, on paper against a Theoretical list of flyers, it's a good buy. Fact is, in practice, it won't be that special. Even if you bring as many Hydras as your opponent brings flyers, he'll still be able to kill THEM piecemeal before stronger/faster than you can kill his flyers. They get a full turn of shooting before you do, so even if you limit him to a 4+ on reserves, 50% of his flyers come in per turn. That's a lot of flyer.
I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.
Also subjective "evidence": I faced the same situation with a 4 vendetta, 3 Valk list; had two flyers come in second, and third turn. By turn four, his AA was dead (Three hydras) and he was promptly tabled turn 5.
I'm also confused how he couldn't wipe you with flying circus. He must have been awful.
But even if half of these flyer which except for necrons will rarely be more then two units that still means you get to take them out peice meal. the worst thing would be him bringing all of them on in the same turn. The problem my guard list would have is that I run vendettas and the best way for me to hunt flyers is to show up on the board after his do. If he comes on second then he gets to shoot mine first.
The salient point has already been mentioned by peregrine, then white ninja, and now I'll mention it.
You don't want your flyers (or your non-interceptor ground to air units) showing up before the flyers do.
To get even deeper, not only will a flyer that shows up after an enemy flyer get to shoot first, but he can position himself such that the flyer he just shot at, and possibly other, will be too close to be able to return fire, they'll be forced to leave combat airspace, and then your response could be to leave combat airspace as well. Now he'll come on first again, and you'll be right on his ass.
But as Peregrine mentioned, if your answers to flyers are either non-existent, hyper-resilient, or interceptors, then an officer of the fleet would be awesome. Spread the flyers out more to give your interceptors and resilient ground to air units a chance to pick them off. Or if you are planning to just ignore them (something I'm rapidly thinking is not smart) then having some flyers on the table for less of the game would be ok.
Guess I'll just have to try it out for myself. I was going to take 4 Ratlings with those last 40 points, but may have to go with the OoF to test this out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shep wrote: But as Peregrine mentioned, if your answers to flyers are either non-existent, hyper-resilient, or interceptors, then an officer of the fleet would be awesome. Spread the flyers out more to give your interceptors and resilient ground to air units a chance to pick them off. Or if you are planning to just ignore them (something I'm rapidly thinking is not smart) then having some flyers on the table for less of the game would be ok.
Yeah, this is the boat I'm in. My answer to flyers is a lone quad gun and hoping to hell I can roll some 6s with my autocannons and meltaguns. So in other words, just some autocannons!
Peregrine wrote:The problem is that your AA units are going to be the top priority target for a flyerspam list. They have a very limited life expectancy, so your AA firepower is going to be dropping quickly as the game goes on. Keeping 1-2 of the opposing flyers in reserve just means that your opponent gets to keep a larger second wave safe from return fire as the last of your AA dies.
THIS.
OotF were bad in 5th ed, because they were nearly as likely to HELP your opponent as they were to hurt them. This basic fact hasn't changed, it's just gotten amplified with the fact that he's more likely to actually get used in any given game.
In theory, the OotF "disrupts" your opponent plans, but I've often found that it, in fact, "improves" their plans instead. And you have to pay no small amount of points for the privilege of keeping your opponent's fliers safer against your AA power, or helping ensure that your opponents fliers show up after your stuff hits the table, or reducing the amount of time that units transported in fliers are going to be subjected to hazard or shots directed at them after they deploy.
The only time I'd even vaguely consider the OotF is if I knew I was up against an opponent who liked to outflank stuff, as that would actually screw with their plans, what with the forced reroll. As for reserves management, it feels like a wash. More importantly, the awfulness you feel for helping your opponent win a game easily covers the feeling of glee for slightly disrupting them in a game.
Most armies don't have good anti-flyer options, so it would be worthwhile to delay to limit the overall damage they can do in the game. The problem is that IG have Vendettas which will murder flyers with ridiculous efficiency, so delaying them simply gives the enemy the first shot.
TheCaptain wrote: Except even two flyers can cause havoc amongst an unfit army. Any good flyer list is going to have ground-countermeasures against AA, and enough staying power to sit around for a while.
Yes, and my three flyers had a field day against his ground forces as almost all of his AA was tied up in his 6 planes stuck in reserve.
Yeah, on paper against a Theoretical list of flyers, it's a good buy. Fact is, in practice, it won't be that special. Even if you bring as many Hydras as your opponent brings flyers, he'll still be able to kill THEM piecemeal before stronger/faster than you can kill his flyers. They get a full turn of shooting before you do, so even if you limit him to a 4+ on reserves, 50% of his flyers come in per turn. That's a lot of flyer.
Yes, it is a lot of fliers, but it is less than without the OotF = you are more likely to be able to handle them as they "dribble in". And yes, hydras are pretty tame, they should never be the prime AA.
I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.
I've played a lot against flyer heavy necron lists with up to 6 flyers at 1750pts. I can't understand how anyone can claim that your enemy getting his planes in earlier is better? A worse reserve roll will spread the enemy planes out more, meaning it is less chance that your AA measures are overwhelmed.
Also subjective "evidence": I faced the same situation with a 4 vendetta, 3 Valk list; had two flyers come in second, and third turn. By turn four, his AA was dead (Three hydras) and he was promptly tabled turn 5.
He brought insufficient AA, you brought one of the best armies in the game at the moment. How would his situation be better in any way if you had gotten 4 flyers in turn 2 and the rest in turn 3? He would have been tabled in turn 3 instead? Guess that could be better if you are a horrible opponent
I'm also confused how he couldn't wipe you with flying circus. He must have been awful.
Intelligent comment. You are saying that flying circus will always be able to table any opponent army in 1-3 turns? Sure, scythes are great value, but they aren't THAT badass.
Godless-Mimicry wrote:Don't you get the option whether or not to delay enemies?
No. It's always on.
This is the same reason I don't play with an astropath (unless, likewise, I'm using outflankers and want the side reroll). I don't always WANT my stuff showing up earlier, but I don't actually have a choice when I take the astropath.
If they worked more like an autarch, I'd much more consider them, but as they don't...
Illumini; you misquote me; it's not BETTER getting your flyers in later rather than sooner; it just isn't that big of a deal.
And 3 hydras is insufficient AA?
It's miles above what other armies can field. Not to mention, any more, and it's either a tailored list, or a list that will flounder against anyone with decent ground-troops. Who in their right mind would bring 4+ hydras? That's effectively 2 HS slots solely spent on AA; in a game where flyerspam, while awesome and more common, is still a relative rarity.
PS. Yes, if a flying circus is played by a competent player, it should table in 3-4 turns. I hate calling things cheese, but...well, damn. Even if it doesn't table, it should have next to zero trouble winning. It's gross.
TheCaptain wrote:I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.
Your tone has certainly changed; a few weeks ago you claimed the only way to beat IG was to cheat. I might fathom a guess you are trolling again, since you have contradicted yourself which tells me you don't really believe the game is as cut-and-dry as you claim sometimes.
TheCaptain wrote:And 3 hydras is insufficient AA?
That doesn't make it sufficient, it just makes it better than those armies that can't muster as such.
Assuming you don't have flyers, I can theoretically see how having the enemies flyers come in piecemeal would be nice ASSUMING you have enough AA to take them down after they get shot up.
If you have flyers then no, you want your opponent to bring his flyers in ASAP so you can shoot them down with your own.
I always regarded OOTF as an auto-take in 5th. Now he got even better.
I can't remember the last time I fought against an army that didn't have loads of reserves/outflankers. Dividing your enemy up and inconveniencing your opponent is easily worth 30 points.
Hell the outflank re-roll alone can make a 500 point unit worthless.
Testify wrote:I can't remember the last time I fought against an army that didn't have loads of reserves/outflankers.
Right, so as I said, if you have this kind of a meta, than fine, but I really can't believe these circumstances are all that common.
At my local meta, it's more like a couple of guys that have a single outflanking unit, or maybe two. Most tournament lists don't use outflankers either, so if you're in a tourney-heavy meta, then don't bother either.
TheCaptain wrote:I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.
Your tone has certainly changed; a few weeks ago you claimed the only way to beat IG was to cheat. I might fathom a guess you are trolling again, since you have contradicted yourself which tells me you don't really believe the game is as cut-and-dry as you claim sometimes.
Oh man, where do I begin?
Claiming the only way to beat IG was to cheat was a joke, brah. Like...no one should take that at face value. If someone said to you "The only way to beat the Yankees is to cheat" would you say "NUH UH! TROLL" or would you understand the speaker means that they're an incredibly powerful team that you'll be very pressed to take on? Don't take things so seriously, especially hyperbole like that.
And I wasn't contradicting myself, even if I did mean that; because I RUN a TAC list with flyers. So yeah, my TAC Flyer GUARD list will beat regular guard, unless you're cheating, tailored, or lucky. No one fields enough AA to deal with the amount of flyers guard can field if they want to. I see no contradiction. Nor do I see any trolling at all in the post you've quoted. I'm pretty damn correct, actually. Face a TAC foot list against a TAC flyer list and, well...
This happens
Only army that can reliably take on Flyer Guard, while still being a viable list against other armies and not some tailored mess, is Flyer Necrons. Which would be an incredible fight to witness.
Amaya wrote: Is he running Necrons with Necron Allies? How is he fitting in 10 flyers?
Troops can each take 1 as a dedicated transport, and they can take them in their heavy support section. I think the HQ can buy one as well.
This.
I believe he goes over his list near the beginning, actually. It's quite cheesy. Deliciously, if I do say so myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: If by "incredible" you mean "boring" then yeah. That gak is not why I got into 40k.
It'd be like what I imagine Drop-Zone Commander is like.
Buncha flyers duke it out for a couple turns, then toss down their transported troops. Crashes would be cool, the crowded board would look purdy, and flyers are quite fun to use with the new rules.
I think 60 Lootas and 6 Dakkajets could take that on effectively.
Each squad of Lootas would land .56 pens (after saves) a turn on average. Roughly the same with Dakkajets on the turn they don't Waagh. That's 6.72 pens on flyers a turn.
If you can take double fortifications, take 2 units of Gretchin /w Quad-Guns as well.
Amaya wrote: I think 60 Lootas and 6 Dakkajets could take that on effectively.
Each squad of Lootas would land .56 pens (after saves) a turn on average. Roughly the same with Dakkajets on the turn they don't Waagh. That's 6.72 pens on flyers a turn.
If you can take double fortifications, take 2 units of Gretchin /w Quad-Guns as well.
Like I said; a tailored anti-flyer list could do just fine against them; but idk how viable that list would be against other lists. The point being flyer spam, right now, is more TAC than any other list (just about)
Armies like the necron one on the picture are too over the top. Play against some drop pods, and you will be wiped in turn 1.
People should take this opportunity to press for forgeworld to be allowed in their communities. It has a great balancing factor on the air war, as all armies except nids gets lots of new options to combat fliers. (we all know that those that play nids are gluttons for punishment anyways)
The Captain wrote:And 3 hydras is insufficient AA?
Yes, but don't get me wrong, don't go with more hydras, go with something else. Hydras are terrible against AV12 fliers, and are unlikely to do much more than strip a couple of hull points of a necron flier. They also lack interceptor/survivability. Hydras are okay as a supporting AA measure, expected to clean up after something else, not as the only AA measure.
You just removed the most effective option: own fliers. If you don't want to bring any fliers yourself, you are limiting your options pretty heavily, as fliers is the best (codex) option for fliers.
An interceptor gun (icarus lascannon is best IMO) is a given, and the aegis line is great protection against the damage fliers can cause.
And, luckily for me, I live in a country where forgeworld is allowed at all major tourneys, so I have options to buy sabre guns, hyperios, mortis dread etc.
If you do not have FW options, and you do not want to use any fliers of your own, you will likely not have enough AA.
Everything else is going to be much more improvised AA. Twin-linked high S/AP weapons (razorbacks, BiD veterans, guided fangs/devs) can take down some fliers, same with units relying on volume of fire (lootas).
Of course, you could also play an army with insane alpha-strike capability, designed to wipe out weak groundforces in one turn.
Fliers aren't invincible. You still hit them on 6's.
Heck, even a bolter boat punisher will get the job done.
Furthermore, fliers have rather predictable flight paths, and are rather limited in their movement. It's not too hard to get a meltagun near them, and, once again, all you need is a 6, and you're talking about a likely pen with Ap1.
Most variations of Devastators are horribly inefficient at downing flyers.
The most efficient units are those with very cheap s6/s7 spam and minimal defensive capabilities. War Walkers, Lootas, Purgation Squads are actually pretty good /w Psycannons, similar things.
Furthermore, fliers have rather predictable flight paths, and are rather limited in their movement. It's not too hard to get a meltagun near them, and, once again, all you need is a 6, and you're talking about a likely pen with Ap1.
They can move 18-36" per turn PLUS flat out. anywhere in a 180 degree arc. Unless you're saturating with melta, you probably won't have much chance to put melta in range. At least not on purpose.
Seen here; there are many flight paths, and sure, if you use the first two; you could get melta in there, but that's not smart piloting. The third or fourth are the best flight patterns, and can ensure relative safety from any short-range weapons that the flyer wants to avoid.
Yeah, this kind of proves my point. A flier only has one or two turns of both being on the board, and pointing at your stuff. After that point, it's either flying off the board, or its no longer pointing at your stuff. Fliers are really limited in the amount of distance they can move, and what direction they can move it in, especially if your opponent wants to actually shoot at your stuff.
Furthermore, in most of those patterns, you eventually wind up in or near the opponent's DZ. Given that a meltagun has an 18" threat range, it's not that terribly difficult to have a few hanging around in strategic locations for them to come out and get a shot off. As mentioned, fliers are pretty easy to predict their flight path, With even a turn's warning, you're now talking about an up to 30" threat range.
And given the flimsy, flimsy armor on most fliers, you sort of only need a single meltagun hit to do the job...
With premeasuring in now; any player worth his salt can easily avoid an 18" threat range weapon. He just turns left or right. If there's melta to his left AND right, he flies forward. If there's melta to his left AND right AND in front, he flies off the board. Like I said, unless you're saturating the board with melta, a good player can blast you from a good distance, avoiding your melta-squads.
Granted, it's not impossible for a meltagun to score a hit on a flyer once in a while; but I wouldn't count on it. Even then, you're still penning on a 5+
Unless somehow he flew his flyer within 12" of your melta-guy, the melta guy got into melta range, AND hit the 6. Then that player probably deserves to lose his flyer.
Just watched the first ~10:00 minutes of the ridiculous Necron Airforce batrep that The Captain posted. All but one of those flyers showed up on turn one and alpha-struck the Wolves. I am having a hard time seeing how it would have been a bad thing to have a few fewer of those flyers show up ... might have given him a fighting chance?
Hydra Heavy guard would have gotten smoked like a cheap cigar also since Hydras are not interceptors. However, if the Necron player was rolling 4+ maybe only 5 instead of 8 flyers show. Maybe now there's a chance to get some shots in?
And just to derail my own thread a bit ... has Reecius tried a list that has infiltrators against the Necron Airforce? Seems to me that some infiltrating storm troopers could really mess-up the airforce's day if they could kill that lone Necron lord on the table (autowin).
NWansbutter wrote: Just watched the first ~10:00 minutes of the ridiculous Necron Airforce batrep that The Captain posted. All but one of those flyers showed up on turn one and alpha-struck the Wolves. I am having a hard time seeing how it would have been a bad thing to have a few fewer of those flyers show up ... might have given him a fighting chance?
Hydra Heavy guard would have gotten smoked like a cheap cigar also since Hydras are not interceptors. However, if the Necron player was rolling 4+ maybe only 5 instead of 8 flyers show. Maybe now there's a chance to get some shots in?
And just to derail my own thread a bit ... has Reecius tried a list that has infiltrators against the Necron Airforce? Seems to me that some infiltrating storm troopers could really mess-up the airforce's day if they could kill that lone Necron lord on the table (autowin).
He tables him; taking like 1 hullpoint of damage total.
Amaya wrote: Hydras are one of the most efficient AA option in the game that doesn't have Skyfire. What would you use instead of them or actual flyers as IG?
Amaya wrote: Hydras are one of the most efficient AA option in the game that doesn't have Skyfire. What would you use instead of them or actual flyers as IG?
They do have Skyfire.
Wasn't listed in AB, checked the FAQ and you are indeed correct.
So...that begs the question now, why would you take anything other than Hydra Flak Tank batteries to kill flyers?
So...that begs the question now, why would you take anything other than Hydra Flak Tank batteries to kill flyers?
That is the question. Quadguns are better since they have skyfire AND interceptor, but you can only get one. So there really is nothing else to take for killing flyers, however, reasons for not taking Hyrdras is because they got nerfed against non-flyers (can only snapshot) and the Forgeworld kits are fairly expensive! Although at 75 points each, you probably can't go far wrong bringing a couple. Not that they would have helped against that Necron Flying Circus. Heck, even a list with 9 Hyrdras would probably get tabled by that list if all 9 of his flyers showed up (one to kill each Hydra -- they are no tougher than Razorbacks and that Necron list seemed to have zero problem with Razors).
Methinks GW didn't think things out too well when they gave the Necrons the ability to craft such a stupid list. It strikes me that the GW play-testers give WAY too much credit to people and seem to think that such combos will not be used.
So...that begs the question now, why would you take anything other than Hydra Flak Tank batteries to kill flyers?
That is the question. Quadguns are better since they have skyfire AND interceptor, but you can only get one. So there really is nothing else to take for killing flyers, however, reasons for not taking Hyrdras is because they got nerfed against non-flyers (can only snapshot) and the Forgeworld kits are fairly expensive! Although at 75 points each, you probably can't go far wrong bringing a couple. Not that they would have helped against that Necron Flying Circus. Heck, even a list with 9 Hyrdras would probably get tabled by that list if all 9 of his flyers showed up (one to kill each Hydra -- they are no tougher than Razorbacks and that Necron list seemed to have zero problem with Razors).
Methinks GW didn't think things out too well when they gave the Necrons the ability to craft such a stupid list. It strikes me that the GW play-testers give WAY too much credit to people and seem to think that such combos will not be used.
They balanced it for 5th; not everything is going to be balanced in the first few months of a new edition. It has no fault to GW or anyone else; some codices have flyers right now, some don't. Some codices have good AA, some don't. Welcome to new editions; where everyone takes a while to catch up. Say hi to Eldar, they're 2 editions back now.
Eldar, Space Wolves, Tyranids, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, and SoB all require allies to access fliers (with the exception of Flyrant) or any form of AA that will be effective. The only somewhat effective form of AA any of those codices can field is War Walkers with Scatter Lasers or Shurikan Cannons and even those are less efficient than Lootas.
Amaya wrote: Eldar, Space Wolves, Tyranids, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, and SoB all require allies to access fliers (with the exception of Flyrant) or any form of AA that will be effective. The only somewhat effective form of AA any of those codices can field is War Walkers with Scatter Lasers or Shurikan Cannons and even those are less efficient than Lootas.
Enter: Forge World. A valid, inclusive portion of the game that players have every right to use.
Eldar, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Dark Angels, and CSM all have entries for this.
GW additionally allowed Flyer-equipped allies for this specific reason; not their fault people refuse to use allies (now a core-mechanic in the game)
SoB, meh. They should take allies anyways.
Everyone has access to flyers; some people just choose to ignore them.
Amaya wrote: FW is not allowed everywhere and not a viable option.
Forgeworld is a branch of Games Workshop specifically designed for use in 40k.
It is perfectly within game rules to use Forge World, sorry.
However, if a player refuses to play against ForgeWorld, that is their prerogative. It is just as much their prerogative to refuse a game against special characters, or models painted purple.
It's incredibly viable; there are just people that don't like playing against that which they do not know. That is the fault of the opponent, not the user.
I understand that you enjoy being willfully obtuse, but not all tournaments allow Forgeworld. Whether or not they should is an entirely different debate. As long as FW is not allowed universally, you can not expect codices to rely on FW support for AA.
Amaya wrote: I understand that you enjoy being willfully obtuse, but not all tournaments allow Forgeworld. Whether or not they should is an entirely different debate. As long as FW is not allowed universally, you can not expect codices to rely on FW support for AA.
Some tournaments also don't allow double Force-Org. ETC2012 didn't use 6th edition.
Do you ignore these (valid) facets of the game simply because tournaments say you can't use them? Your logic suggests you would.
Unless you're a strictly tournament-gamer, which very few are, FW is perfectly fine. Besides, if you ARE a tournament gamer, you probably aren't using any of the aforementioned armies; save for SW and maybe CSM.
And there are still allies. Ignoring these facts is being willfully obtuse, amigo.
[quote=Peregrine 472319 4696130 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpg
If you're bringing counters, the OoF is terrible since you want your opponent's flyers to arrive first (so you come out of reserve and with yours and get the first shot). The last thing you want to be doing is penalizing their reserve rolls and helping them hold back the flyers and get the first shot when yours are forced to arrive. And even with ground-based AA you want the target flyers in ASAP so you can shoot them before your opponent's ground units finish killing your Hydras and quad guns.
This is a strategic fallacy. OoF does not merely delay all the reserves so you have to deal with them on Turn 4 instead of 2. Instead, it breaks them up--1 flier is much easier to deal with than 3, and I'd rather have one coming in every turn than 3 coming in in one turn.
TheCaptain wrote:I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.
Your tone has certainly changed; a few weeks ago you claimed the only way to beat IG was to cheat. I might fathom a guess you are trolling again, since you have contradicted yourself which tells me you don't really believe the game is as cut-and-dry as you claim sometimes.
Oh man, where do I begin?
Claiming the only way to beat IG was to cheat was a joke, brah. Like...no one should take that at face value. If someone said to you "The only way to beat the Yankees is to cheat" would you say "NUH UH! TROLL" or would you understand the speaker means that they're an incredibly powerful team that you'll be very pressed to take on? Don't take things so seriously, especially hyperbole like that.
And I wasn't contradicting myself, even if I did mean that; because I RUN a TAC list with flyers. So yeah, my TAC Flyer GUARD list will beat regular guard, unless you're cheating, tailored, or lucky. No one fields enough AA to deal with the amount of flyers guard can field if they want to. I see no contradiction. Nor do I see any trolling at all in the post you've quoted. I'm pretty damn correct, actually. Face a TAC foot list against a TAC flyer list and, well...
This happens
Only army that can reliably take on Flyer Guard, while still being a viable list against other armies and not some tailored mess, is Flyer Necrons. Which would be an incredible fight to witness.
I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.
I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.
They seemed to enjoy themselves. The game is as fun as you make it; just shows when you play a list like this, you have to take yourself, and the game, a bit less seriously.
NWansbutter wrote: Question: what options to Imperial Guard have from Forgeworld for AA? Anything that's better than Hydras?
Wide variety of aircraft, most with autocannons, lasguns, and AA missiles out the wazoo (lightning, thunderbolt, avenger, vulture)
Plus a pretty hefty contingent of ground support, most of which are better than stock hydras i think.
-Manticore / Manticore platform with skyeagle rockets: S9 AP2 skyfire ordinance, with reroll to hit flyer (heat seekers). Plus, they're missiles so you can shoot off two at a time if you want (only got 4 though).
-Hydra platform: 50pts for av10 hp2 hydra turret, but it does get interceptor along with skyfire.
-Sabre platforms: an alternative to HWS in a platoon. Skyfire/interceptor artillery pieces that can fieldTL-heavy bolters, autocannons, lascannons, or two TL heavy stubbers. They also get scout, so you can redeploy them at the start of the game, even though theyre immobile.
Has Skyfire, 2/3 the price, not twinlinked
Two twin-linked hydra autocannons, which have skyfire, interceptor, and autotargeting.
McGibs -- many thanks! I like the sounds of those. On principle I refuse to use flyers in my army, so I might invest in some of that stuff.
Which IA are these things in?
Given that the Hydra plaform has skyfire and interceptor, I wonder why they didn't give Hydras interceptor in the BRB? They'd be much more attractive if they had it.
NWansbutter wrote: McGibs -- many thanks! I like the sounds of those. On principle I refuse to use flyers in my army, so I might invest in some of that stuff.
Which IA are these things in?
Given that the Hydra plaform has skyfire and interceptor, I wonder why they didn't give Hydras interceptor in the BRB? They'd be much more attractive if they had it.
Imperial Armour Aeronautica (not to be confused with imperial aeronatica)
I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.
They seemed to enjoy themselves. The game is as fun as you make it; just shows when you play a list like this, you have to take yourself, and the game, a bit less seriously.
Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.
Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.
The fact that Reecius' friend is actually taking that army to the Nova Tournament seems rather hypocritical to me. They complain about how ridiculous and not-fun that list is, and then they plan to employ it themselves at a tournament. They're just adding to the problem. Plus really, what is the point? So their friend will win the tournament and derive absolutely zero fun from the experience. Isn't having fun the whole point of playing this game in the first place?
Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.
The fact that Reecius' friend is actually taking that army to the Nova Tournament seems rather hypocritical to me. They complain about how ridiculous and not-fun that list is, and then they plan to employ it themselves at a tournament. They're just adding to the problem. Plus really, what is the point? So their friend will win the tournament and derive absolutely zero fun from the experience. Isn't having fun the whole point of playing this game in the first place?
In friendly games, yes. You don't pay a couple hundred dollars on meals, hotel, and airfare to go to a tournament to lose, unfortunately. Everyone there is trying to win; he'll just be doing it better.
I assure you, tournaments are much less about the narrative, laughs, and friends made than the "game" you refer to. It's all about scoring points.
I take back what I said about Reecius and his group being hypocritical -- it was actually for a customer that they painted up that list for Nova.
I'm just glad the tournaments I attend are not like what The Captain describes. To me it seems a total waste of money to pay for hotel, airfair, etc. just to table every opponent on turn 2. But I guess there are some folks who would find that somehow satisfying.
NWansbutter wrote: I take back what I said about Reecius and his group being hypocritical -- it was actually for a customer that they painted up that list for Nova.
I'm just glad the tournaments I attend are not like what The Captain describes. To me it seems a total waste of money to pay for hotel, airfair, etc. just to table every opponent on turn 2. But I guess there are some folks who would find that somehow satisfying.
The thing is, everyone is trying to table eachother. You get some really well-played, challenging games.
Tournaments are where the best lists and the strongest tactics get to show their faces without being called "WAAC" or "cheesy". It's fascinating.
Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
Guess that all depends on how hard a player wants to table his opponents. Might wanna steer clear of national tournaments.
I for one would love to play that list over and over until I could come up with a list that could win, not just against it, but against everyone else too. It'd be excellent experience.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
Hard to hide/run from that
Wait. You're saying that a flyer having to take two turns to even be able to shoot at you is not a bad thing?
Turn one the player facing the flyers drives flat out to your side of the board as fast as possible. If they started 12" from the middle of the board then they cruise up 12" in the movement phase then flat out another 6", bringing them exactly 18" from your board edge. Your flyer comes in on turn 2 and has to either fly over these transports without being able to shoot or come in at an angle to allow shooting which will make it harder to turn back on them after their next turn when they have driven even closer to your board edge and dropped out their cargo.
Your taking two turns to come about and be in a position to shoot at them brings the game to turn 4, which doesn't leave a lot of time to table an opponent who has had several relatively easy turns to get everyone in cover on an objective and just wait you out.
Hell with Dark Eldar Raiders with Enhanced Aethersails they could be in your deployment zone turn one.
If you delay those flyers by even one turn (such as with an Officer of the Fleet or with the Warlord Trait or even both) then it becomes even less sure that the flyers will be able to table their opponent.
TheCaptain wrote:The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Exactly how is this a positive argument for you? If the list needs to table the opponent to win, how is shooting every two turns a good thing? When you think about flyers coming on turn 2 at most, and the game beng 5-7 turns, that's only 2-3 turns of shooting. And that's ignoring the fact that your flyers can be taken down in those respite turns when they can't shoot.
TheCaptain wrote:Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
Not relevant; Deep Striking is the turn they come in, and this discussion is about limiting their movement. The best Deep Strike will get you is getting you behind the enemy facing his rear, but that will often involve teleporting near to the board edge, and in the end all it accomplishes for this disucssion is that the enemy moves backwards rather than forwards to mitigate them.
TheCaptain wrote:And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
Only ForgeWorld have these. Not eveyrone plays with FW, and most tournaments don't either (or at least in Europe and parts of the US).
Basically, no it isn't easier said than done, and I say that from experience, both using and facing flyers.
TheCaptain wrote:The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Exactly how is this a positive argument for you? If the list needs to table the opponent to win, how is shooting every two turns a good thing? When you think about flyers coming on turn 2 at most, and the game beng 5-7 turns, that's only 2-3 turns of shooting. And that's ignoring the fact that your flyers can be taken down in those respite turns when they can't shoot.
Most flyers have very specific targets; that said, shooting every other turn while still zooming is pretty much the norm. Your argument is exactly what happens all the time to flyers (Very hard to convince a player to keep his units still so you can slow-zoom at it and shoot.), and yet they simply have to scoot, turn, and then next turn scoot, turn and shoot. Your strategy works against single-flyers, because you can just run a circle around it; but flyer lists are strong when they saturate with flyers. When there's enough where you can't out-maneuver them all. Which happens. Even two vendettas flying mirrored flight patterns will almost always have something to shoot at.
TheCaptain wrote:Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
Not relevant; Deep Striking is the turn they come in, and this discussion is about limiting their movement. The best Deep Strike will get you is getting you behind the enemy facing his rear, but that will often involve teleporting near to the board edge, and in the end all it accomplishes for this disucssion is that the enemy moves backwards rather than forwards to mitigate them.
Very relevant; the brb has a certain grey area around deep striking from off the board; deep strike says a vehicle counts as moving cruising speed. Since there are flyers with deep strike that don't have hover, and a flyer must enter zooming, it is safe to assume this means deep strike counts as a flyer entering zooming at cruising speed. So a flyer coming on the board from ongoing reserve can deep strike to guarantee it has a clear shot.
Meaning
(Assuming turn 2 entrance, which a flyer-heavy list should be able to rely on with +1 reserves to ADL and a possible +1 from warlord)
Turn 1: no shot (no flyer)
Turn 2: deep strike (+18" away on the opponent's side) and shoot
Turn 3: move up 18" and shoot
Turn 4: fly off the board
Turn 5: deep strike (+18" on the opponent's side) and shoot
3/5 turns shooting a viable target
Turn 6: move up 18" and shoot
4/6 turns shooting a target
Turn 7: hover and shoot if it's objectives or you have the last turn, just fly out of range if it's KP's
I say deep strike on the opponent's side so that your opponent has to choose; move back into his deployment zone (and away from forward objectives) to force the flying player to fly over him, or take the second round of shooting
The flyers that don't come on turn 2 will probably come on turn 3, meaning this strategy just shifts 1 turn later, meaning there will always be flyers on the board shooting. And if the opponent DOES decide to shift back in an effort to deny turn 2 flyers the second round of shooting, then your flyers just DS into YOUR deployment zone, giving them large zooming range to get a couple rounds of shots at the units that just shifted back.
Flyer saturation is really really good; I'm not making it up. Outmaneuvering it is incredibly hard (Unless you're one of the armies able to turbo boost all over the place, even then, eh..)
Fact is, Godless is right. I don't agree with the exclusion of FW, but the large majority of tournaments (where strategy matters most) exclude it.
Boom.
Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy. Tournament organizers who exclude FW rules should be mocked and ignored just like tournament organizers who give you a 0/10 comp score if you take more than one transport.
And, in any case, nothing in the OP suggests that this is a discussion of a particular tournament and its house rules, so we should stick to discussing the standard game of 40k.
Fact is, Godless is right. I don't agree with the exclusion of FW, but the large majority of tournaments (where strategy matters most) exclude it.
Boom.
Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy. Tournament organizers who exclude FW rules should be mocked and ignored just like tournament organizers who give you a 0/10 comp score if you take more than one transport.
And, in any case, nothing in the OP suggests that this is a discussion of a particular tournament and its house rules, so we should stick to discussing the standard game of 40k.
He asks about the topic in regard to 40k. He doesn't say it excludes house-rules or tournaments. Because 40k DOES include house-rules and tournaments. Ignoring some of the most common ones is just closed minded. Closed mindedness is silly.
Not to mention it's just as much a house-rule to include IA lists as it is to not include them.
They aren't the Rule Book and they aren't a Codex. They're rules supplements for the main-game. I love them. I love using them. But assuming you'll be able to use them is wrong.
TheCaptain wrote: He asks about the topic in regard to 40k. He doesn't say it excludes house-rules or tournaments. Because 40k DOES include house-rules and tournaments. Ignoring some of the most common ones is just closed minded. Closed mindedness is silly.
So let's spend ten pages talking about my house rule where I'm the only one allowed to bring flyers and they come in if and only if I want them to, so the OoF is worthless. Or we could just assume that, in the absence of specific information about any house rules which may be in effect, we're talking about the standard game of 40k.
Not to mention it's just as much a house-rule to include IA lists as it is to not include them.
They aren't the Rule Book and they aren't a Codex. They're rules supplements for the main-game. I love them. I love using them. But assuming you'll be able to use them is wrong.
Wrong. It's a 40k book published by GW, with a statement on the first page that all of the rules in the book are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k. When it says "X is a heavy support choice for IG" it very clearly means "add this page to the IG army list in the following location". Just like when it says the same thing in every White Dwarf addition. Just like any other official rules GW chooses to publish for standard games of 40k, no matter what form they're published in. The simple fact is that there is absolutely no justification in the rules (as published by GW) for excluding FW units.
Now, you can argue all you want that some people have their own ideas about how 40k "should" be played and will refuse to play against you unless you follow their arbitrary house rules in constructing your army, but that's an entirely different subject and not relevant to a discussion of strategy in standard 40k.
Peregrine wrote: The simple fact is that there is absolutely no justification in the rules (as published by GW) for excluding FW units.
Wrong. Suuuuuper wrong.
Sorry; first of all, ignoring popular opinion because you think it's justified is silly.
If your "house rule of no flyers except you" was common enough to warrant mention, it would have been mentioned. Again, ignoring frequent occurrences like this is too close-minded for dakkadakka. Welcome to dakkadakka, by the way. We take things like this into account.
Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary. Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement. Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements. You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you? It's still 40k, it's released by GW, so by your logic, it would be okay. Goodness, even just look on the cover. I'm staring at the cover of IA8 right now; it says, in the bottom right corner, Warhammer 40,000 EXPANSION. All caps there, so I repeat it as such. No rule says you have to include expansions in your play, even if your opponent proposes them.
Also, referring to the quote, at the beginning of Imperial Armour Aeronautica (used as an example) on page 4, it clarifies that before using the contained rules, you should make sure your opponent is happy to play with them. Meaning your opponent, BY RULE, is at liberty to decline. Always. 100% of the time, according to the books.
I believe that's three strikes; in American baseball, that's considered an "out". At least by common house rules.
Now, I'm going to assume you're this stubborn because you've taken to running a couple FW units to supplement your list at your FLGS. If they're fine with that, awesome. Good. I encourage FW friendliness. But many places just aren't. Including tournaments, again, where strategy is paramount. I run an Elysian list of over $2000 when my opponent allows me to. I wish I could run it all the time. I wish you were right; but alas, you aren't. And I know this for a fact.
You can argue all you like the opposite, you can even decide you're right despite all my source-based information to the contrary, but even if you're right and no one agrees, what good is there?
If you own a dog, and everyone is convinced it's a cat, what use is there in calling it a dog?
TheCaptain wrote: Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary.
Nonsense. No matter what corporate structure the accountants/managers/whatever decided was best for tax/legal/whatever purposes, FW is part of GW. Everything they publish has to be approved just like any other GW product, and everything they publish is official just like any other GW product. This magical dividing line between FW and GW exists only in the minds of people who aren't actually part of GW.
Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement.
Just like the White Dwarf rules are a "supplement" that is a 100% official change/addition to the codex army list in question. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that, say, the SoB codex is "just a supplement" and therefore the old Witch Hunters codex should be used in tournaments.
Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements.
Planetstrike and Apocalypse are different game types that are not compatible with standard 40k (IOW, I can't play a Planetstrike army against your standard 40k army).
Forge World rules are explicitly intended for use in standard40k.
See a difference here?
You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you?
Sure, just as soon as you can show me which FOC slot a Baneblade occupies in a standard game of 40k.
Also, referring to the quote, at the beginning of Imperial Armour Aeronautica (used as an example) on page 4, it clarifies that before using the contained rules, you should make sure your opponent is happy to play with them. Meaning your opponent, BY RULE, is at liberty to decline. Always. 100% of the time, according to the books.
Just like I'm at liberty to decline to play against you because I don't like the color you painted your army, or because you have too many transports, or because I hate Orks, or any of countless other reasons. Unless you're going to hold a gun to my head and force me to play, you have to make sure that I'm happy to play against you and your chosen army. However, that doesn't make green space marines, armies with more than one transport, or the entire Ork codex any less official.
What the note in question is aimed at is the kind of person who would show up to a random game and not bother mentioning their FW units until the game has already started and a unit their opponent has never even heard of starts killing stuff. It's about basic courtesy, not a requirement that your opponent approve your special "supplement" rules.
TheCaptain wrote: Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary.
Nonsense. No matter what corporate structure the accountants/managers/whatever decided was best for tax/legal/whatever purposes, FW is part of GW. Everything they publish has to be approved just like any other GW product, and everything they publish is official just like any other GW product. This magical dividing line between FW and GW exists only in the minds of people who aren't actually part of GW.
Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).
Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement.
Just like the White Dwarf rules are a "supplement" that is a 100% official change/addition to the codex army list in question. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that, say, the SoB codex is "just a supplement" and therefore the old Witch Hunters codex should be used in tournaments.
The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion. Big green book says, in it's holy pages, codices overrule the rulebook. There's a reason the codices don't have "Expansion" on their cover. Because they're meant to be used with the base-game, and any expanded versions. They are rules just like the Big Green Book. Not rule expansions.
Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements.
Planetstrike and Apocalypse are different game types that are not compatible with standard 40k (IOW, I can't play a Planetstrike army against your standard 40k army).
Forge World rules are explicitly intended for use in standard40k.
See a difference here?
Intended doesn't mean mandated by rules. Gloves are intended for hands. I am fully justified in refusing to wear gloves. See the flaw in your logic? Also, Apocalypse and Planetstrike are just as compatible if not moreso than ForgeWorld books. They all do the same thing. They alter lists, introduce new rules, and shift around point-values. They all change the game. Apocalypse adds new units with high points values for large games of 40k. FW adds new units with varying points values for any-size games of 40k. They do the same thing, just with different models and different point-values.
You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you?
Sure, just as soon as you can show me which FOC slot a Baneblade occupies in a standard game of 40k.
You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions. Your definition of "standard" is staggeringly vague.
Just like I'm at liberty to decline to play against you because I don't like the color you painted your army, or because you have too many transports, or because I hate Orks, or any of countless other reasons. Unless you're going to hold a gun to my head and force me to play, you have to make sure that I'm happy to play against you and your chosen army. However, that doesn't make green space marines, armies with more than one transport, or the entire Ork codex any less official.
Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.
What the note in question is aimed at is the kind of person who would show up to a random game and not bother mentioning their FW units until the game has already started and a unit their opponent has never even heard of starts killing stuff. It's about basic courtesy, not a requirement that your opponent approve your special "supplement" rules.
Does it say that? No. It says it in general. As in to anyone wishing to use these rules.
In summary:
The Big Green Book: Rules
Codices: Rules
Anything with Warhammer 40,000 Expansion on the cover: Optional
I dare you to debate that.
Picking parts of a person's whole argument to argue against is fallacious, disrespectful, and looks bad on your part. As does purposefully ignoring the rules for use of expansions. Your original argument was that there is no justification for someone to refuse games including FW. Forgeworld themselves writes in all their books that they disagree.
I'm sorry you can't tell people "The rules say I'm perfectly in my right to field this Avenger Strike Fighter", but I'm more sorry I can't use my 2.5 grand of Elysians in tournaments. Deal with it.
But you'll change your argument, and argue select parts of mine anyways, so what does it matter.
Thing is, I'm the RAWTFG around these parts; if you wanna' challenge me, at least make sure you read the RAW right.
TheCaptain wrote: Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).
The point is that the exact corporate structure has absolutely nothing to do with what is official and what isn't. FW is a subsidiary legally because some lawyer and/or accountant decided it worked better that way. Those decisions, and the people making them, have nothing to do with game design. The fact that (hypothetically) FW's separate online store works better if it's a separate corporate entity for accounting purposes has no impact on relevant questions like "do the FW authors have their work approved just like any other GW rules".
If you instead look at it in terms of what is an official GW product, who has influence on game design choices, etc, FW is GW. "Imperial Armour", "codex", etc, are nothing more than brand names which GW products are sold under.
The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion.
It's still a supplement, and there is no reason that it should be treated any differently than FW rules.
You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions.
An expansion like Apocalypse is a different way of playing 40k. It makes major changes to the core rules of the game, and it is not compatible with the "standard" game.
An "expansion" like a FW book or White Dwarf supplement says "insert the following page into the IG codex army list where it becomes a part of the standard game of 40k".
Why is it so hard to see the difference between the two?
Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.
Now you're just nitpicking. You know perfectly well that by "permission required" we mean something more than the "permission" that is required to play ANY unit or army. In other words, FW rules require permission above and beyond the permission involved in every single game of 40k that doesn't occur at gunpoint.
And, like it or not, the simple fact is they don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCaptain wrote: I'm sorry you can't tell people "The rules say I'm perfectly in my right to field this Avenger Strike Fighter", but I'm more sorry I can't use my 2.5 grand of Elysians in tournaments. Deal with it.
What does your ability to use your Elysians in tournaments have to do with anything? Tournaments are run by third party individuals, using their own personal rules. I've already acknowledged that many tournament organizers have house rules that FW rules are not allowed, I just think that those people and their rules should be given no more respect than the tournament organizers who ban lists with "too many" dedicated transports.
TheCaptain wrote: Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).
The point is that the exact corporate structure has absolutely nothing to do with what is official and what isn't. FW is a subsidiary legally because some lawyer and/or accountant decided it worked better that way. Those decisions, and the people making them, have nothing to do with game design. The fact that (hypothetically) FW's separate online store works better if it's a separate corporate entity for accounting purposes has no impact on relevant questions like "do the FW authors have their work approved just like any other GW rules".
If you instead look at it in terms of what is an official GW product, who has influence on game design choices, etc, FW is GW. "Imperial Armour", "codex", etc, are nothing more than brand names which GW products are sold under.
Your opinion on what is and isn't morally included as a part of GW is completely factually irrelevant. You still said FW is GW, I've provided legal truth against the statement and you've given no factual evidence on the contrary; just product-based conjecture on what "counts as being GW" despite falling under a different brand.
The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion.
It's still a supplement, and there is no reason that it should be treated any differently than FW rules.
Reread the rule book. Please. It clearly states codices override rules in the rulebook. They take precedence, and they are a part of the rules. FW army lists say no such thing. They say they can be used WITH the rules. Difference. See it.
You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions.
An expansion like Apocalypse is a different way of playing 40k. It makes major changes to the core rules of the game, and it is not compatible with the "standard" game.
An "expansion" like a FW book or White Dwarf supplement says "insert the following page into the IG codex army list where it becomes a part of the standard game of 40k".
Why is it so hard to see the difference between the two?
I see the difference; they're different expansions. But they're both still different ways to play the game. Your opinion on how many core rules are changed is irrelevant. FW flat out adds it's own new core rules. That, in it's own right, is a different way of playing the game. Please buy more than one FW book and read it.
Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.
Now you're just nitpicking. You know perfectly well that by "permission required" we mean something more than the "permission" that is required to play ANY unit or army. In other words, FW rules require permission above and beyond the permission involved in every single game of 40k that doesn't occur at gunpoint.
And, like it or not, the simple fact is they don't.
They do, actually. They require permission to play the game as written, and then permission to additionally use an expansion (additional, external rules not mentioned as included automatically by the main rulebook). A game not including FW just requires the former.
What does your ability to use your Elysians in tournaments have to do with anything? Tournaments are run by third party individuals, using their own personal rules. I've already acknowledged that many tournament organizers have house rules that FW rules are not allowed, I just think that those people and their rules should be given no more respect than the tournament organizers who ban lists with "too many" dedicated transports.
Everything. If you were right, and refusing FW was not justified by the rules, major tournaments would not do it. I've never heard of tournaments banning lists with "too many" dedicated transports, but that's only because I pay attention to major Tournaments, because they are relevant. Like you've said, a tournament can hold any house rule, it's the common ones that are relevant for discussion.
You've successfully shifted your argument from "There is no justification to refuse FW rules" to "Well, they can do it, but no different from any 40k game." Go ahead, keep changing it till it's right. That's called "learning". Learning by changing your argument while maintaining bullheaded stubbornness, however, will quickly cause you to lose credibility on these forums. Welcome to dakka. We don't like when people begin an argument with pseudo-fact based adamance, get proven wrong by real facts and source-based information, and devolve their argument to "That's not what I meant" and defensive opinion-based assertions.
Oh, and please tell me again how a discussion of strategy can ignore the rules of major tournaments, because that's just unclear and staggeringly foolish.
TheCaptain wrote: Your opinion on what is and isn't morally included as a part of GW is completely factually irrelevant. You still said FW is GW, I've provided legal truth against the statement and you've given no factual evidence on the contrary; just product-based conjecture on what "counts as being GW" despite falling under a different brand.
Your "legal truth" is just nitpicking. The corporate structure of Games Workshop has absolutely nothing to do with how the game design process works, what rules are considered "official", etc. It's a pointless trivia question determined by lawyers and/or accountants who probably don't even know how to play the game.
In terms of how Games Workshop games are created, which is the only thing that matters here, FW is GW.
Reread the rule book. Please. It clearly states codices override rules in the rulebook. They take precedence, and they are a part of the rules. FW army lists say no such thing. They say they can be used WITH the rules. Difference. See it.
When it says "X unit is a Y choice in Z army" that means "please insert the following text into the army list found in the Z army codex". Just like how GW published 6th edition errata and suddenly the "official" rules for every army changed. Or how BT/DA suddenly got 3++ stormshields, even though the printed codex doesn't include them.
I see the difference; they're different expansions. But they're both still different ways to play the game. Your opinion on how many core rules are changed is irrelevant. FW flat out adds it's own new core rules. That, in it's own right, is a different way of playing the game. Please buy more than one FW book and read it.
You're missing the point so badly that I'm starting to suspect you're deliberately trolling.
If I want to play a game of Planetstrike, my opponent and I have to specifically agree in advance to play a game of Planetstrike, prepare special army lists, bring a lot of extra terrain, choose special stratagems, etc. And then once we start the game we deploy differently, follow different rules for scoring objectives, etc. It is impossible for me to play a Planetstrike army while my opponent plays standard 40k.
If I want to play a game with FW rules*, I include a Salamander in my army list instead of a Hellhound, just like I could include a Sentinel instead of a Hellhound. Other than my specific choice of units, the game proceeds exactly like any other game of standard 40k.
If you can't see a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, you're just trolling.
*As in the "official in standard 40k" rules we're talking about here, not the various campaign scenarios/etc.
They do, actually. They require permission to play the game as written, and then permission to additionally use an expansion (additional, external rules not mentioned as included automatically by the main rulebook). A game not including FW just requires the former.
There is no additional permission to use an expansion, because GW has explicitly stated that the FW rules are to be added to standard 40k. Taking a Thunderbolt from the IG codex* army list requires no more additional permission than taking a Medusa.
*Where the codex includes all GW-published official updates, including online FAQs, FW/WD additions, etc.
Everything. If you were right, and refusing FW was not justified by the rules, major tournaments would not do it. I've never heard of tournaments banning lists with "too many" dedicated transports, but that's only because I pay attention to major Tournaments, because they are relevant. Like you've said, a tournament can hold any house rule, it's the common ones that are relevant for discussion.
You must live a very sheltered life if you've never heard of tournaments with comp rules. Some of them outright ban lists/units/etc the tournament organizer dislikes, some of them just make arbitrary comp scores part of your final score and ensure that any list they dislike (lists with "too many" transports were especially popular in 5th) will lose enough points that they have no chance of winning the tournament. Or just take a look at the whining and crying about allies, fortifications and double FOCs. I can't even count the number of forum threads/blog posts/etc I've seen from tournament organizers talking about how they're going to change the rules of 6th edition because they don't like those elements.
If tournaments can include rule changes like the ridiculous "1999+1" dodge, your theory that "if FW bans weren't justified they wouldn't do it" is just laughably wrong. 40k tournaments have a long history of banning various elements of the game, even ones found in the main rulebook.
You've successfully shifted your argument from "There is no justification to refuse FW rules" to "Well, they can do it, but no different from any 40k game." Go ahead, keep changing it till it's right. That's called "learning". Learning by changing your argument while maintaining bullheaded stubbornness, however, will quickly cause you to lose credibility on these forums. Welcome to dakka.
It's only a "shift" if you're a nitpicking troll. Everyone with a bit of common sense understands that "no justification to refuse FW rules" is talking about special permission, not the basic fact that unless you have a gun to my head I can refuse to play a game of 40k.
Oh, and please tell me again how a discussion of strategy can ignore the rules of major tournaments, because that's just unclear and staggeringly foolish.
Easy: not everyone plays in tournaments, and a small minority play in "major" ones. Nothing in the OP suggested that they were preparing for a "major tournament", so the default assumption is the standard game of 40k, not the house rules preferred by "major tournaments".
Whatever man; you're not gunna' last here with a TFG stance like that. Saying someone is "nitpicking" is a pretty poor defense when you present an argument with so many holes it begs to be nitpicked. You've spent the past 3 posts repairing those holes and adding new ones. If you're gunna make bold claims like "the majority of the community is wrong to let people refuse FW rules, and TO's are dumb for doing so" at least stick to your guns when you try to back it up. Don't change them to fit.
If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.
And calling someone a troll for holding a different opinion breaks plenty of the rules here, welcome to dakka.
PS. Just because an expansion changes the rules less, doesn't change it from being an expansion. That's absurd.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
Hard to hide/run from that
So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.
If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.
Uhm... AFAIK there are some GW stuff out there that says that FW units with the GW stamp are 100% legal. So if I should pre-anounce my FW units to my opponent, then the only reason to do that would be a "nice person" mentality, like pre-warning someone to a Necron Space Invader list.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
Hard to hide/run from that
So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.
Do me a favor and read the thread, especially my post on how flyers can be deep-struck as to have something to shoot 2 out of three turns.
Worst a player can force is a 5+ reserves. That means a third on average will come on turn two, and another third turn three, and the rest on turn 4. I never said it's not a problem, just not a big enough deal to bother me. Which is a subjective opinion.
If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.
Uhm... AFAIK there are some GW stuff out there that says that FW units with the GW stamp are 100% legal. So if I should pre-anounce my FW units to my opponent, then the only reason to do that would be a "nice person" mentality, like pre-warning someone to a Necron Space Invader list.
Exactly what I said; that's uncool. Rules aside.
Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool
TheCaptain wrote: Whatever man; you're not gunna' last here with a TFG stance like that. Saying someone is "nitpicking" is a pretty poor defense when you present an argument with so many holes it begs to be nitpicked. You've spent the past 3 posts repairing those holes and adding new ones.
Because all you've done is nitpick at "holes" that have nothing to do with the substance of the argument. The only "change" is that you seem to think that unless I copy/paste the exact same words in every post, it's somehow a new concept.
If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.
No, I didn't say that. I bring them with my standard 40k list, and before the game I offer to show my opponent the rules and explain anything they don't understand, just like I expect that we will exchange army lists, explicitly state what each model/unit represents (since no army is ever 100% WYSIWYG), have our codex available to answer any questions, etc.
What I do NOT do is ask for special permission to use FW rules, just like I don't ask for special permission to bring a Hellhound instead of a Valkyrie, or any other choice of official units in standard games of 40k.
And calling someone a troll for holding a different opinion breaks plenty of the rules here, welcome to dakka.
No, I'm calling you a troll for missing the point and nitpicking to the point that the only explanation is that your only goal is to argue, not to make a legitimate effort to understand what I'm saying or address the substance of my argument.
PS. Just because an expansion changes the rules less, doesn't change it from being an expansion. That's absurd.
Call it an "expansion" if you want, but the simple fact is there are two very different products that share the same "expansion" label. One of them is an alternate game type based on 40k, while the other contains additions to the standard game of 40k (just like White Dwarf codex updates, BT 3++ stormshields, etc).
And, to put it very simply: one of them says that it is a set of rules intended for use in standard games of 40k, one of them does not.
Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool
Uhm... So? This stands for every unit in every army. My opponent could be in the dark for every unit in my codex since he isn't forced to know every unit of every codex. And if he is, then he could look up the rules of the Vulture too, nobody will butcher him for doing so....
Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool
Uhm... So? This stands for every unit in every army. My opponent could be in the dark for every unit in my codex since he isn't forced to know every unit of every codex. And if he is, then he could look up the rules of the Vulture too, nobody will butcher him for doing so....
Uhm...clarifying rules for your opponent is sportsmanlike, and sportsmanship is an important part of a social game.
Call it an "expansion" if you want, but the simple fact is there are two very different products that share the same "expansion" label. One of them is an alternate game type based on 40k, while the other contains additions to the standard game of 40k (just like White Dwarf codex updates, BT 3++ stormshields, etc).
And, to put it very simply: one of them says that it is a set of rules intended for use in standard games of 40k, one of them does not.
I call it an expansion because FW calls it an expansion. If FW is GW like you say, then transitively GW calls it an expansion, and GW makes the rules. Implementing expansions without mutual permission is not allowed.
Your little fit can cease, now. This has derailed the thread horribly, and has become annoying. Both of which are against the rules. Welcome to dakka.
This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.
Oh, really? I didn't know that... But then, this whole arguement is invalid. Vulture or not-Vulture, the enemy can say "no". End of story. Or am I misreading something ?
This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.
Oh, really? I didn't know that... But then, this whole arguement is invalid. Vulture or not-Vulture, the enemy can say "no". End of story. Or am I misreading something ?
Now you've got it. An opponent can technically deny a game for whatever reason they like. That's the beauty of freedom. They can do it because they don't like a unit you have, or they can do it because they don't like your moustache; and there are rules that say so.
TheCaptain wrote: Implementing expansions without mutual permission is not allowed.
Please provide a page number and quotation for this claim.
Until you do, there is a very simple statement from GW on the subject: the most recent FW books all contain some variant of "these are official rules intended for use in standard games of 40k". Not "expansion games", not "games where you and your opponent have agreed to add new rules", standard games.
TheCaptain wrote: This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.
Which is true, but meaningless. An opponent can say no to a Valkyrie just like they can say no to a Vulture. Nobody is saying that GW is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play games that you don't want to play, we're just saying that FW units are no different than any other official unit in standard 40k, and that people who refuse to allow FW units in their games/tournaments are no different (and no more worthy of respect) than people who refuse to allow various codex units/allies/etc in their games/tournaments.
NWansbutter wrote: Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).
That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.
The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.
Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.
And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.
Hard to hide/run from that
So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.
Do me a favor and read the thread, especially my post on how flyers can be deep-struck as to have something to shoot 2 out of three turns.
Worst a player can force is a 5+ reserves. That means a third on average will come on turn two, and another third turn three, and the rest on turn 4. I never said it's not a problem, just not a big enough deal to bother me. Which is a subjective opinion.
Aah, yes. Surely nothing can go wrong when deep striking 4 or so fliers at the same time. Especially seeing as the oppoenent will be aware of the deep striking fliers and thus spread out as much as possible. Even without an opponent that spreads out, there are plenty of things that can go wrong.
TheCaptain wrote: This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.
Which is true, but meaningless. An opponent can say no to a Valkyrie just like they can say no to a Vulture. Nobody is saying that GW is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play games that you don't want to play, we're just saying that FW units are no different than any other official unit in standard 40k.
Not meaningless. Quite the opposite. It's clear justification that you can refuse a game for any reason. Now no one can hold a gun to your head forcing you to play games that you don't want to without breaking both the LAW and 40k written rules. That's plenty of meaning.
Like I said, I'm done arguing with you. We obviously disagree, I share my opinions with most of the community on the interpretation; you share yours with people who furiously dig for an excuse to force FW into gameplay. Please kindly get over it; this has grown exhausting and un-fun.
The difference being I am suggesting you make sure your opponent is okay with playing FW, and you are saying they have to.
In this regard, I am being courteous, you are being overassuming and unnecessarily WAAC. Even if the rules did say "FW lists are official codices and rules associated with GWWH40k." You should still make sure your opponent is okay with it. If I bring my 7 flyer-list, I make sure I tell my opponent beforehand "So you know, I'm fielding 7 flyers, they're Valkyries and Vendettas, and here are the rules and point costs." Making sure your opponent agrees with everything he is getting into is important. It's common, human courtesy, and common human courtesy will get you much further in life than FW units.
Aah, yes. Surely nothing can go wrong when deep striking 4 or so fliers at the same time. Especially seeing as the oppoenent will be aware of the deep striking fliers and thus spread out as much as possible. Even without an opponent that spreads out, there are plenty of things that can go wrong.
He can just deep strike onto impassible terrain. Problem solved. Not to mention, few armies short of all-foot gaunts/orks could spread out enough to make deep-striking impossible.
Your idea of denying flyers their shots works in theory; it is incredibly hard to apply on the table. The best players in the game still struggle with flyerspam; there is a reason for this, and it's not because they "don't spread out".
A point that hasn't been raised yet is to just kill the CCS. Pretty do-able in practice.
Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).
My opinion:
Of course your game opponent has to allow you to play with any of your units. If he does not allow it, he is not going to play with you. But this is not an official rule. However, it is official, that in order to play FW units your opponent has to agree.
And again, you miss the point. Obviously you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW units, just like you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against Orks. However, let's go back to my comments that started this whole tangent:
Should we ignore house rules and assume "standard" 40k (which includes FW) in forum discussions unless house rules have been clearly stated? YES.
Should we, in the absence of "I'm preparing for X tournament", discuss strategy for the full range of standard 40k and not assume the most restrictive tournament house rules? YES.
Should we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban FW units just like we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban allies/double FOC/etc or come up with multi-page comp scoring systems that penalize armies the tournament organizer doesn't like? YES.
Should we stop bringing out the same old "not everyone likes FW" excuse every time someone mentions a FW unit in a strategy discussion (when we don't say "not everyone likes Orks")? YES.
Should we stop reinforcing obsolete misconceptions about "permission" that were removed from FW books years ago? YES.
If "the community" disagrees with that, then too bad, "the community" needs to change. It wouldn't be the first time "the community" was wrong and needed to change, and it certainly won't be the last.
I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.
Lothar wrote: Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).
This is completely false. It used to be written in FW books, but the whole "permission" bit was removed years ago. Unfortunately people who don't actually own any FW books continue to repeat this obsolete statement as if it were still true, but they're wrong.
The current FW books state that the rules are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k.
Peregrine wrote:And again, you miss the point. Obviously you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW units, just like you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against Orks. However, let's go back to my comments that started this whole tangent:
Should we ignore house rules and assume "standard" 40k (which includes FW) in forum discussions unless house rules have been clearly stated? YES.
Should we, in the absence of "I'm preparing for X tournament", discuss strategy for the full range of standard 40k and not assume the most restrictive tournament house rules? YES.
Should we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban FW units just like we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban allies/double FOC/etc or come up with multi-page comp scoring systems that penalize armies the tournament organizer doesn't like? YES.
Should we stop bringing out the same old "not everyone likes FW" excuse every time someone mentions a FW unit in a strategy discussion (when we don't say "not everyone likes Orks")? YES.
Should we stop reinforcing obsolete misconceptions about "permission" that were removed from FW books years ago? YES.
If "the community" disagrees with that, then too bad, "the community" needs to change. It wouldn't be the first time "the community" was wrong and needed to change, and it certainly won't be the last.
Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.
tedurur wrote:I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.
As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.
Lothar:
Not exactly:
You don't really have to get your opponent's permission. You tell him that you will bring FW, and the rest is up to him. Just like for every other army lists, FW or not.
tedurur wrote:I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.
As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.
1" of an enemy model or on top of a friendly model...
Lothar wrote: Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).
This is completely false. It used to be written in FW books, but the whole "permission" bit was removed years ago. Unfortunately people who don't actually own any FW books continue to repeat this obsolete statement as if it were still true, but they're wrong.
The current FW books state that the rules are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k.
While this is true, you should still make sure your opponent is fine with you using FW units.
TheCaptain wrote: Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.
And when someone with actual authority on this forum offers an opinion here, I'll pay attention to it. Last time I checked, you're not a moderator, so if you want the tangent to stop then I'd suggest that you stop insisting on getting the last word and continuing to post about it.
As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.
Nope. Flyers don't take dangerous terrain tests for ending their move in terrain, but a mishap is not a dangerous terrain test. A flyer will suffer a mishap exactly as normal if it lands in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, or off the table. Given the large size of the average flyer, deep striking onto a crowded table has a significant chance of producing a mishap.
TheCaptain wrote: Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.
And when someone with actual authority on this forum offers an opinion here, I'll pay attention to it. Last time I checked, you're not a moderator, so if you want the tangent to stop then I'd suggest that you stop insisting on getting the last word and continuing to post about it.
As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.
Nope. Flyers don't take dangerous terrain tests for ending their move in terrain, but a mishap is not a dangerous terrain test. A flyer will suffer a mishap exactly as normal if it lands in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, or off the table. Given the large size of the average flyer, deep striking onto a crowded table has a significant chance of producing a mishap.
Actually a flier can be deployed in impassable terrain so that restriction is removed from what causes mishap. That said, deepstriking 5-10 fliers is far from easy.
to reds8n: Dont worry, I am absolutely calm, I like a good discussion with many opinions, it is the good way to find out what may or may not be true and/or good
AtoMaki wrote: Lothar:
Not exactly:
You don't really have to get your opponent's permission. You tell him that you will bring FW, and the rest is up to him. Just like for every other army lists, FW or not.
This is actually what I had in mind, thank you . Your opponents have to "be happy to play a game using FW models before you start". So before both players agree to actually play a game, both of them should know if there are going to be FW models in that game. If they both know and agree with that, its ok. But the restriction is here and its official.
Peregrine wrote:Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy.
Ok so you want to play the GW rules as published; please go read the introduction pages to each and every Imperial Armour book please and then get back to me; if you need a hand, I'm refering to the section that says these units aren't designed for consistent 40k play and should require your opponent's permission. This hasn't changed. And as much as your want to say the individual comps of different tournies don't matter to the discussion, they do, because they are still something people here might play. As you said, the OP didn't state a set of parameters for which environment we are discussing, so why are you being a hypocrite in trying to exclude ours?
This is actually what I had in mind, thank you . Your opponents have to "be happy to play a game using FW models before you start". So before both players agree to actually play a game, both of them should know if there are going to be FW models in that game. If they both know and agree with that, its ok. But the restriction is here and its official.
Hmmmm... Okay then. But then what's the difference? I can bring FW, tell my opponent that I will do so and everybody will be happy. Or I can bring a 3 Land Raiders with Lyander and some random stuff, tell my opponent that I will do so and everybody will be happy... My opponent can say "no" in both cases.
to AtoMaki: Yes, your opponent can say "no", and it is quite possible he sometimes will do that. The problem is, that Forge world books are aditional stuff, which players have to know in order to be prepared for it (and count that possibility in their army lists and strategy). Many players just dont bother to do that. It is easier for them to focus only on Rulebook, FAQs and codices. Therefore there is bigger chance that someone will say "no" to your FWIA unit then to your codex unit. Many tournament organizators (almost all of them in my country - Czech republic) dont allow FW. That is their right and I have to count with that. And because many players count with this restriction, they build their army lists without FW units and they usually do not want to play against them, because they want to test the army against something they can meet at tournament.
I myself like FW, but I do not create my army lists with FW units, because I want to be able to play with everyone, not only with FW positive players. There are both FW positive and FW negative players in my group so it is easier and a lot cheaper for me to build army lists without FWIA units.
TheCaptain wrote: Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.
And when someone with actual authority on this forum offers an opinion here, I'll pay attention to it. Last time I checked, you're not a moderator, so if you want the tangent to stop then I'd suggest that you stop insisting on getting the last word and continuing to post about it.
Basically just got told "You're not the boss of me"... Wow, thought I was wayyyyyy too old to still hear those comments. Guess not.
As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.
Nope. Flyers don't take dangerous terrain tests for ending their move in terrain, but a mishap is not a dangerous terrain test. A flyer will suffer a mishap exactly as normal if it lands in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, or off the table. Given the large size of the average flyer, deep striking onto a crowded table has a significant chance of producing a mishap.
Pretty ambiguous. Rules are written such that flyers, for every other purpose, ignore things under it's base (save for enemy models). Assuming deep strike isn't so just because it doesn't specifically say so is pretty unnecessarily RAW.
@terdurur
you deep strike the ones you can't get a shot by zooming on normally.
Oh AND valks have scout (thus outflank)
They basically can come in wherever they want. It's lovely.
Well not everything under its base; if it lands one Troops that's a mishap. But if it lands on any piece of terrain it is fine whether impassable or not.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Well not everything under its base; if it lands one Troops that's a mishap. But if it lands on any piece of terrain it is fine whether impassable or not.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Well not everything under its base; if it lands one Troops that's a mishap. But if it lands on any piece of terrain it is fine whether impassable or not.
Only enemy models.
No any models; if you annot place the base then it is mishap, and you cannot overlap bases with any models, friend or foe.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Well not everything under its base; if it lands one Troops that's a mishap. But if it lands on any piece of terrain it is fine whether impassable or not.
Only enemy models.
No any models; if you annot place the base then it is mishap, and you cannot overlap bases with any models, friend or foe.
But it says flyers ignore everything "under" its base for the sake of movement except for enemy models; deep strike counts as moving at cruising speed. Would that not imply that, in the case of this movement, all but enemy models are ignored?
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Well not everything under its base; if it lands one Troops that's a mishap. But if it lands on any piece of terrain it is fine whether impassable or not.
Only enemy models.
No any models; if you annot place the base then it is mishap, and you cannot overlap bases with any models, friend or foe.
But it says flyers ignore everything "under" its base for the sake of movement except for enemy models; deep strike counts as moving at cruising speed. Would that not imply that, in the case of this movement, all but enemy models are ignored?
No, deep strike count as deployment. So no touching friendly models nor anything touching friendly models and toughinh lethal terrain is also a mishap. Also, you do not get to simply pick mid game whether or not you are deep striking. That must be decided when you put the model in reserve. I can see how not knowing these rules makes it easier to deploy massed fliers in a good way...
Yup deep strike mishap is if the base lands on friendly models, in impassable terrain, off the board or on or within 1" of an enemy model.
My Tau Crisis suits can jump into impassable terrain if they can physically land on it during their movement phase or assault phase. That doesn't change the fact that deep striking into impassable terrain causes a mishap.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yup deep strike mishap is if the base lands on friendly models, in impassable terrain, off the board or on or within 1" of an enemy model.
No it doesn't mishap if it lands in impassable terrain.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yup deep strike mishap is if the base lands on friendly models, in impassable terrain, off the board or on or within 1" of an enemy model.
No it doesn't mishap if it lands in impassable terrain.
Read the deep strike rules. Now point me to where in the FLyer rules it states that a Flyer does not mishap when deep striking onto impassable terrain.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yup deep strike mishap is if the base lands on friendly models, in impassable terrain, off the board or on or within 1" of an enemy model.
No it doesn't mishap if it lands in impassable terrain.
Read the deep strike rules. Now point me to where in the FLyer rules it states that a Flyer does not mishap when deep striking onto impassable terrain.
Since the deep strike misshap states that "If any models in the deep striking unit can not be deployed, ..." I think that it can be argued that since a flyer can infact be deployed in impassible terrain then that restriction is lifted.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yup deep strike mishap is if the base lands on friendly models, in impassable terrain, off the board or on or within 1" of an enemy model.
No it doesn't mishap if it lands in impassable terrain.
Read the deep strike rules. Now point me to where in the FLyer rules it states that a Flyer does not mishap when deep striking onto impassable terrain.
The part that says flyers ignore terrain and may land in impassable terrain without harm or penalty.
Peregrine wrote:Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy.
Ok so you want to play the GW rules as published; please go read the introduction pages to each and every Imperial Armour book please and then get back to me; if you need a hand, I'm refering to the section that says these units aren't designed for consistent 40k play and should require your opponent's permission. This hasn't changed. And as much as your want to say the individual comps of different tournies don't matter to the discussion, they do, because they are still something people here might play. As you said, the OP didn't state a set of parameters for which environment we are discussing, so why are you being a hypocrite in trying to exclude ours?
But this -has- changed. FW units are considered "official". The only reason you "should make sure your opponent is ok with it" is because they might not know the rules. I mean, it doesn't get much clearer than "These units should be considered official, but not everyone has access to this 90 dollar rulebook, so you should probably keep that in mind"
I run a vulture and a avenger in my army. I have the statlines and rules printed out in a binder that I let my opponent see if they need to. I almost never have complaints. The only people who do complain are the usual TFGs. And I don't want to play them anyway.
?
. Your opponents have to "be happy to play a game using 