I wish to point out that this thread easily could go under either the general and proposed rules sub-fora. In a strong sense, this thread deals with topics that could go under both. I have opted to put it in this subforum because it primarily deals with proposed rules for list construction, gameplay and provides a "meta" discussion of proposed rules changes.

I wish to begin the topic by asking an apparently simple question: What is your primary goal in playing Warhammer 40k? The way I see it, there are two obvious answers:

1. To win
2. To have fun (in some respect other than by winning alone).

And the main source of fun in 2 is the spectacle of 40k.

Before I go on, I wish to point out that if your answer to my question is 1, then this thread is not for you. I recommend passing it over. I also wish to point out that if your answer is 1, then Warhammer 40k is probably a poor game for this purpose. You could "win" at other games with far less expense, time and effort involved. If you wish to win at Warhammer 40k, then in order to do it consistently, you'll be engaging in a never-ending cycle of expensive purchases, painting (or else, paying someone else to paint), construction, etc. all simply to engage in a two to three hour futile exercise of: I place models. You place models. You pick up models. I win." Or else: I place models. You place models. I move models here, there and over there. I then do nothing for the next 2 to 3 hours other than pick up models. I win anyway.

Somehow, that seems like a spectacular waste of time, money and effort to me.

Of course, that may be your idea of fun, and if it is, then more power to you, I suppose, but again, this is not the thread for you. We simply won't see eye to eye.

So, I'll assume that your purpose in playing Warhammer 40k is to have fun, and the chief component of this fun is the spectacle of warhammer 40k. That's why we even bother going through this whole model construction and painting thing, right? That's the whole point in reading anything other than the rules for the models, right? That's the point in even knowing what the difference between an Eldar and a space marine is, right?

So I want you to think back to the last game that you played which you could really call "spectacular," i.e, made for a really good "show," so to speak. When was the last time that you really had FUN in a warhammer 40k game even if you didn't win it? How would you characterize that game?

In the poll, I put three basic options:

1. Battle of Normandy IN SPACE. Basically, tons of infantry (and some vehicles) on both sides. Tons of casualties. Tons of action. The germans may not have won, but bullets were flying everywhere, lots of people died, and both parties did tons of stuff. In other words: STUFFED HAPPENED, and stuffed happened on BOTH sides of the map. Everybody was constantly doing stuff.

2. Godzilla IN SPACE. Basically, big giant monsters (wraithknights, imperial knights, etc.) that take tons of fire power to go down and which the common rank and rile soldiery can't touch. Now, you may have fun playing this way. But think about it from the perspective of the person controlling the tokyo soldiers: is that really fun for them?

Again, think about Dark Souls I. Did anybody really have fun against the big red dragon at the bridge right after the Taurus demon? What about the big red dragon in dark souls II?

3. Super Saiyans vs. tokyo soldiers: Basically the same concept, except you have what are, for all intents and purposes, normal infantry who have ridiculous super powers and are, for all intents and purposes, untouchable. In a game of Vegeta vs. yajirobe, do you REALLY want to play as yajirobe?

I'll write more later, but first, I want you guys to think about these three alternatives, because, ultimately, the answer that you pick has important implications for how you should construct your army lists, what armies you should play, how you should actually play the game, etc.

I'll make the actual proposals after you guys start discussing this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming that the fun game is the first one I mentioned (i.e., Normandy in Space). Why?

2 and 3 are not spectacular. They are a mind-numbing, boring exercise in futility and time wasting. There is nothing fun about moving models to an objective and going to ground for 5 turns.

There is nothing fun about playing "Keep away from the death star."

Why? Because in those games, NOTHING HAPPENS. Well, I stand corrected. Plenty of things happen for your opponent. Nothing happens for you. You are playing a giant game of hide and seek, and you never get to seek.

Unless, of course, it's Godzilla vs. Godzilla or Super Saiyan Goku vs. Super Saiyan Vegeta.

And that's not the game I signed up for.

That could be a fun game, and in fact, GW released exactly that game (IK vs. IK). But that's not the warhammer 40k that I signed up for.

So, in my proposals, I am going to assume that the fun game, that everyone wants to play, is NORMANDY IN SPAAACE!

My assumptions are these:

1. The goal of both players is fun for the sake of fun.
2. The way that this is accomplished primarily is by making sure that STUFF HAPPENS for both players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With that preface, I offer my proposals. Note, of course, that these are not proposals for game changes. These are proposals for list construction and use of already existing in game mechanics. We don't need GW to balance the game. The potential for balance is already there.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

Catnipaddict wrote:
Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

You are disagreeing with a conclusion. If you wish to disagree with my conclusion, then I'll ask you:

1. Which of my principles you disagree with.
2. What part of my reasoning you disagree with.

If you simply tell me that your fun consists in winning, then I'll point out that I say in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

I admit the possibility that other people have a different criterion of fun in the OP. I also point out that such people should ignore this thread.

The whole post seemed to be a bit convoluted in what it was trying to say and the way it was written. The same goes for the poll. I've read through the entire thread and still not 100% sure I understand the poll.

And why is having fun in 40K through winning wrong? If that's the only way they have fun, then sure. But I find myself answering that question with both answers: I find it fun to win at 40K and I have fun with genuinely good games.

Traditio wrote:With that preface, I offer my proposals. Note, of course, that these are not proposals for game changes. These are proposals for list construction and use of already existing in game mechanics. We don't need GW to balance the game. The potential for balance is already there.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.

These proposals are incredibly subjective and as far as any of the rest of us know are untested on the tabletop. I think if anyone is going to abide by these changes, then you need to tell us exactly what issues these address, how they fix them, and (if possible) provide results from play-testing them. I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to think that before they implement these changes, they need to see that you're genuinely interesting in seeking out and identifying problems, finding at least one solution (because there's always more than one), and then implementing it with an explanation of how it fixes the problem.

Traditio wrote:Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

I think the concept you're looking for is an "Overall Nerf" rather than "No Buffs Whatsoever". For example, consider a Tactical Marine: You could could increase his Ballistic Skill to 6, which is obviously a buff, but you could decrease all his other characteristics by one to a minimum of one, which is obviously a nerf. In this example, it can clearly be seen that the Tactical Marine has been nerf overall despite receiving a buff to Ballistic Skill.

If all you do is nerf the game, it becomes easier to balance because, depending on how much you nerf, there will be less to balance. Plus where does nerfing stop? I mean, the same could be said of buffs, but in a scenario where all you're doing is nerfing, I still think a "Nerfing Only" policy runs into trouble really quickly.

Overall Nerfing is a hell of a lot better than Straight Up Nerfing (with No Buffs), especially from a balancing perspective.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

I admit the possibility that other people have a different criterion of fun in the OP. I also point out that such people should ignore this thread.

So already you're cutting out a lot of the player base and a lot of the user base here on Dakka.

IllumiNini wrote:The same goes for the poll. I've read through the entire thread and still not 100% sure I understand the poll.

Normandy in space: tons of infantry and dedicated transports.

Super Saiyan Vegeta: unkillable deathstars (e.g., captain smashfether)

Godzilla: giant, difficult to kill things (e.g., wraithknights, imperial knights, etc.)

And why is having fun in 40K through winning wrong? If that's the only way they have fun, then sure. But I find myself answering that question with both answers: I find it fun to win at 40K and I have fun with genuinely good games.

Primary vs. secondary objectives.

What I am describing is setting out to create a spectacle, and then trying to win once dice have started to role.

The criterion of "fun" for other people is making sure that you win before you even roll dice.

Thus the fact that people play Godzilla or Super Saiyan Vegeta, but would not want to play the tokyo soldiers.

These proposals are incredibly subjective and as far as any of the rest of us know are untested on the tabletop. I think if anyone is going to abide by these changes, then you need to tell us exactly what issues these address, how they fix them, and (if possible) provide results from play-testing them. I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to think that before they implement these changes, they need to see that you're genuinely interesting in seeking out and identifying problems, finding at least one solution (because there's always more than one), and then implementing it with an explanation of how it fixes the problem.

They're really not "subjective." If the goal is to make the game into normandy in space, then my proposals accomplish that. What do I mean by normandy in space? Tons of stuff happens every turn because all or most of the units are basically expendable.

If you can't reroll your saves, then your guy is more likely to die, and not only that, but die faster.

From personal experience, I find that the funnest games are when both players pick up lots of models.

I think the concept you're looking for is an "Overall Nerf" rather than "No Buffs Whatsoever".

Yes, I completely agree with this.

Again, I think that a missile launcher with flakk should cost 20, not 25, points. It should be points equivalent to a lascannon.

Overall Nerfing is a hell of a lot better than Straight Up Nerfing (with No Buffs), especially from a balancing perspective.

My rationale is that more, not fewer, things should actually be relevant and able to do things in game. If you make a stormbolter S5, then tactical marines and guardsmen become weaker/more fragile overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IN:

I also wish to point out that you should be very congenial to the proposals I'm expressing.

You play Black Templar.

Traditio wrote:
Unless, of course, it's Godzilla vs. Godzilla or Super Saiyan Goku vs. Super Saiyan Vegeta.

And that's not the game I signed up for.

And, as I keep telling you, your way of having fun is not the only way. You're of course entitled to ask to play a game with lots of low-power infantry on both sides, but please stop acting like you've found some morally superior way to play the game and everyone else is Doing It Wrong.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

No, GW is in the business of selling, period. They don't care what you do with the models as long as you keep buying them. Their rules are utter garbage for spectacular re-enactments and roleplaying, just like they're utter garbage for competitive tournament play. In fact, GW seems to be rather explicitly saying "the game is about tanks and giant monsters" by continuing to release tank and giant monster models along with formations for using multiple copies of those units.

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound". A re-rollable 5++ is really just a 4++, after all, and I don't think any reasonable person can argue that a 4++ is overpowered or not fun.

2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.

IOW, "don't bring your fluffy tank-heavy army, change your fluff to suit my preferences".

3. Don't use Tau.

This is a terrible rule, even by your standards. Tau have some balance issues but excluding an entire faction, no matter how its lists are constructed, is absolutely insane.

4. No Decurion.

Another terrible rule. Use of alternative FOCs has absolutely nothing to do with power level or fun level. Imposing blanket bans on whole categories of armies, regardless of how fun or powerful they are, is lazy game design and ruins everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Yeah, I'll just keep those awesome models on the shelf, because you don't approve of them. Good to know you're so opposed to fluff and awesome models in your narrative/roleplaying game.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

IOW:

"I don't like losing to these things. Take them out of your army so I don't have to figure out any of the many ways to beat them."

Honestly the "No Tau" proposal is just shocking. Eldar are a worse abuser of the mechanics you are talking about by far. I've had fun playing against Tau and Eldar. It's all in the mindset of thier players. Tau and Eldae players are more likely to be WAAC than ork or guard players, but disallowing them outright seems petty. Some people honestly have fun with their playstyles.

I mainly play tyranids. The armies theme is pretty much godzilla.
Sure there are infantry, but they exist only to eat bullets and distract the enemy, while the big monsters get stuff done. There's not really any getting away from it.

Clearly the entire concept of the army is un-fun. You should add it to your Do Not Play list along with Tau. They could use some company.

Traditio wrote:

Catnipaddict wrote:
Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

You are disagreeing with a conclusion. If you wish to disagree with my conclusion, then I'll ask you:

1. Which of my principles you disagree with.
2. What part of my reasoning you disagree with.

If you simply tell me that your fun consists in winning, then I'll point out that I say in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.

My disagreement is that you want to drastically change the way the game plays, removing enjoyment from OTHER people, IE people who play Tau, or people that play the game for a thousand other reasons you haven't listed.

I can assure you I don't get my fun from winning, I'm a purely casual player. I honestly can only remember one time I've ever won! And it was a game where I was trying to teach someone how to play. I get my enjoyment out of the list building, number crunching and theory crafting. On top of just the 'cool factor'. Sure I know hammer heads suck, but they are SO cool. So you could say, I play for the spectacle.

My disagreement with your conclusion, is that your conclusion is "The game doesn't play the way I want to, so I want to change it away from how everyone else wants it to be played". Decurians for example is one of thee reasons I got BACK into 40k. I loved the new style of take certain combinations of units get cool thing. The changes you're asking, would turn the game into a game I don't think myself or, and I may be stretching here, the majority of the current player-base would want to play.

So I reiterate my orginal point, harsh as it may be. Maybe 40k isn't the game you want to be playing.

Traditio wrote:
I also wish to point out that you should be very congenial to the proposals I'm expressing.

You play Black Templar.

I don't think me playing Black Templars should have any bearing on whether or not I should agree with you on anything. Yes, it might afford me some bias for or against certain changes, but the army that somebody plays should ultimately not affect their opinions on game balance and rules changes.

And I can honestly agree with the four immediately preceding posts.

A person's main army will certainly make them biased. As an ork player, I think overwatch is dumb, you should be able to hit on a 2+ in CC, and charging should give a bonus to initiative.

Granted, there are non-ork related things I think are dumb, like so many MCs that should just be walkers, but in most gaming circles, players will find things that hurt their side dumb.

Ironically, it is competitive players who are more honest about balance because it is purely a numbers game for them. A competitive Falco or Marth player in Melee will readily admit that their characters can do dumb things, whereas more casual players more often defend their characters with more gusto.

Peregrine wrote:And, as I keep telling you, your way of having fun is not the only way. You're of course entitled to ask to play a game with lots of low-power infantry on both sides, but please stop acting like you've found some morally superior way to play the game and everyone else is Doing It Wrong.

Read the OP.

I very clearly asserted that the proposals in this thread isn't for everyone.

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound".

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

IOW, "don't bring your fluffy tank-heavy army, change your fluff to suit my preferences".

Yes. If you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, don't bring the mech list. If I'm playing an infantry heavy list and you're playing nothing but leeman russes, I won't be doing much.

My assumption is that you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

This assumption doesn't hold true for you. You play to win.

Which makes me wonder: Why bother posting in this thread to start with?

This is a terrible rule, even by your standards. Tau have some balance issues but excluding an entire faction, no matter how its lists are constructed, is absolutely insane.

It's not a matter of balance. It's a matter of wanting to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

It's not the case that STUFF HAPPENS in a game against tau. Unless you're the Tau player.

Another terrible rule. Use of alternative FOCs has absolutely nothing to do with power level or fun level. Imposing blanket bans on whole categories of armies, regardless of how fun or powerful they are, is lazy game design and ruins everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

You've misunderstood me. I'm specifically referring to the Necron Decurion. A basic warrior basically gets a 4+ rerollable. 4+ for armor and 4+ FNP which can't be negated by the ID rule.

]Yeah, I'll just keep those awesome models on the shelf, because you don't approve of them. Good to know you're so opposed to fluff and awesome models in your narrative/roleplaying game.

As I said. If you don't want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, then ignore these rules.

Personally, I don't want to play a game of sit on the objective and do nothing for 5 turns.

You might. I don't.

"I don't like losing to these things. Take them out of your army so I don't have to figure out any of the many ways to beat them."

Rule 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
I mainly play tyranids. The armies theme is pretty much godzilla.
Sure there are infantry, but they exist only to eat bullets and distract the enemy, while the big monsters get stuff done. There's not really any getting away from it.

Clearly the entire concept of the army is un-fun. You should add it to your Do Not Play list along with Tau. They could use some company.

Don't run flyrants, minimize the use of monstrous creatures, and we've got a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to point out that, so far, 2 people have asserted, in the poll, that they like playing AS Godzilla. NOBODY has voted for the option of playing AGAINST Godzilla.

Just pointing that out.

Traditio wrote:

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound".

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Do you realize that you've gone against every single convention of a discussion?

1: If you don't agree with my point, don't speak.

2: If you have points that run counter to me, it's because you are bad, so I don't have to regard your opinions as valid.


You've essentially decreed that no other opinions are acceptable, other than your own. You're attempting to establish yourself as an unopposed authority, so that the only acceptable responses are an echo-chamber.

Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

This is either the worst form of cultism, or a bad joke. I mean, it can be both, I suppose, but really it's nothing but a throw-away opinion piece with little-to-no substance.

Don't get me wrong, 7th edition is pushing me out the door, but like other people have pointed out, if you don't like the game, try something else.

IllumiNini wrote:Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

It raises all kinds of silly questions.

Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

Simplest solution is best. No rerollable saves.

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Yes. BOTH players removing models over the course of the game, and the game ultimately being decided on based on who made the best in game tactical decisions.

Shocking. I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

I think that's ridiculous. There's nothing reasonable about a 2+ invuln with a 4+ reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for those who mentioned the ITC "No rerollables over 4+," I wish to point out that this breaks down. Consider the Necron Decurion:

Warrior gets 4+ armor. He then gets 4+ RP. Depending on the circumstances, if he rolls a 1 on the RP, he gets a 4+ reroll.

So, to kill that warrior, you have to beat a 4+ armor, a 4+ RP and probably a 4+ reroll to that RP.

That's ridiculous.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

It raises all kinds of silly questions.

Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

Simplest solution is best. No rerollable saves.

Sounds to me like you still think that's somehow complicated maths and/or a complicated concept.

Traditio wrote:

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Yes. BOTH players removing models over the course of the game, and the game ultimately being decided on based on who made the best in game tactical decisions.

Shocking. I know.

From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

TLDR? It's all about how you play, not what's in your army - a concept you can't seem to grasp.

Traditio wrote:

greatbigtree wrote:Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

I think that's ridiculous. There's nothing reasonable about a 2+ invuln with a 4+ reroll.

If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Traditio wrote:
I very clearly asserted that the proposals in this thread isn't for everyone.

Sure, you asserted it, but this goes beyond "if you only care about winning this isn't for you". Not only are you attempting to limit the discussion to casual/fluff players, you're attempting to limit it to people who like the exact same kinds of units/armies that you like. IOW, people who love the fluff and spectacle of giant Tau robots fighting giant Tyranid monsters are not welcome. And that's a pretty clear concession that your proposed rules are worthless as a general "how you should play 40k" guide that other people can benefit from.

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

No, it requires basic math that can be done with a trivial amount of effort. And I think doing a trivial amount of basic math is a small price to pay for making rules that only exclude the problem units, not everything in a whole general category. I think we can all see the absurdity of allowing a unit with a 3++ but banning a unit with a re-rollable 5++ which has a lower chance of saving a wound than the unit with the 3++

Yes. If you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, don't bring the mech list. If I'm playing an infantry heavy list and you're playing nothing but leeman russes, I won't be doing much.

And this is why we should have a house rule that infantry-only lists are banned, and you must bring anti-tank units. The fact that stuff isn't dying is entirely your fault.

This assumption doesn't hold true for you. You play to win.

Remember what happened last time you said this about my tank-heavy army? You had to apologize for your ridiculous stereotypes after looking at my painting thread and realizing that I do in fact care about more than just winning efficiently.

It's not a matter of balance. It's a matter of wanting to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

It's not the case that STUFF HAPPENS in a game against tau. Unless you're the Tau player.

And this is just demonstrating a complete ignorance of the Tau faction and 40k in general. Stuff happens with Tau on one or both sides of the battle, period. No amount of ridiculous arguments otherwise will change this fact.

Rule 1.

There is nothing rude about what I said. You are blatantly excluding stuff based on "I don't like this" rather than its actual power.

Don't run flyrants, minimize the use of monstrous creatures, and we've got a game.

IOW, don't play Tyranids. MCs are a fundamental part of the Tyranid army, we might as well tell you to leave all of your tactical squads at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

That depends on what the maximum chance of negating a wound is. A 5++ re-rollable is a 55% chance, and 5+ FNP is a 33% chance. Is a 30% chance of taking an unsaved wound ok? This roughly translates to a 3+ save (33.333%), so it pretty clearly should be allowed.

IllumiNini wrote:From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

And you don't believe even for a second that it would be fun.

My evidence? I'll take my infantry list and you take your predator list and let's play that game.

But you get to play with my armor, and I yours.

You up for that?

[If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Assuming T4 and the model firing is a space marine with bolters, it would take:

2/3 X 1/2 X 1/6 X 1/2 = 2/72 = 1/36

It would take 36 bolter shots to do even a single wound.

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

And what if it's a ravenwing 2+ rerollable jink? Then it's T5 and the odds are worse.

Traditio wrote:

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

So you never fought the Deff Rolla Blitzkrieg last edition? It was a staple of Orks for some time. Hell Orks did a fair chunk of their Vehicle killing by ramming vehicles with Deff Rollas into other vehicles.

Traditio wrote:

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

Flamers, the Div power that gives Ignores Cover (i dont recall off hand what it is), various other template weapons. Invulns are Invulns, thats why you pay for them. Getting a re-rollable Invuln is not easy.

Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

With what? Assaulting a unit that wants to be within 12" of you to shoot rapid fire weapon? Or do you assume that people can only use infantry so don't realize some units can move 12"?

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

And you don't believe even for a second that it would be fun.

My evidence? I'll take my infantry list and you take your predator list and let's play that game.

Really? This is your response? Clearly you've completely glazed over the point. That or you simply don't want to be wrong.

Traditio wrote:

[If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Assuming T4 and the model firing is a space marine with bolters, it would take:

2/3 X 1/2 X 1/6 X 1/2 = 2/72 = 1/36

It would take 36 bolter shots to do even a single wound.

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

And what if it's a ravenwing 2+ rerollable jink? Then it's T5 and the odds are worse.

Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

CrownAxe wrote:With what? Assaulting a unit that wants to be within 12" of you to shoot rapid fire weapon?

You don't have to be within 12 inches to shoot a rapidfire weapon. You can fire a single shot at 24 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

What weapon in the SM codex strips a 2+ invuln?

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

Ravenwing bikes move 12 and can boost another 12.

As I said. Good luck.

Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

Reread the OP.

You don't seem to be getting my point.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

Reread the OP.

You're clearly not getting my point.

How about you learn how to play the game? You claim all this stuff is broken and ruins the game but you continue to show you have no idea how to deal with units that aren't even broken

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

What weapon in the SM codex strips a 2+ invuln?

Obviously nothing can strip it, but a high number of shots will cause it to fail eventually. For example, a model with a 2+ Invulnerable will fail at least one if three Dreadnoughts shoot Assault Cannons or a 10-man Tactical with Bolters shoots at it.

Traditio wrote:

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

Ravenwing bikes move 12 and can boost another 12.

As I said. Good luck.

I got nothing - absolutely nothing - for you.

CrownAxe wrote:How about you learn how to play the game?

Rule 1.

You claim all this stuff is broken and ruins the game but you continue to show you have no idea how to deal with units that aren't even broken

I didn't say that they are broken.

Ultimately, I would say that they're not fun to play against.

Why?

Because a 2+ rerollable cover save means that they won't be picking up models very often. That's too hard to kill.

if you wish to assert that the cover save can be stripped by assaulting, I'll tell you that bikes move fast. It's hard to catch a bike if they don't want to be caught.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:How about you learn how to play the game?

Rule 1.

I still stand by what I said. You should learn how to play the game before you keep insisting you know how to fix it

You claim all this stuff is broken and ruins the game but you continue to show you have no idea how to deal with units that aren't even broken

I didn't say that they are broken.

Ultimately, I would say that they're not fun to play against.

Why?

Because a 2+ rerollable cover save means that they won't be picking up models very often. That's too hard to kill.

if you wish to assert that the cover save can be stripped by assaulting, I'll tell you that bikes move fast. It's hard to catch a bike if they don't want to be caught.

Its only hard to catch them if you insist on only using infantry. There are plenty of units that are as fast if not faster then regular bikes

Not only that but if they are turbo boosting then they aren't shooting you or assaulting you so you can just ignore them because they aren't doing anything.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

Reread the OP.

You don't seem to be getting my point.

I think the larger issue is that you are so stuck on your point that you're not listening to the arguments people are saying.

Enough people have countered your points in this thread enough that I'm not going to waste the time repeating whats been said. What I WILL say is that, it looks like you have NO support here. The rule changes you proposed seem pretty universally panned. And saying, well if you are playing to win then this isn't for you doesn't work. You are proposing a rule change to the ENTIRE game. That includes even those that are only playing to win. You lost the right to omit those people when you made the thread.

I'll reiterate what I and many other people have said. Perhaps 40k is not the right game for you. And I am trying to be helpful here. Please don't take this as a GTFO comment. I legitimately mean you might want to consider looking into other table tops. There might be a better fit for what you are looking for.

Traditio wrote:

From personal experience, I find that the funnest games are when both players pick up lots of models.

I couldn't disagree more with this. The fact that stuff dies so quickly is entirely the problem with 40k. You spend hours building and painting models, you design a list around units that you want to use... And then as often as not, they die before you actually get to do anything with them.

I bought and assembled a vindicator when the kit was released in 2nd edition. It was 5th edition before I actually got to shoot with it, or have it survive past turn 2.

40k is at its best when the game is won through manouvering and achieving objectives, rather than when both players at just picking up all of their models.

I can basically sum up my response to this in one word.

No.

OP, your view on this issue is basically "My way is right, and if you don't agree with me, you're a WAAC TFG who shouldn't be allowed to play."

That's cool. But you won't get many positive responses if you don't accommodate opposing views.

I think your main problem here is your, excuse my tone here, lack of experience. You seem to have only experienced players whose goals may have been to win at all costs, by using the most powerful weapons for them. And you might dislike that. You're welcome to deny them a game. But that doesn't make them wrong. They are playing the game right, according to them, and you're playing it wrong instead by not adapting to the new meta. They are having fun though - and that's not bad. Just don't play against them, and don't force people to play your way because of your (personally) unreasonable preferences. GW doesn't care, so long as you buy their kits and play their game. They don't care if you RP a game or if you bring a literal chunk of cheddar to the table. If you're playing their game, they don't care.

And let's face it - according to you, how does a Tau player have fun? Or a fluffy mechanised army? A Leman Russ tank brigade, perchance? How about an artillery company? Oh wait - they don't conform to your restrictive ruleset. I fail to see how you can claim fluff rules at all, given your predisposition against anything larger than an infantryman.

Here's better advice for you - talk to your opponent about what you want, and what they want. If you want on infantry game, ask for it. If they want to bring their Carnifex wall against you, they'll ask for it. And they might be fine with this. But if you don't like that? Go get another game, because they shouldn't have to change for your expectations. And in this situation, I'd gladly give the Nid player a game.

Your logic of no-rerolling is also fundamentally flawed. So, a 6++ rerollable invuln is bad, but a flat 2++ is a-okay? Cool beans. Such complex maths.

Stuff being supposed to happen - by what rule? It's your opinion that stuff should happen, nowhere does it say that must be the case. Models are killed far too easily now, with elites heavy infantry being removed by handfuls. It's not pleasant to see your centuries old veterans of warfare swept off the table, or your fear-striking battle tank plinked to death, or your leviathan MC being riddled with bullets before it can even get two feet in.
A balance of killing and durability is needed, and your rules do not foster this.

My response on your poll - I voted on your third option. I played Legion Astartes against Tau, no transports, all infantry on the table. The Tau had a Crisis Deathstar, several buffed Fire Warrior squads in Devilfish, Hammerheads, and markerlights buffing a Riptide throughout the game. I loved the game, seeing my infantry storm up the cityscape, swarming the Riptide and bringing it down, my missile teams covering the advance of the Legionaries, the Tau forces fighting a retreat against the implacable blue wave.
It was a close game - one VP difference, IIRC. And although you may have hated seeing your Tactical Squads wiped out by Tau fire, I loved every moment.

But of course, there was nothing fun about fighting that deathstar. /sarcasm
And god forbid I had fun in a way you didn't personally enjoy.

Tl;dr answer: Scrub.

Traditio wrote:

I wish to begin the topic by asking an apparently simple question: What is your primary goal in playing Warhammer 40k? The way I see it, there are two obvious answers:

1. To win
2. To have fun (in some respect other than by winning alone).

Do you wear glasses? I think you should, because you are remarkably shortsighted. It's not binary, because:

3. Both of the above.

Traditio wrote:

And the main source of fun in 2 is the spectacle of 40k.

You know how you go about making broad, sweeping statements like this thst try to lay claim to some allusion of your own authority on things? Yeah, well stop it. Please. I'll even hold your high horses reins while you come down from it. Your selfishness, entitlement, inertia and lack of empathy and lack of accommodation towards other viewpoints is astonishing.

Trying to define 'the main source of fun' is pointless, because it's a different answer for everyone. Especially so since you shrug off any other viewpoints thst are different to your own as wrong tfg nonsense.

Traditio wrote:

Of course, that may be your idea of fun, and if it is, then more power to you, I suppose, but again, this is not the thread for you. We simply won't see eye to eye.

Doesn't matter. This is a discussion forum, where things get discussed. You don't get to decide you is allowed to post. You don't get To don't get to swing on to your high horse,cdemand an echo chamber and demand that all alternative viewpoints are either silenced or not made welcome. That's censorship. And I believe there is a wee thing in the constitution about folks being able to have their say.

Traditio wrote:

So I want you to think back to the last game that you played which you could really call "spectacular," i.e, made for a really good "show," so to speak. When was the last time that you really had FUN in a warhammer 40k game even if you didn't win it? How would you characterize that game?

In the poll, I put three basic options:

1. Battle of Normandy IN SPACE. Basically, tons of infantry (and some vehicles) on both sides. Tons of casualties. Tons of action. The germans may not have won, but bullets were flying everywhere, lots of people died, and both parties did tons of stuff. In other words: STUFFED HAPPENED, and stuffed happened on BOTH sides of the map. Everybody was constantly doing stuff.

2. Godzilla IN SPACE. Basically, big giant monsters (wraithknights, imperial knights, etc.) that take tons of fire power to go down and which the common rank and rile soldiery can't touch. Now, you may have fun playing this way. But think about it from the perspective of the person controlling the tokyo soldiers: is that really fun for them?

3. Super Saiyans vs. tokyo soldiers: Basically the same concept, except you have what are, for all intents and purposes, normal infantry who have ridiculous super powers and are, for all intents and purposes, untouchable. In a game of Vegeta vs. yajirobe, do you REALLY want to play as yajirobe?

1: this works with tons of tanks too. Last few games of flames of war I played were almost entirely tank-company based and it was great fun. It's just the same in 40k. Armoured warfare is a thing, and offers some amazing 'spectacle'.

2: no mention of nidzilla? 'the tyranids are coming. Hold out as long as you can men, while we try and evacuate the...[static]'
Those infantry don't need to touch those Knights or other gargs - I have my tanks and artillery to take the Knights down. My infantry can hold the line. And this might come as a shock to you, but they're not helpless. My marines go into battle with the full support of their chapter. Armour. Drop pods. Grav. Weapons other than bolters. You know, things that stop them being helpless. You should try it some time.

3: sounds like a space marine drop pod assault, and yes, I am game for that. The whole point of the guard is plucky soldiers with a bayonet and some guts behind it, up against all the monsters in the universe. So yes. Sounds great. And again, see above. If all you equip your guys with is basic weapons,cont expect them to hold out when something bigger come knocking. Marines have more in their armouries than bolters and the single formation you insist on. Gulliman would be proud of using options. It's right there in that wee book that he wrote.

So at the end of the day, all three of your scenarios could be great fun, if they're constructed right. So yeah, count me in.

Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming that the fun game is the first one I mentioned (i.e., Normandy in Space). Why?

2 and 3 are not spectacular. They are a mind-numbing, boring exercise in futility and time wasting. There is nothing fun about moving models to an objective and going to ground for 5 turns.

There is nothing fun about playing "Keep away from the death star."

Why? Because in those games, NOTHING HAPPENS. Well, I stand corrected. Plenty of things happen for your opponent. Nothing happens for you. You are playing a giant game of hide and seek, and you never get to seek.

Well, if nothing happens, maybe you should look into how you've built your army and maybe think about expanding its capabilities? You know, drop pods, grav, psykers. If 'Nothing happens' quite so often it boils down to you not using the tools available to you.

Assume nothing. Think outside of that little fish bowl you live in. That right there is at the core of most of the reasons why you find yourself banging your head off the wall. 2 and 3 can be spectacular. Your broad strokes answers show nothing more than your lack of intent to building truly interesting scenarios or stepping out of your scrub mentality and insistence on defining forty-k through a single narrow viewpoint.

Traditio wrote:

Unless, of course, it's Godzilla vs. Godzilla or Super Saiyan Goku vs. Super Saiyan Vegeta.
And that's not the game I signed up for.

That could be a fun game, and in fact, GW released exactly that game (IK vs. IK). But that's not the warhammer 40k that I signed up for.

and yet, the warhammer you signed up for is nothing more than a myopic skew that has no interest for people. Insisting that that defines what 40k should be misses the forest for the trees and does nothing more than show up your own contempt and lack of empathy for your fellows as well as colossal arrogance.

Traditio wrote:

So, in my proposals, I am going to assume that the fun game, that everyone wants to play, is NORMANDY IN SPAAACE!
.

How about 'no'.

Traditio wrote:

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

1: meh.
2: why? Nidzilla is a thing. Tank companies and armour are a thing. Airborne spec-ops are visually very appealing. And frankly, as an anime fan the idea of a mech heavy, Jet pack equipped 'mech' is awesome.
3: lol. Don't use marines then either. Considering how rare they are, they should never turn up, and guardsmen, orks and tyranids should represent 90% of what gets fielded.
4: it's fluffy as hell.
5. Unless you like flyers. Imperial guard airborne is a visually stunning 'spectacle' if you ask me.
6. Super heavies offer some of the greatest 'spectacles' of 40k. The lore is explicit here. They can stand in as some amazing centrepieces around which the game can pivot.

Traditio wrote:

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

None of those things are necessarily 'unfair'.

1: what if I play daemons, or word bearers? The idea of a chaos coven opening a rift to the immaterium and summoning it's filth to cause the doom of worlds is one of the most iconic elements of 40k.
2. Lol. No. Teleportation is fine. Terminators 'warping in' to the enemy hq and gunning down everything in sight is iconic.
3. Isn't this one of the things gw needs to fix?
4. Spread out more.
5. L2p. And 'apparently unfair' is just a cop-out term for 'how dare they play with nice toys that I haven't tried to figure out yet'. Eldridge storm is fine.
6. No more telling people how they should be doing it to conform to your own narrow restrictive and myopic view of 'fun'.

Traditio wrote:
Final point:
From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

All nerfs to is turn the game into a 'race to the bottom'. It's neither harder not easier to balance that way. Nerfing everything accomplishes nothing.The truth is that some nerfs are requires, along with some buffs. 2 or 3 aren't necessarily an issue, despite your claims. They don't need to be 'nerfed' at all.

Your crusade against buffs is misinformed and misplaced. So much of what you consider overpowered is nothing more than a direct result of you not bothering to equip your troops better, and loudly insisting that everyone else is being wrong when you fall short because of your own (lack of) efforts. Scrub. L2p. Git Gud. Self empowerment and self -improvement and using all your options will get you further in game and in life.

Oh, the temptation to take one on the chin for plainly expressing my disgust.

The best games I've played were tough. Close. But stuff was still alive at the end of the game. I used to love playing my Guardsmen, they just don't hack it in 7th but I used to LOVE the fact that I was the Tokyo Soldiers vs the Godzillas of the galaxy. I liked the Fluff of men vs things greater than themselves.

SM are entirely capable of dealing with the myriad wickedness that 7th has brought. If you're willing to adapt your list to your metagame, you'll find that you have the tools to deal. Devs with a couple Grav Cannons can effectively deal with nearly any target, if you don't like Cents. Tougher to use, but still entirely capable.

No, I don't like that Grav has more-or-less become the go-to weapon in the SM arsenal. Truthfully, I despise how the game has become point-and-click destruction. I hate that D-Scythes are even a thing, no matter who has them or what the justification is. The game shouldn't allow the deletion of units without recourse.

But it does. The solution is to either find people that want to play by your heavily modified version of the rules, or to find a different game. I've been sorely tempted to try Warmahordes, myself, and I've been a GW supporter for 20 years. I'm finally getting to the point where I have fully painted armies [I hate painting] and I'm considering dropping it to try something different.

Quite frankly, all of the posts that I've seen you start indicate a complete disconnect from how 40k works. You should probably try Warmahordes out. From what I understand, it's almost entirely "Infantry and Dreadnoughts." I'm also told it's very well balanced. Maybe you should give it a shot.

insaniak wrote:I couldn't disagree more with this. The fact that stuff dies so quickly is entirely the problem with 40k. You spend hours building and painting models, you design a list around units that you want to use... And then as often as not, they die before you actually get to do anything with them.

I bought and assembled a vindicator when the kit was released in 2nd edition. It was 5th edition before I actually got to shoot with it, or have it survive past turn 2.

40k is at its best when the game is won through manouvering and achieving objectives, rather than when both players at just picking up all of their models.

I don't think that this necessarily conflicts with the main theses of the OP.

Saying that both sides should take casualties at roughly an equal rate, assuming identical player skill, is not the same thing as asserting that both sides should take heavy casualties.

I completely agree with you about a lot of the fun of 40k being about obtaining victory through manouvering, which, may I add, the things I mentioned in the OP actually work against.

The last really fun game I played was Crimson Fists vs. Gray Knights.

What ultimately clinched my victory in the game was my strategic placement of a wall of rhinos in between my forces and my opponent's death star and the subsequent successful tank shock.

Maneuvering and positioning matter more when you are playing with more infantry and fewer high RoF weapons. When you are running nothing but scatter bikes, or when you are running an untouchable deathstar/godzilla? Not quite so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:OP, your view on this issue is basically "My way is right, and if you don't agree with me, you're a WAAC TFG who shouldn't be allowed to play."

I didn't actually say that. If you review the OP, those words (nor even those sentiments) simply are not present.

I did present the dichotomy:

40k is fun primarily because:

1. Winning

or

2. Spectacle

I then argued that if 40k is fun because it is spectacular, then certain conclusions should follow.

I did assert that if the fun of 40k is primarily from winning, that you shouldn't post in this thread, but didn't explicitly attach any normative valuation to this.

That's cool. But you won't get many positive responses if you don't accommodate opposing views.

The arguments presuppose that you accept my premise: 40k is fun primarily because it is spectacular. If you don't accept the premise, then you won't accept the arguments or the conclusions; therefore, this thread simply isn't for you.

And let's face it - according to you, how does a Tau player have fun?

Or a fluffy mechanised army? A Leman Russ tank brigade, perchance? How about an artillery company? Oh wait - they don't conform to your restrictive ruleset. I fail to see how you can claim fluff rules at all, given your predisposition against anything larger than an infantryman.

If you've accepted my premises, there is nothing fun about any of those things.

There's nothing spectacular about playing against Tau.

There is nothing fun about having a Tiananmen square re-enactment.

And there was nothing spectacular about WWI. You doubt this? Then go watch a movie about WWI. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Enjoy 2 hours of mind-numbing boredom.

Here's better advice for you - talk to your opponent about what you want, and what they want. If you want on infantry game, ask for it. If they want to bring their Carnifex wall against you, they'll ask for it. And they might be fine with this. But if you don't like that? Go get another game, because they shouldn't have to change for your expectations. And in this situation, I'd gladly give the Nid player a game.

Actually, I very much propose something like the following:

You should assume that your opponent wants a spectacle. As such, you should assume that the standard is what I've presented in the OP. As such, every other army should come with a warning label.

"Just so you know, I'm running smashfether. Do you really want to waste the next 3 hours of your life?"

"Just so you know, I have 10 leeman russes. Are you ready for 3 hours of beating your head against a wall?"

"Just so you know; my army relies on psyker shenanigans/bull excrement. You ready for 3 hours of sheer frustration/annoyance?"

Your logic of no-rerolling is also fundamentally flawed. So, a 6++ rerollable invuln is bad, but a flat 2++ is a-okay? Cool beans. Such complex maths.

I don't like the slippery slope of where the permissive attitude to rerollable saves leads. You start at a 6++ rerollable, and then you're arguing for the 4+ armor save, the 4+ rerollable reanimation protocols.

My answer? No. No rerollable saves. Nip that in the bud from the start.

Stuff being supposed to happen - by what rule?

It follows almost trivially from the hypothesis of the OP, ie, that the fun of 40k is from the spectacle.

You are free to reject that hypothesis, but if you do, then I've already made clear in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.

Models are killed far too easily now, with elites heavy infantry being removed by handfuls.

Therefore the things that kill those things so easily need to be nerfed. Nerf grav, for starters, and super heavies.

It's not pleasant to see your centuries old veterans of warfare swept off the table, or your fear-striking battle tank plinked to death, or your leviathan MC being riddled with bullets before it can even get two feet in.

And a dangerous alternative is making those things too difficult to kill. If that centuries old veteran has a 2+ rerollable save and a rerollable FNP, then the opponent is going to have a bad time. If that leviathan MC is a flier with a rerollable invuln, the opponent is going to have a bad time.

A balance of killing and durability is needed, and your rules do not foster this.

Yes. They do.

If the vast majority of your army is infantry and dedicated transports, the "I am disappointed because my big scary expensive thing died on turn 1" isn't really a thing.

Everything is and should be expendable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those of you who disagree with the OP, I also wish to point out what the OP entails:

Playing against a SM battle company (without smashfether or fliers) is fun and spectacular.

Playing against orks is spectacular and fun.

Traditio wrote:
Saying that both sides should take casualties at roughly an equal rate, assuming identical player skill, is not the same thing as asserting that both sides should take heavy casualties.

However, you have very clearly stated that you expect both sides to take heavy casualties.

If you've accepted my premises, there is nothing fun about any of those things.

There's nothing spectacular about playing against Tau.

There is nothing fun about having a Tiananmen square re-enactment.

And there was nothing spectacular about WWI. You doubt this? Then go watch a movie about WWI. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Enjoy 2 hours of mind-numbing boredom.

IOW, "if you have accepted my premise that I am always right about everything and anything I don't enjoy can not be fun for anyone" then yeah, there's nothing fun about them. However, in the real world where the rest of us play, things like Tau, tank-heavy armies, etc, can be just as fun and spectacular as your tactical squad spam.

Actually, I very much propose something like the following:

You should assume that your opponent wants a spectacle. As such, you should assume that the standard is what I've presented in the OP. As such, every other army should come with a warning label.

Why should your method of playing be the default? Why not assume that competitive play and/or giant monsters are the default? Maybe it's your army that should come with a warning label:

"Just so you know, I'm taking nothing but tactical squads and can't deal with flyers/artillery/Tau/good saves/teleporting/psykers/death stars/Tyranids/etc, could you also play a bunch of tactical squads?"

I don't like the slippery slope of where the permissive attitude to rerollable saves leads. You start at a 6++ rerollable, and then you're arguing for the 4+ armor save, the 4+ rerollable reanimation protocols.

It's only a slippery slope because you refuse to acknowledge that your rule is bad. The rest of us have no problem saying "no unit can have more than an X% chance of negating a wound/vehicle damage", and it doesn't matter if the X% is obtained by re-rolling saves, stacking saves with non-save damage prevention, etc.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, you asserted it, but this goes beyond "if you only care about winning this isn't for you". Not only are you attempting to limit the discussion to casual/fluff players, you're attempting to limit it to people who like the exact same kinds of units/armies that you like.

I'm limiting the discussion to people who think that the fun of 40k consists primarily from a spectacle in which stuff happens.

If that's not your idea of fun, then this isn't the thread for you.

IOW, people who love the fluff and spectacle of giant Tau robots fighting giant Tyranid monsters are not welcome. And that's a pretty clear concession that your proposed rules are worthless as a general "how you should play 40k" guide that other people can benefit from.

My underlying assumption is that you don't know what your opponent is running. If you plan in advance to play THIS vs. THAT, then my comments are irrelevant.

No, it requires basic math that can be done with a trivial amount of effort. And I think doing a trivial amount of basic math is a small price to pay for making rules that only exclude the problem units, not everything in a whole general category. I think we can all see the absurdity of allowing a unit with a 3++ but banning a unit with a re-rollable 5++ which has a lower chance of saving a wound than the unit with the 3++

Again, I don't like the slippery slope which this entails. Well if THIS is ok, why not THIS, etc, etc, etc.

No re-rollable saves. Period.

]And this is why we should have a house rule that infantry-only lists are banned, and you must bring anti-tank units. The fact that stuff isn't dying is entirely your fault.

No. The patent absurdity of this statement should be self-evident.

Remember what happened last time you said this about my tank-heavy army? You had to apologize for your ridiculous stereotypes after looking at my painting thread and realizing that I do in fact care about more than just winning efficiently.

It has nothing to do with your list. I quote you:

"IMO take the most powerful options, paint your models well, and make up some appropriate fluff to justify it" (Peregrine, 2016/04/28 02:13:23).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688916.page#8618656

Your statement speaks for itself.

And this is just demonstrating a complete ignorance of the Tau faction and 40k in general. Stuff happens with Tau on one or both sides of the battle, period. No amount of ridiculous arguments otherwise will change this fact.

The poll and commentary conducted in the general 40k discussion subforum speak for themselves. There was a thread about what the least favorite army to play against with is. The overwhelming answer was Tau. Why? Because it's a non-interactive army.

In other words: Because STUFF HAPPENS doesn't happen when you play against Tau.

IOW, don't play Tyranids. MCs are a fundamental part of the Tyranid army, we might as well tell you to leave all of your tactical squads at home.

In just the same way that a SM player need not take only tactical squads, the tyrranids player need not spam flyrants.

That depends on what the maximum chance of negating a wound is. A 5++ re-rollable is a 55% chance, and 5+ FNP is a 33% chance. Is a 30% chance of taking an unsaved wound ok? This roughly translates to a 3+ save (33.333%), so it pretty clearly should be allowed.

Fair enough. I'm willing to say that a 2+ save should be the maximum allowable save (i.e., a 1/6 chance of inflicting the wound).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:However, you have very clearly stated that you expect both sides to take heavy casualties.

In comparison to what happens against the so called "Godzilla" or "Supersaiyan" lists.

In comparison to what happens when you play against Necron decurion lists, both sides should take heavy casualties.

This is not the same thing as saying that both armies should be practically tabled by turn 5.

Traditio wrote:
I'm limiting the discussion to people who think that the fun of 40k consists primarily from a spectacle in which stuff happens.

If that's not your idea of fun, then this isn't the thread for you.

No, you're also excluding people who think that Tau giant robots vs. Tyranid giant monsters is a spectacle, or that "things happen" when Tau are in the game, etc. You are essentially declaring that anyone who doesn't play your specific army is not welcome in the discussion. You want an echo chamber for people to praise your ideas, not honest feedback and discussion.

Again, I don't like the slippery slope which this entails. Well if THIS is ok, why not THIS, etc, etc, etc.

No re-rollable saves. Period.

And, again, it's only a slippery slope if you insist on making it one to defend your argument. I'll just copy/paste my previous reply on this:

It's only a slippery slope because you refuse to acknowledge that your rule is bad. The rest of us have no problem saying "no unit can have more than an X% chance of negating a wound/vehicle damage", and it doesn't matter if the X% is obtained by re-rolling saves, stacking saves with non-save damage prevention, etc.

No. The patent absurdity of this statement should be self-evident.

Why? Because you don't agree with it? Why is it reasonable to say "don't bring lots of tanks", but not reasonable to say "don't bring lots of units that can't kill tanks"?

The poll and commentary conducted in the general 40k discussion subforum speak for themselves. There was a thread about what the least favorite army to play against with is. The overwhelming answer was Tau. Why? Because it's a non-interactive army.

In other words: Because STUFF HAPPENS doesn't happen when you play against Tau.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of Tau and the game in general. Tau have some major balance issues that can lead to non-interactive games, but they also have plenty of other stuff that is just fine. A blanket ban on Tau is absolutely insane.

Peregrine wrote:No, you're also excluding people who think that Tau giant robots vs. Tyranid giant monsters is a spectacle, or that "things happen" when Tau are in the game, etc.

Again, my underlying assumption is that each player doesn't know what the other player is bringing and has not made a previous agreement that THIS shall face off against THAT.

IK vs. IK might be spectacular. But you shouldn't assume that you'll be facing another IK list unless such an agreement has already been made.

Why? Because you don't agree with it? Why is it reasonable to say "don't bring lots of tanks", but not reasonable to say "don't bring lots of units that can't kill tanks"?

I'm not going to argue this point. Again, it should be self-evident to any reasonable observer.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of Tau and the game in general. Tau have some major balance issues that can lead to non-interactive games, but they also have plenty of other stuff that is just fine. A blanket ban on Tau is absolutely insane.

Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

Traditio wrote:


Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

Have you already set your goal posts up on wheels? I imagine constantly moving them around must be a pain otherwise.

Traditio wrote:


Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

I've got a buddy who runs Tau where stuff happens(!). I can give a rough estimate of what he runs:



Everything but the Hammerheads, the lone FW and the Broadside is in my face by turn two. Stuff Happens. I usually lose against this.

Traditio wrote:
Again, my underlying assumption is that each player doesn't know what the other player is bringing and has not made a previous agreement that THIS shall face off against THAT.

IK vs. IK might be spectacular. But you shouldn't assume that you'll be facing another IK list unless such an agreement has already been made.

Why shouldn't IK vs. IK be the default that everyone expects? Perhaps the real problem is that you're trying to play a non-standard list that doesn't have any giant robots/monsters to stomp around the city with, and you should have a warning label:

"Just so you know, I refuse to bring any giant monsters of my own, so I'm going to auto-lose to normal lists."

I'm not going to argue this point. Again, it should be self-evident to any reasonable observer.

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again.

Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

No, because no matter what I post you'll come back with "nobody would ever play that, Tau players are all WAAC TFGs (as you've said, that's the "Tau mentality") who always spam the most overpowered units".

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

The list my opponent took. By which I had the enjoyable game in your OP.

(Not exact - but this is the basis of his units)

Points - 2k
Warlord Trait - Accurate Deep Strike (rolled for)

Crisis Commander - plasma rifle, fusion rifle, iridium armour, shield generator and some other stuff

3x Crisis Suit bodyguard, shield generators and plasma + fusion on each guy

Broadside with HRR and shield generator

Piranha with fusion rifle and all available upgrades

Hammerhead with HRR and all other upgrades, bar Longstrike

12 man Fire Warrior Strike Squad with bonding knives and Devilfish

11 man Fire Warrior Strike Squad with bonding knives and Devilfish

Cadre Fireblade

Full Pathfinder unit with 3x Rail Rifles

Riptide with IA, missile pod thing, Stimulant Injector and EWO.

I had a fun game, even by your standards. Things died, it was cinematic, spectacular and generally enjoyable. Yet, according to you, that's not fun.
Nice to see you can determine fun for me.

More bad form, old chum.

You're speaking in generalities, and then expecting others to speak in specifics so you can attack their individual cases with your own hypotheticals. Anyone here could say that, in general, there are non-tourney Tau lists that we've faced that were interactive. I can personally attest to that, though I don't recall the specifics of their construction. We were playing non-tourney competitive, because that's the game we enjoy. You need to envision 40k as something other than your "spectacle" of infantry splattering each other.

There are other forms of enjoyment that are not Win vs Spectacle [as you define it].

I like having a variety of opponents to face. I like being able to bring a variety of units to the table. Not all units can interact. That's the way it is. I enjoy the pitting of my wits against my opponent's. Previous editions of the game were better at this than things are now. There are ways to deal with units you can't harm / that can wipe you out without effort. That's the game now. It's not good, but it is the way it is. You have a problem with how the game plays. But it's clearly your problem. Your own internal resistance to playing the game any other way than the way you imagine.

I play to win. I prefer that to losing. I have a good time either way, because that's one of the ways my friends and I socialize. I'm not heart broken when I lose. I bust my buddies' balls a bit when I win, because that's the "prize." Bragging rights between buddies. But that's fading now, as we all realize how lop-sided our games are. So the fun is mostly in trying to overcome the Godzillas / Saiyans in the room with what I've got.

Look to tactics other than direct confrontation. You might have some fun that way.

PS: your poll should include the option to "Take whatever I want vs whatever my opponent wants to bring". Because that's my favourite way to play.

Traditio wrote:
Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

No matter how much you nerf everything in the Necron codex, nobody will take C'Tan.

This is why buffs are the easiest method.

There's also the of point where it makes the game more varied to buff some units with special rules for example Wolf Scouts are much more interesting with a special rule for outflanking compared to just being SM Scouts +1.

Peregrine wrote:Why shouldn't IK vs. IK be the default that everyone expects?

Again, this is a ridiculous question and you're only asking it for rhetorical purposes.

The IK codex is one out of how many? The wraithknight is one option out of how many in the eldar codex?

How many models in the imperial guard codex has an AV value? How many do not?

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again.

If you legitimately cannot see why your initial claim, as presented, was purely sophistic, a mere rhetorical language game, then let's return to what you said:

"And this is why we should have a house rule that infantry-only lists are banned, and you must bring anti-tank units. The fact that stuff isn't dying is entirely your fault."

That would be like telling someone: "Oh, you wanted to kill me with your handgun? You should have brought a high caliber rifle. I'm wearing body armor. It's your fault that you couldn't kill me."

While that's certainly true in some broad sense (i.e., had the shooter wished to bypass body armor, he should have used a high caliber rifle), it's strange to assign the responsibility for the failure of the shooter to kill his target to the shooter. The responsibility lies on the person wearing body armor: that's the whole reason he put it on in the first place.

Likewise in the case of tanks. That's the whole reason you use a tank in the first place, i.e., to confer immunity to small arms fire. You can't bring something specifically to invalidate at least part of my army and then assign blame to me that this part of my army has been invalidated.

That's the whole reason you brought a tank to begin with.

And here, you might launch on some sophistical oration about how tank are cool and fluffy and so forth and so on, but let's face the facts:

A tank is a heavily armored vehicle. The whole reason it's heavily armored is to stop bullets.

No, because no matter what I post you'll come back with "nobody would ever play that, Tau players are all WAAC TFGs (as you've said, that's the "Tau mentality") who always spam the most overpowered units".

Let me see, how did you phrase this earlier...? Oh yes:

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again

As much as I don't usually agree with Peregrine, he's pretty much on the dot. You do dismiss the notion of backing up your claims because you believe you are always right and everyone thinks you are always right.

Traditio wrote:
The IK codex is one out of how many? The wraithknight is one option out of how many in the eldar codex?

And now you're missing the point, I suspect deliberately. The IK codex is just one of many, but there are a lot of different "big monster" units: Stormsurges, Tyranid GMCs, Wraithknights, etc. Plus then there's all the various superheavy tanks, if you expand "big monster" to include huge units of all types, not literal Godzilla vs. giant robot fights. And you may have noticed that GW keeps making more big models, formations with multiple big models, etc. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that these are a normal and important part of the game.

While that's certainly true in some broad sense (i.e., had the shooter wished to bypass body armor, he should have used a high caliber rifle), it's strange to assign the responsibility for the failure of the shooter to kill his target to the shooter. The responsibility lies on the person wearing body armor: that's the whole reason he put it on in the first place.

I honestly have no idea what your intent with this analogy is. It makes absolutely no sense, and I don't think I'm the only one who is going to feel that way about it.

Likewise in the case of tanks. That's the whole reason you use a tank in the first place, i.e., to confer immunity to small arms fire. You can't bring something specifically to invalidate at least part of my army and then assign blame to me that this part of my army has been invalidated.

Uh, no. There are a great many reasons to bring tanks that are not "immunity to small arms fire". Just stop with this absurd argument.

Let me see, how did you phrase this earlier...? Oh yes:

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again

Oh FFS, what is this, yelling "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" like a child? You know perfectly well that there's a difference between "I'm self-evidently right" and "I could provide an example, but I know you're going to reject it based on absurd stereotypes about Tau players". You and I both know that your first requirement ("people actually play") is so you can dismiss any example of a Tau list where stuff happens with "Tau players are all TFGs and don't use lists like that".

Peregrine wrote:And now you're missing the point, I suspect deliberately. The IK codex is just one of many, but there are a lot of different "big monster" units: Stormsurges, Tyranid GMCs, Wraithknights, etc. Plus then there's all the various superheavy tanks, if you expand "big monster" to include huge units of all types, not literal Godzilla vs. giant robot fights. And you may have noticed that GW keeps making more big models, formations with multiple big models, etc. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that these are a normal and important part of the game.

Lots of codices don't have big monsters. Where are the big monsters in the Skitari codex? The grey knights codex? The space marines codex? The imperial guard codex?

I honestly have no idea what your intent with this analogy is. It makes absolutely no sense, and I don't think I'm the only one who is going to feel that way about it.

My claim is that you shouldn't spam tanks. Your counterclaim is that I shouldn't bring things that can't kill tanks.

It would be like claiming that it's somehow A's fault that he can't kill B with his handgun because A decided to wear a bullet proof vest that day.

Uh, no. There are a great many reasons to bring tanks that are not "immunity to small arms fire". Just stop with this absurd argument.

No, there aren't. Historically, this is just true. The whole reason people started using tanks in the first place is to be able to cross WW I no-mans lands.

If you wanted the firepower, and didn't really care about the immunity to small arms, you'd just use mobile artillery (e.g., the eldar mobile artillery batteries).

Traditio wrote:
How many models in the imperial guard codex has an AV value? How many do not?

This is a stupid way of analyzing things, but even by your standard you are wrong. If you don't count HQ models that are always attached to other units IG have a total of 29 units. 14 of them are non-vehicle units, 15 are vehicles. And quite a few of those infantry units are just sub-units of infantry/stormtrooper platoons. So the "standard" IG unit is a tank of some kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Lots of codices don't have big monsters. Where are the big monsters in the Skitari codex? The grey knights codex? The space marines codex? The imperial guard codex?

Where are the infantry in the IK codex? The IG armored company list? Not every army has giant monsters, not every army has lots of infantry. Your continued attempts to establish "lots of infantry" as the default and "giant monsters" as some kind of weird exception are growing increasingly bizarre.

My claim is that you shouldn't spam tanks. Your counterclaim is that I shouldn't bring things that can't kill tanks.

It would be like claiming that it's somehow A's fault that he can't kill B with his handgun because A decided to wear a bullet proof vest that day.

Again, that analogy makes no sense at all. The things involved in it do not at all map to equivalent things in the 40k situation.

No, there aren't. Historically, this is just true. The whole reason people started using tanks in the first place is to be able to cross WW I no-mans lands.

What does this have to do with 40k? 40k is not real history, nor do 40k players make decisions for reasons that have anything to do with historical reasons for doing things.

If you wanted the firepower, and didn't really care about the immunity to small arms, you'd just use mobile artillery (e.g., the eldar mobile artillery batteries).

Oh, you mean the static FW guns which can't move, are pretty clearly overpowered, and trigger an endless flood of "FW isn't legal" whining if you try to use them? Or are you honestly suggesting that if I want firepower I should get rid of my IG and play Eldar instead, just because you don't like tanks?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

No matter how much you nerf everything in the Necron codex, nobody will take C'Tan.

This is why buffs are the easiest method.

You have yet to answer me.

Peregrine wrote:This is a stupid way of analyzing things, but even by your standard you are wrong. If you don't count HQ models that are always attached to other units IG have a total of 29 units. 14 of them are non-vehicle units, 15 are vehicles. And quite a few of those infantry units are just sub-units of infantry/stormtrooper platoons. So the "standard" IG unit is a tank of some kind.

Fair point.

It is, however, worthy of note that IG players are presented with two, and exactly two, basic troop selections: infantry platoons and veteran squads.

Where are the infantry in the IK codex?

There are no infantry in the IK codex. That said, it's a popular opinion that IK should be restricted to apocalypse games. So, there's that.

The IG armored company list?

List =/= codex.

Not every army has giant monsters, not every army has lots of infantry.

Leaving out IK, what army can you think of that doesn't have the capacity to field "lots of infantry"? Even granting you your leeman russes (we noting here, mind you, that there are many armored things in the IG codex which are not leeman russ tanks; there are walkers, for example), you could easily make an IG list with a neat mix of AV and basic infantry. It would be very WWII-ish.

Again, that analogy makes no sense at all. The things involved in it do not at all map to equivalent things in the 40k situation.

They're basically the same, if you understand the purpose of armored vehicles as relative to small arms fire. Just as bullet proof vests are used to stop hand guns, so armored tanks are used invalidate small arms.

What does this have to do with 40k? 40k is not real history, nor do 40k players make decisions for reasons that have anything to do with historical reasons for doing things.

Thought experiment:

Let us assume that GW made it so that leeman russ battle tanks stopped being vehicles. Instead, they became T6 monstrous creatures with 4 wounds and a 3+ armor save.

Would you continue to use them? Why or why not?

Oh, you mean the static FW guns which can't move, are pretty clearly overpowered, and trigger an endless flood of "FW isn't legal" whining if you try to use them? Or are you honestly suggesting that if I want firepower I should get rid of my IG and play Eldar instead, just because you don't like tanks?

Point noted. Nonetheless, my point is simply this. There are three key advantages to using a tank:

1. Immunity to small arms fire.
2. Mobility
3. The ability to carry heavy munitions.

If you were solely interested in 3, there are options other than tanks
If you were solely interested in 2, there are options other than tanks.

Even within the context of the IG codex, there are options other than leeman russ battle tanks. IG players like leeman russ battle tanks because the the front AV is a 14 and the side AV is a 13.

That's why leeman russes rock, whereas predators...not so much.

So this thread can be summoned up with

"I have no wish to change my list to include anti vehicle weapons and anti flyer weapons therefore no one is allowed to bring them , and if you basic troops are better at shooting , you can bring them either . If you do , your trying to win and thats not allowed.

is this a close TL: DR ?

kambien wrote:
So this thread can be summoned up with

"I have no wish to change my list to include anti vehicle weapons and anti flyer weapons therefore no one is allowed to bring them , and if you basic troops are better at shooting , you can bring them either . If you do , your trying to win and thats not allowed.

is this a close TL: DR ?

No.

That's not really the point that I was making at all.

My point could be summed up more as:

Don't run lists that invalidate other lists and force your opponent to play the "hide and seek" game.

Even more simply:

Don't run lists that give you an obvious, foreseeable and inordinate advantage over other lists or which reasonably could be considered obviously unfair.

Traditio wrote:
It is, however, worthy of note that IG players are presented with two, and exactly two, basic troop selections: infantry platoons and veteran squads.

So? Troops are just one FOC slot. You could just as relevantly point out that every IG heavy support slot is a vehicle, and all but one fast attack slot (rough riders, which are cavalry, not infantry) is a vehicle.

List =/= codex.

That's just nitpicking and you know it.

Leaving out IK, what army can you think of that doesn't have the capacity to field "lots of infantry"? Even granting you your leeman russes (we noting here, mind you, that there are many armored things in the IG codex which are not leeman russ tanks; there are walkers, for example), you could easily make an IG list with a neat mix of AV and basic infantry. It would be very WWII-ish.

I told you, IG armored company (using the ABG army list). The tanks are the core of the army, while the infantry are extremely limited and all require dedicated transports (AKA more tanks).

They're basically the same, if you understand the purpose of armored vehicles as relative to small arms fire. Just as bullet proof vests are used to stop hand guns, so armored tanks are used invalidate small arms.

And you're still not making any sense. Taking a gun to shoot someone is not the same as two players each picking their own things. Nor does your speculation about assigning fault to the shooter or the target make any sense.

Let us assume that GW made it so that leeman russ battle tanks stopped being vehicles. Instead, they became T6 monstrous creatures with 4 wounds and a 3+ armor save.

Would you continue to use them? Why or why not?

No, because that would be obviously stupid. They'd be more powerful, but they'd also bring in the stupidity of moving/assaulting like MCs. And I think it should be obvious why a heavy tank shouldn't be running forward to chop stuff apart in melee.

If you were solely interested in 3, there are options other than tanks
If you were solely interested in 2, there are options other than tanks.

There really aren't. If you're an IG player and want speed and firepower you have two choices: LRBTs, artillery, or flyers. Artillery tanks are still tanks, and are banned under your "minimum barrage weapons" rule. Flyers are often just as hard to kill, lack overall firepower because they spend half the game in reserve, and are banned under your "minimum flyers" rule. If you also want to exclude LRBTs then you've essentially told IG players "you can only bring infantry hordes for my marines to mow down by the handful".

Even within the context of the IG codex, there are options other than leeman russ battle tanks. IG players like leeman russ battle tanks because the the front AV is a 14 and the side AV is a 13.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

No, really, have you ever played with LRBTs? Their high AV isn't all that great against melta and D-weapons, and AV 10/11 in the back makes them incredibly vulnerable to deep striking and/or melee units. It does give you some ability to move away from LOS blocking terrain without instantly dying like a Basilisk, but it's far from the invulnerable defense you seem to think it is. Perhaps if you didn't have such a long list of units, many of which are good against LRBTs, that you refuse to take you wouldn't be so impressed by AV 14/13/10?

The real reason IG players take LRBTs is that they're mobile firepower. They have better guns than the Basilisk/Wyvern in most situations, and have much better mobility than any infantry options. Their high AV is useful for preventing them from instantly dying on turn 1, but it is not even close to the primary reason to take them.

That's why leeman russes rock, whereas predators...not so much.

No, Predators are bad because they're a 2nd edition unit. Back then a single autocannon was an appropriate gun for a tank. Now it isn't, and their firepower is mediocre at best. Give them 7th edition level firepower and they'd be a good unit.

Not only that, but many IG players use Leman Russes because they are one of the most iconic vehicles in 40k.


And honestly if your Tactical Marine list is entirely invalidated by every other list because they have a vehicle which you can't hurt with your boltguns, that's on you entirely. "Normandy/Saiyan/Godzilla in Space" are all valid playstyles, and 40k as a game in it's current form is a mixture of all 3, not one or the other. If we all thought like you people could only play "Basic Troop Spam and an Elite or 2" because apparently everything else is OP and makes you a TFG.


It's a sad day when a Trukk-spam Ork list (a terrible, uncompetitive but still often run list because it's fluffy as hell for Evil Sunz and can be a blast to play) is decried as OP asf with people who play it being labelled as TFGs.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:And honestly if your Tactical Marine list is entirely invalidated by every other list because they have a vehicle which you can't hurt with your boltguns, that's on you entirely. "Normandy/Saiyan/Godzilla in Space" are all valid playstyles, and 40k as a game in it's current form is a mixture of all 3, not one or the other. If we all thought like you people could only play "Basic Troop Spam and an Elite or 2" because apparently everything else is OP and makes you a TFG.

This doesn't follow from the OP.

It's a sad day when a Trukk-spam Ork list (a terrible, uncompetitive but still often run list because it's fluffy as hell for Evil Sunz and can be a blast to play) is decried as OP asf with people who play it being labelled as TFGs.

You mean, all of those infantry and their dedicated transports?

The kind of thing that I directly propose in my OP?

I'd hardly call an equal number of infantry unit to vehicles "infantry and some tanks" (Your "Normandy in Space" option that you harp on about being the 'correct' option), especially since such lists also consist of bike spam, battle wagon spam, deffkopta spam or warbuggy spam, all of which aren't infantry.

and I'm sorry, but the first point really does, because apparently anything bigger that a tactical marine or terminator is too power if taken more than 'a few times'. It might be a tad hyperbolic, but then so is your view that every Tau player is a TFG who creates lists where 'nothing happens' and try to beat their opponents face with a rulebook full of loopholes, or that all tanks all the time is a TFG move.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I'd hardly call an equal number of infantry unit to vehicles "infantry and some tanks" (Your "Normandy in Space" option that you harp on about being the 'correct' option),

I specifically said infantry and their dedicated transports.

especially since such lists also consist of bike spam, battle wagon spam, deffkopta spam or warbuggy spam, all of which aren't infantry.

Infantry being the thing that I said should be the vast majority of the list, yes?

and I'm sorry, but the first point really does, because apparently anything bigger that a tactical marine or terminator is too power if taken more than 'a few times'. It might be a tad hyperbolic, but then so is your view that every Tau player is a TFG who creates lists where 'nothing happens' and try to beat their opponents face with a rulebook full of loopholes, or that all tanks all the time is a TFG move.

Reread the OP. I simply don't believe that you've given it a fair reading, and even if you have, I don't believe that you've fully understood it.

You never make any mention of dedicated transports at all in your original post. I see now that you said later in a single post that "Normandy in Space" means "tons of infantry and dedicated transports". That's still not what a typical trukk-spam Speed Freakz/Evil Sunz list is.

Not really, considering at most they'll be 72 infantry models at most (6 units w/ ICs in them), and more likely than not only 4 units worth (maximum of 48 models). The rest of the units will all be bikes, jetbikes or vehicles (mostly vehicles). They'll most likely be as many if not more bikes/jetbike and vehicles combined (even bikes/jetbikes by themselves) than normal infantry.

I understand your original post completely. You think all games should be mostly infantry units with 1 or 2 non-dedicated transport vehicles or MCs on the side, and that everyone else is having fun the wrong way or is being a TFG player by cramping your style.

Traditio wrote:


The kind of thing that I directly propose in my OP?

Did you read your own post?

There is literally nothing in your OP that states a large number of DTs are acceptable. The only thing you mention in that regard actually runs counter to it by stating most of the army must have the infantry type (in points and model count), and another one liner that it should be mostly infantry and some vehicles. I don't know about you, but that to me (and by the sounds of it, most people in the thread) read 'some' vehicles as not being allowed to have every unit riding in a vehicle, which also fits with the idea of not spending the vast majority of your points on DTs. If you stated later that DTs are fine, then include it in the OP, or politely refer to it when someone points it out.

So before you try and belittle people about not reading your OP or not understanding it, maybe you should go and clarify exactly what it is you're proposing and hoist some of this feedback and learn something. Right now, you're doing your standard 'discussion' method of telling everyone they're wrong and that you're the only one who's right.

OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

kambien wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

According to traditio, yes. you're a bad person for spending lots of money on this hobby, as that was money that could have been spent on Charity. And you're a bad person for trying to get 'serious' about the game and trying to figure out what works.

Deadnight wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

According to traditio, yes. you're a bad person for spending lots of money on this hobby, as that was money that could have been spent on Charity. And you're a bad person for trying to get 'serious' about the game and trying to figure out what works.

Except 40k is probably the most expensive hobby ever (for normal people). Seriously, Fantasy LARPing is cheaper and i dropped like 300 dollars on my costume and weapons. I dropped that on CSM units for a Kill Team campaign!

So ya, if you dont want to spend money, this is the wrong hobby.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

You misunderstand me. I think that modeling/painting, etc. is part of the spectacle. A sea of gray plastic is anti-spectacle.

But if you are playing to win, then you are going to be forced to always keep on buying the new "best" stuff.

You played Chaos space marines in 3rd? Lulz. Enjoy Eldar in 4th. And now rhino rush in 5th. 6th ed? BACK TO ELDAR! BIG GIANT ROBOTS!

You basically would have to pick up an entirely different army pretty much every edition, at least once per edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:Did you read your own post?

Apparently I don't. I didn't say anything about DTs in the OP...that was in a later posting on my part.

There is literally nothing in your OP that states a large number of DTs are acceptable. The only thing you mention in that regard actually runs counter to it by stating most of the army must have the infantry type (in points and model count), and another one liner that it should be mostly infantry and some vehicles. I don't know about you, but that to me (and by the sounds of it, most people in the thread) read 'some' vehicles as not being allowed to have every unit riding in a vehicle, which also fits with the idea of not spending the vast majority of your points on DTs. If you stated later that DTs are fine, then include it in the OP, or politely refer to it when someone points it out.

If you run an army entirely of infantry and dedicated transports, the maximum number of vehicles you'll have is 1 out of every 6 models. That's over 80 percent infantry in terms of model numbers.

Traditio wrote:


If you run an army entirely of infantry and dedicated transports, the maximum number of vehicles you'll have is 1 out of every 6 models. That's over 80 percent infantry in terms of model numbers.

And as per your OP, in the post you quoted no less, you specifically mention that the vast majority also includes points.

In other words, according to you, having a Chimera for every infantry squad would be wrong, seeing as the Chimera is 65pts plus upgrades while an infantry squad is 50pts plus upgrades, making vehicles over half the total point investment.

Which, according to common sense, would mean it would not be the vast majority.

Unless of course you'd like to further clarify what you actually mean.

My point being that you need to be 100% clear. Vague notions like "stuff happens" can not be quantified and discussed as every single person will have a different idea of what that means. Terms like "vast majority" have some meaning, but again, are vague, especially the way you worded it. Without even getting into how absolutely absurd your proposals are, they are vague, poorly worded and explained, and offer even more abuse then the rules you're trying to avoid. Which units are undercosted? By how much? According to what standard? Define spamming, and then explain why spamming is inherently bad and should be avoided. Define unfair powers, or more importantly, define unfair. Then explain what minimize should be treated as. Should it be a 0-1 option? What about 0-2? Maybe 3? At what point limit? Which units in particular? Which armies?

Really though, don't actually bother trying to define or explain all those things because you'll never get anyone to agree to any majority of it. They're all far too nebulous or terrible band-aid universal applications when the real solution is the scalpel of fixing what's actually broken.

Like anything in life, you get out of something based on what you put in. Simple and easy 'fixes' like NO TAU will get you poor end results because no effort was made to fix any of the underlying issues. If you go in and re-evaluate every unit and adjust their points, abilities and general role, you'll get a much better end result. One in which players don't feel alienated, insulted, and generally belittled.

Want to fix the game? Then fix the game, don't resort to easy fixes that do more harm then good. Roll up your sleeves and fix the broken nonsense and bring up the terrible garbage. Adjust the core rules as necessary.

Or just nuke the whole thing and start over.

*Edit* To be clear, I don't disagree with every one of your proposals. I've long been a proponent of minizming superheavies in standard 40k, but the solution is elegant; grab 30k's structure for list building, which has appropriate limits and even a detachment for all superheavies with balancing considerations built in. Same with flyers, as frankly, they feel awkward at this scale. That said, the solution can be far more elegant than just some nebulous concept of minimizing their use.

Blacksails:

I hold the following truths to be self-evident:

1. We, the players, are not the GW design studio. Sure, we can throw around ideas, but ultimately, we are not in charge of what the rules are.

2. Though we are not in charge of the rules, we are in charge of how we can play within the confines of those rules. There's nothing in the rules that tells us that we have to take advantage of the rules (whether fair or unfair) for unfair advantage.

Complain about GW rules writers all you want, but it's not the GW rules writers who are making people bring the riptide wing to the game table. That's a personal player decision.

3. If your sole goal is not to win, my assumption is that you are challenging me to a game (or the other way around) because we both want a roughly 3 hour spectacle in which both of us actually having something to do for 3 hours.

Thus the reason I refuse to play Tau, wraithknights, imperial knights, ravenwing, etc.

I don't want to stand around for 3 hours doing virtually nothing.

Ultimately, it's not up to us what the rules are. How we play within the confines of those rules, however, is within our power.

That's the reason I'm recommending self-imposed blanket bans.

My assumption is that you don't want your army shut down, and your assumption is that I don't want my army shut down. My assumption is that you wish to fight fair, and your assumption should be that I wish to fight fair.

GW is not responsible for cheese and power gaming. The players are.

My recommendation? Stop fething power gaming.

Do not use summons, for example. Summon spells are patently unfair. There is no justification for them.

You'll protest, of course, but ultimately, I'll answer you in the following way:

Either fight fair and give me something to do, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours rather than just standing around playing a veritable three hour game of hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

Traditio wrote:
Either fight my way and by my arbitrary rules that I will not modify for anyone else, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours.

I think this rather sums up your ethos very well.

We're all giving you critique. If you don't want to hear that - fine by you. Genuine question: how many games do you get, OP? Using these rules?

Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

Summon powers take several warp charges to cast successfully, require lists to be built around them, and aren't even entirely successful with that.

You also have YET to still tackle my original point of why buffs are necessary. You could make Wraiths only have two attacks and be 50 points, and I'd STILL take them over C'Tan because C'Tan are garbage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Summon powers take several warp charges to cast successfully, require lists to be built around them, and aren't even entirely successful with that.

A bloodthirster is a 250 point model. An 11 man squad of pink horrors is 99 points.

I don't care what your justifications are. No summons. You want a bloodthirster? Then you pay for a bloodthirster.

Or, at the very least, you plan on using summoning powers? Then you take a hit to the number of points you can use. If you plan on sacrificing a unit of pink horrors for a bloodthirster, you only get 1700 points to play with in an 1850 points game.

You also have YET to still tackle my original point of why buffs are necessary. You could make Wraiths only have two attacks and be 50 points, and I'd STILL take them over C'Tan because C'Tan are garbage.

Some things need minor buffs. Other things need nerfs.

As I said before, I'm not wholesale against all buffs. What I'm against is buffing everything up to play this Keep Up With the Jones game of power creep. I'm in favor of rebalancing. Most of this can be accomplished by nerfs, albeit a select few buffs may be necessary (e.g., reduce flakk missiles to 5 ppm for SM missile launchers).

But ultimately, none of that matters for the average game.

I don't get to pick and choose what the codex says and what the rulebook says.

What does matter is what you and I choose to put in our lists.

No summoning for you, and no free razorbacks for 5 man squads for me.

No rules changes necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.

No thanks.

I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

BossJakadakk wrote:
I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

I generally just ask what army is going to be played. If the answer is Tau, Eldar, Dark Angels, etc. then I'd simply turn down the game.

Unless it's a friend of mine, at which point I'd be willing to be specific: "You play this? Ok. I don't want to see this, this or that on the table."

I have a friend of mine who plays Eldar. I absolutely won't play him if he runs scatter bikes or wraithknights, and he's been made quite aware of this.

Does this result in less games for me? Probably.

It also results in less frustration.

Because not playing is better than beating my head against a wall for 3 hours.

And this is something that 40k players should keep in mind.

Do you want to win? Or do you want to play games?

If you want to win, I can't be the only person who's put off by it.

Between the massive cost of entry into the game AND the general mentality of the players, you really only have yourselves to blame that 40k is dying.

I'm quite willing to play a re-enactment of the battle of normandy IN SPAAAAAACE!

I am not willing to play hide and seek or 78 model pickup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to add:

This conversation shouldn't even have to occur in the first place. All players should be able to figure out what constitutes a fair fight and what constitutes shenanigans.

Basically, all my OP says is this:

NO SHENANIGANS!

Traditio wrote:


1. We, the players, are not the GW design studio. Sure, we can throw around ideas, but ultimately, we are not in charge of what the rules are.

Thanks Captain Obvious!

2. Though we are not in charge of the rules, we are in charge of how we can play within the confines of those rules. There's nothing in the rules that tells us that we have to take advantage of the rules (whether fair or unfair) for unfair advantage.

Complain about GW rules writers all you want, but it's not the GW rules writers who are making people bring the riptide wing to the game table. That's a personal player decision.

And a player decision they are not only allowed to make, but should not be judged for solely by the list they bring. If you have a problem with their list, then don't play them. Its that simple. But judging, banning, and otherwise belittling others for not subscribing your limited views on how to play a game is the toxic attitiude here.

Taking advantage of the rules is such an arbitrary standard to uphold. It reeks of self-entitlement in that you expect everyone to play at exactly your level while you make zero effort to keep up with changes.

3. If your sole goal is not to win, my assumption is that you are challenging me to a game (or the other way around) because we both want a roughly 3 hour spectacle in which both of us actually having something to do for 3 hours.

Thus the reason I refuse to play Tau, wraithknights, imperial knights, ravenwing, etc.

I don't want to stand around for 3 hours doing virtually nothing.

Why would anyone's sole goal for a competitive game be not winning? I don't even know what you're trying to say here as it doesn't make sense.

Ultimately, it's not up to us what the rules are. How we play within the confines of those rules, however, is within our power.

That's the reason I'm recommending self-imposed blanket bans.

Which, as anyone with any understanding of general game design and this game in particular, can rapidly realize that blanket bans don't fix the problems, they simply get shifted. Not to mention the less than desirable effect of telling players to go feth themselves because they like a faction or unit you don't. Which is not only childish, but just about the most toxic thing you could do to a game group.

My assumption is that you don't want your army shut down, and your assumption is that I don't want my army shut down. My assumption is that you wish to fight fair, and your assumption should be that I wish to fight fair.

Sure. As I've explained, the solution is to, you know, fix the problems. Roll up your sleeves and address the problematic rules and units.

GW is not responsible for cheese and power gaming. The players are.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh that's rich.

Blaming the players.

Classic.

*wipes a tear from my eye*

GW is ultimately responsible for anything within the confines of the rules. Anything else, like poor attitudes, hygiene problems, and cheating are the realm of player issues. But balance problems and murky rules are 100% GW's fault and responsibility. Frankly, if you don't accept this, there's no point in myself continuing this, nor anyone who seriously aims to help you or provide feedback. Blaming the players for playing within the rules is utter and complete nonsense.

My recommendation? Stop fething power gaming.

Define power gaming. As in, every single instance in which one is power gaming that has no relevance to the player's attitude, but entirely within the realms of the rules as written. I want a clear definition that covers all possible scenarios in which someone is considered power gaming.

Good luck.

Its impossible, if you couldn't figure that out

Do not use summons, for example. Summon spells are patently unfair. There is no justification for them.

Then fix summoning. Plenty of potentially fluffy and cool things the rules could do with such a system.

You'll protest, of course, but ultimately, I'll answer you in the following way:

Either fight fair and give me something to do, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours rather than just standing around playing a veritable three hour game of hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

Then find someone else to play.

Well wasn't that fething gak simple. How about, instead of trying to ban entire factions and play styles, you fix the problems and be as inclusive as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

This conversation shouldn't even have to occur in the first place. All players should be able to figure out what constitutes a fair fight and what constitutes shenanigans.

Basically, all my OP says is this:

NO SHENANIGANS!

Which almost anyone immediately realizes that this varies from person to person.

In other words, you're shouting "USE COMMON SENSE" and everyone is telling you "WE KNOW, STOP YELLING" because you happen to have the most restrictive and least friendly notion of what that all entails.

Blacksails wrote:And a player decision they are not only allowed to make, but should not be judged for solely by the list they bring.

Why should I accept the bolded?

A player ABSOLUTELY should be judged for the list that he brings. That's the list that HE came up with and that HE chose to play. GW didn't hand him the list and say "YOU MUST PLAY THIS." That list is all him and is a reflection of his playing style, his personality, etc.

Why should I accept the bolded?

If you have a problem with their list, then don't play them. Its that simple. But judging, banning, and otherwise belittling others for not subscribing your limited views on how to play a game is the toxic attitiude here.

Taking advantage of the rules is such an arbitrary standard to uphold. It reeks of self-entitlement in that you expect everyone to play at exactly your level while you make zero effort to keep up with changes.

IoW: "DON'T JUDGE ME FOR BEING A POWERGAMER! YOU SHOULD POWERGAME JUST AS HARD!!!!!!1111"

Is that about your intent?

Why would anyone's sole goal for a competitive game be not winning? I don't even know what you're trying to say here as it doesn't make sense.

Because it's not SOLELY a competitive game. It's also a spectacle. A spectacle which takes an enormous commitment of time, effort and funds to engage in. In addition to the hours upon hours of time and effort required to collect, construct and paint the miniatures, an average game takes 2 hours or more.

By all means, once the dice start rolling, you should play the win.

Before then? You should be constructing a list to be as thematic and fun as possible for both players. Why? Because it takes 2+ fething hours to play, for one thing.

Which, as anyone with any understanding of general game design and this game in particular, can rapidly realize that blanket bans don't fix the problems, they simply get shifted. Not to mention the less than desirable effect of telling players to go feth themselves because they like a faction or unit you don't. Which is not only childish, but just about the most toxic thing you could do to a game group.

Whether or not you consider it toxic is ultimately based on whether or not you think those players are worth playing in the first place. If you consider those players toxic to the game, gaming environment, etc., then it seems entirely appropriate to tell them go to feth themselves until they change their attitudes.

If you play a video game with your friend and he insists on activating a glitch over and over again which crashes the game, at some point, you are presumably going to tell him to go feth himself.

Sure. As I've explained, the solution is to, you know, fix the problems. Roll up your sleeves and address the problematic rules and units.

This simply cannot be done in most circumstances. Why should I expect my opponent to accept some random house rule?

It's much more reasonable for all players to have the mindset: "I WILL PLAY FAIR! NO SHENANIGANS!"

That can actually work.

Note that what I suggest in the OP requires ZERO house rules. It only requires that the players slightly adjust their attitudes.

GW is ultimately responsible for anything within the confines of the rules.

Only qua material cause. GW is as responsible for your list as a composer is for a fluteplayers choice to play his song.

Sure, GW facilitates the riptide wing. That doesn't mean that you have to use it.

Define power gaming. As in, every single instance in which one is power gaming that has no relevance to the player's attitude, but entirely within the realms of the rules as written. I want a clear definition that covers all possible scenarios in which someone is considered power gaming.

Loki's fallacy.

You know what power gaming is. Everyone, his brother and his mother knows what power gaming is. The only people who pretend not to know what power gaming is are power gamers, and that's only so that they can deflect attention away from their power gaming.

Then fix summoning. Plenty of potentially fluffy and cool things the rules could do with such a system.

I don't write the summoning rules. You don't write the summoning rules. What you do write, however, is your army list.

As such, you can't change the summoning rules.

You can't fix the summoning rules.

What you CAN do, however, is adjust your list to account for summoning. You want to summon a bloodthirster with pink horrors of tzeench? Then only take 1700 points in an 1850 points game. Easy enough.

Then find someone else to play.

Well wasn't that fething gak simple.

It's incredibly simple.

But again, ask yourself this question:

Am I really the only person who thinks as I do? Sure, plenty of people on Dakka fora disagree with me. But how many people aren't entering the game in the first place because of people like you? How many people are giving up on 40k because of people like you?

These facts speak for themselves:

1. 40k did well in 5th edition.
2. It's been dying since 6th edition.

How about, instead of trying to ban entire factions and play styles, you fix the problems and be as inclusive as possible.

No. I won't be inclusive of power gaming donkey caves. I won't be inclusive of people who refuse to fight fair and treat the game as the spectacle that it is. I won't be inclusive of rules lawyers who value winning over in-game immersion.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.

No thanks.

You saw a single Riptide, a SINGLE sub-optimal Broadside (which died first turn to a missile launcher team) and three Crisis suits (and one commander)
God have mercy on our souls!
You're being serious? You think CRISIS SUITS alone, one of the only things in the game that can legitimately be fielded without weaponry of any kind, is OP?

I can see what you mean on a Riptide. They suck. Doubly so without any suicide sternguard in 30k to kill it. But it never made anywhere near it's points back because of my use of combat locking and LOS blockers to minimise it's damage. Much as I hate the statement, L2P. Seriously, Riptides could have a points increase, but I'll be damned if they should be banned.

Also, nice to see how something that warrants a buff from you is a MARINE unit. Not ironic at all.

Traditio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

I generally just ask what army is going to be played. If the answer is Tau, Eldar, Dark Angels, etc. then I'd simply turn down the game.

Unless it's a friend of mine, at which point I'd be willing to be specific: "You play this? Ok. I don't want to see this, this or that on the table."

I have a friend of mine who plays Eldar. I absolutely won't play him if he runs scatter bikes or wraithknights, and he's been made quite aware of this.

Does this result in less games for me? Probably.

It also results in less frustration.

Because not playing is better than beating my head against a wall for 3 hours.

And this is something that 40k players should keep in mind.

Do you want to win? Or do you want to play games?

If you want to win, I can't be the only person who's put off by it.

Between the massive cost of entry into the game AND the general mentality of the players, you really only have yourselves to blame that 40k is dying.

I'm quite willing to play a re-enactment of the battle of normandy IN SPAAAAAACE!

I am not willing to play hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

So, the codex itself, regardless of what list they take with it, is bad? Wow.
Are Guard on that list? Because I could take aircav meltavets, an artillery company, or an army full of Rough Riders or unsupported Infantry Platoons. Are you going to ban guard because of a few builds? Because that's what you're doing to these armies, ESPECIALLY the DA. But hey, just because Marines only have somemany widely regarded OP builds including Razorspam and CenturionStar, they're fine.

As a 40k player, I want to play games. I want to play games with all the cool models that cost me lots of money, as you put it. But you want me to waste that money by not letting me bring the cool models I want - Riptides and Knights. Because I actually saw these models before I even knew their rules, and I really liked them. Am I bad for liking a model which happens to be against your utopian ideals?
Or will you make me waste more money to buy stuff I don't want?

You say you want Normandy in space. Good for you. Other people might not. Good for them. That doesn't make you any more right, or morally superior. Now, you can decline as many games as you like, maybe turning down some great opponents in the search of your (frankly unrealistic) goal. Good on you. But don't chastise others for wanting different things to you and demanding everyone follow your infallible ruleset.

I know I'd certainly decline to play with you with my fluffy Ultramarine Second Company and take a game with those OH SO TERRIBLE Riptides and Broadsides.
But that's just my opinion.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You saw a single Riptide, a SINGLE sub-optimal Broadside (which died first turn to a missile launcher team) and three Crisis suits (and one commander)
God have mercy on our souls!
You're being serious? You think CRISIS SUITS alone, one of the only things in the game that can legitimately be fielded without weaponry of any kind, is OP?

I can see what you mean on a Riptide. They suck. Doubly so without any suicide sternguard in 30k to kill it. But it never made anywhere near it's points back because of my use of combat locking and LOS blockers to minimise it's damage. Much as I hate the statement, L2P. Seriously, Riptides could have a points increase, but I'll be damned if they should be banned.

Also, nice to see how something that warrants a buff from you is a MARINE unit. Not ironic at all.

1. I have yet to see anyone disagree with my assertion, xenos, imperial or chaos, who has disagreed with me that flakk missile launchers should be 20 ppm.

2. It's not simply a matter of being OP. There is nothing fun about playing against a model that's 1. almost impossible to kill and 2. consistently can stay too far out of range to touch.

But you want to use a riptide? Fine. Adjust your points cost accordingly (you only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game, e.g.) and nerf it to timbuktu via your choice (or lack thereof) of weapons and upgrades.

Don't couple it with psychic shenanigans.

3. When's the last time you've seen a crisis suit taken without weapons?

So, the codex itself, regardless of what list they take with it, is bad? Wow.

There is nothing fun about the tau codex. This should be obvious to most people.

Are Guard on that list?

The most popular guard lists are. There' s nothing fun about WWI in space, nor is there anything fun about playing a Tienanmen square re-enactment. Nor is there anything fun about playing "hide from the airplanes."

But hey, just because Marines only have somemany widely regarded OP builds including Razorspam and CenturionStar, they're fine.

Razorspam and centurion star are covered by the general rules of the OP. No unfair shenanigans.

As a 40k player, I want to play games. I want to play games with all the cool models that cost me lots of money, as you put it. But you want me to waste that money by not letting me bring the cool models I want - Riptides and Knights. Because I actually saw these models before I even knew their rules, and I really liked them. Am I bad for liking a model which happens to be against your utopian ideals?

By all means. Bring a wraithknight. Adjust your points costs accordingly when you construct the list.

You want to use that cool looking wraithknight? You only get 1725 points in an 1850 points game. Upgrades cost extra as normal.

Don't couple it with psychic shenanigans.

You say you want Normandy in space. Good for you. Other people might not. Good for them. That doesn't make you any more right, or morally superior. Now, you can decline as many games as you like, maybe turning down some great opponents in the search of your (frankly unrealistic) goal.

What's so unrealistic about it? It was basically common fare before 6th ed, no?

I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

Necessarily, any list which includes underpriced/OP units, assuming none of the other units are overcosted or underpowered, is itself OP for its points value.

Unless it plays at a points disadvantage.

And then, there's the matter, not so much of being OP, but of being not fun to play against.

An army of nothing but drop pods is not OP. It doesn't strike me as much fun to play against.

You talk about judging people by the list they bring. And then you judge someone for using a Riptide, Crisis Suits, and Broadsides. Ya know, regular Tau units...

Traditio wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

Necessarily, any list which includes underpriced/OP units, assuming none of the other units are overcosted or underpowered, is itself OP for its points value.

I have never seen that Riptide pay its points back. Never. Well, I don't let it pay its points back. That being said, my opponent has tactics, something that you lack considering you refuse tailor your list to face your opponent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You talk about judging people by the list they bring.

I didn't say that a person should be judged by the list that he brings. I said the opposite.

And then you judge someone for using a Riptide, Crisis Suits, and Broadsides. Ya know, regular Tau units...

Yes. I also said, in so many words, "No Tau."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:I have never seen that Riptide pay its points back. Never. Well, I don't let it pay its points back. That being said, my opponent has tactics, something that you lack considering you refuse tailor your list to face your opponent.

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

Traditio wrote:

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Traditio wrote:

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

I wanna see him face the Blitz Brigade filled with MANz. It should be hilarious.

Tactical_Spam wrote:

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

I have anti-tank weapons galore. 8 missile launchers, 2 multimeltas, 1 plasma gun and 3 plasma cannons. Not to mention meltabombs, power fists, etc.

Expecting me to bring enough anti-tank weapons to deal with a list composed ENTIRELY of vehicles, many of them AV 14, is just unreasonable.

Traditio wrote:
If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

I have to step in here and tell you that that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read with regards to 40k. Even more than wanting to eliminate Tau from the game.

Future War Cultist wrote:I have to step in here and tell you that that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read with regards to 40k. Even more than wanting to eliminate Tau from the game.

It's only ridiculous because you're not understanding it.

The sense of what I am saying is:

"If I have to tailor my list to deal with yours (because your list can't be dealt with by a TAC list; because it's a niche list that requires specific hard counters to deal with it), then your list, not mine, needs to change."

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

I have anti-tank weapons galore. 8 missile launchers, 2 multimeltas, 1 plasma gun and 3 plasma cannons. Not to mention meltabombs, power fists, etc.

Expecting me to bring enough anti-tank weapons to deal with a list composed ENTIRELY of vehicles, many of them AV 14, is just unreasonable.

Which is why I run 3 Land Raiders backed up by a squadron of 3 Predators then 2 lone Vindicators. I don't expect you to be able to kill it. I expect it to steamroll over most things you put in its way.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Which is why I run 3 Land Raiders backed up by a squadron of 3 Predators then 2 lone Vindicators. I don't expect you to be able to kill it. I expect it to steamroll over most things you put in its way.

Precisely.

The reason why you run your list is to shut down my army, to kill my fun.

Instead of setting up an entertaning 3 hour spectacle, you're in it to provide a win for yourself, regardless of how utterly frustrating, dull and unpleasant it is for your opponent.

That's why I'd refuse to play you.

Or you could just ignore the Land Raiders like most people as they have very little offensive punch. The Predators are easily dealt with by Missile Spam or Lascannons and the Vindis die horribly to some Melta Guns. Seriously, its not that hard.

 Grimmor wrote:
Or you could just ignore the Land Raiders like most people as they have very little offensive punch. The Predators are easily dealt with by Missile Spam or Lascannons and the Vindis die horribly to some Melta Guns. Seriously, its not that hard.

Except, at that point, we're back to the hide and seek game.

I don't want to play the hide and seek game.

I don't want to play the sit on the objectives and do nothing for 5 turns game.

I want the battle of normandy in SPAAAAAACE.

I actually want to do stuff for 5 turns.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Which is why I run 3 Land Raiders backed up by a squadron of 3 Predators then 2 lone Vindicators. I don't expect you to be able to kill it. I expect it to steamroll over most things you put in its way.

Precisely.

The reason why you run your list is to shut down my army

Its called "Tactics"

to kill my fun.

That is my sole purpose in life, to kill your fun. I will spend 3 hours of my precious life trying to spite you instead of doing something, I don't know, meaningful.

Instead of setting up an entertaning 3 hour spectacle

Oh, my Parking lot list is entertaining.

you're in it to provide a win for yourself

Why would I play a game with the intent to lose?

That's why I'd refuse to play you.

I doubt a game with your pandering about how OP my list is, despite the fact you refused to tailor your list in the slighest, would be worth playing.

You want to play "My Tactical Marines can kill everything" and not play the mission? Or do you just play Purge the Alien every game?

Like, not wanting to actually play the mission WHILE PLAYING AN MINI OBSEC-SPAM LIST blows my mind.

The enemy also wants to do stuff for 5 turns, like summon their extra daemons or use the awesome tanks. If you rock up and complain that they're cheesy TFGs for taking an AV14 tank or 2, or tanking 4+ vehicles of any description, or summoning 1 squad of Daemonettes then guess what, they can also find another person to play. And most people would actually play them because those are all reasonable things.

When you say "You want things to happen" what you really mean is "I want to be able to kill all your stuff".
At least, that's what it sounds like to me now.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Its called "Tactics"

You call it tactics. I call it shenanigans.

Either way, I wouldn't consider that game worth playing.

Oh, my Parking lot list is entertaining.

For whom? Certainly not for your opponent. You yourself have basically said that you run the list essentially to castrate your opponent.

Why would I play a game with the intent to lose?

Not setting out to win is not the same thing as setting out to lose. Build your list to create a spectacle; attempt to win after dice start rolling.

I doubt a game with your pandering about how OP my list is, despite the fact you refused to tailor your list in the slighest, would be worth playing.

You may want to look up what "pandering" means. Recommend "complain" instead.

At any rate, what you are basically saying is: "It's YOUR fault you didn't specifically tailor your list to deal mine."

Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

I have a better idea. Don't make a list that needs specific tailoring to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You want to play "My Tactical Marines can kill everything"

"Everything" is an ambiguous term:

If by "everything" you mean:

"It is not the case that there exists an x such that x is a model in my army and my opponent cannot kill x with an army composed primarily of tactical marines," then yes, that's what I mean.

If by "everything," you mean:

"For all cases x, if x is a model in my opponent's army, then my tactical marines will have killed it by the end of the game," then no, that's not what I mean.

The enemy also wants to do stuff for 5 turns, like summon their extra daemons or use the awesome tanks. If you rock up and complain that they're cheesy TFGs for taking an AV14 tank or 2, or tanking 4+ vehicles of any description, or summoning 1 squad of Daemonettes then guess what, they can also find another person to play. And most people would actually play them because those are all reasonable things.

Yes. I have no problem refusing to play someone who wants to do unfair, powergaming bull gak for 5 turns.

You want daemonettes? Then instead of running pink horrors of tzeentch, run daemonettes and pay their points cost.

You want a bloodthirster? Then run a bloodthirster and pay its points cost.

Traditio wrote:

I have a better idea. Don't make a list that needs specific tailoring to deal with.

Except it doesnt. All of my TAC lists could deal with this list, on top of this he has almost half of his points tied up in 3 vehicles that arent even that threatening. The Preds will fall to my usual Anti Tank and i usually fight 3 Vinis so 2 of them is SOP for me.

Grimmor wrote:Except it doesnt. All of my TAC lists could deal with this list, on top of this he has almost half of his points tied up in 3 vehicles that arent even that threatening. The Preds will fall to my usual Anti Tank and i usually fight 3 Vinis so 2 of them is SOP for me.

Aside from necrons, Tau and eldar, which lists do you have that can easily explode 3 landraiders?

Who cares about exploding them?

And are moving those goalposts heavy?

Traditio wrote:
You call it tactics. I call it shenanigans.

Am I going to have two quotes from you in a single night?

For whom? Certainly not for your opponent. You yourself have basically said that you run the list essentially to castrate your opponent.

It's only castrating if you brought a Bolter to a Lascannon fight.

Build your list to create a spectacle; attempt to win after dice start rolling.

This is how you lose.

You may want to look up what "pandering" means. Recommend "complain" instead.

No, that's exactly what I mean. I think you like facing OP lists so you can complain about it.

At any rate, what you are basically saying is: "It's YOUR fault you didn't specifically tailor your list to deal mine."

Or I'm saying "My Lord, please help Traditio write an actual army list."

I have a better idea. Don't make a list that needs specific tailoring to deal with.

I... Really? I mean really? You can't see it, can you? What is this, the revolutionary war? Am I supposed to stand in a line so you can mow me down as you please?

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:Except it doesnt. All of my TAC lists could deal with this list, on top of this he has almost half of his points tied up in 3 vehicles that arent even that threatening. The Preds will fall to my usual Anti Tank and i usually fight 3 Vinis so 2 of them is SOP for me.

Aside from necrons, Tau and eldar, which lists do you have that can easily explode 3 landraiders?

Orks with Kustom Mega Kannons (i bring lots)
Sister of Battle with 3 Excorsists
Ad Mech nuff said
Tzeentch Daemons, i magick it away.

Also, i just ignore them because they cant do jack to all my infantry and i play to the objectives because im playing Maelstrom.

Tactical_Spam wrote:This is how you lose.

If everyone had a similar attitude, it wouldn't be "how you lose." It would be how the game would be balanced and fair and fun for everybody. Except WAAC power gamers. And feth them. Their opinions don't count.

I... Really? I mean really? You can't see it, can you? What is this, the revolutionary war? Am I supposed to stand in a line so you can mow me down as you please?

Bring tons of scouts. Paint them red. Give them cool British hats. Ally in an HQ on a horse.

It'll be the coolest damn fight ever.

 curran12 wrote:
Who cares about exploding them?

And are moving those goalposts heavy?

He put them on wheels. Only way they can be relocated so quickly.

Traditio wrote:
If everyone had a similar attitude, it wouldn't be "how you lose." It would be how the game would be balanced and fair and fun for everybody. Except WAAC power gamers. And feth them. Their opinions don't count.

Even if you took whatever the Feth you felt like, certain armies would just be better than others. Eldar has almost no bad units and you can make a functional list out of virtually anything in the book, Necrons are much the same way, just less obnoxious about it.

Dark Eldar, Tyranids and CSM on the other hand have to be very careful about what they select because there is a bunch of trap units in their books.

 Blacksails wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Who cares about exploding them?

And are moving those goalposts heavy?

He put them on wheels. Only way they can be relocated so quickly.

That or hes got Ogryn pushing them around.

 Grimmor wrote:


That or hes got Ogryn pushing them around.

Ogryn are too power gamey.

He obviously uses grots.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:


That or hes got Ogryn pushing them around.

Ogryn are too power gamey.

He obviously uses grots.

I doubt he would use Filthy Xenos, besides they are to busy "doing nothing" by sitting on that Objective and getting my Victory Points!

@Traditio:

Since apparently everybody should know the definition of Power Gaming, maybe you should enlighten me? I mean, I have a rough idea of what it could be....

And Traditio: If you honestly think that a Land Raider Spearhead and a Armour Task Force with 2x Lonely Vindicators in it is overpowered, clearly you know nothing about how little firepower Land Raiders actually have as well as how easy Vindicators are to kill.

Traditio wrote:
If everyone had a similar attitude, it wouldn't be "how you lose."

If everyone forgot they were playing a wargame and decided to play RPS?

Except WAAC power gamers. And feth them. Their opinions don't count.

Could say the same about people who can't play the game.

Bring Landraiders. Paint them with freehand. Give them cool dudes with swords yelling at their drivers to get them closer. Ally in an HQ on a Landraider.

It'll be the tankiest damn fight ever.

Fixed it.

I really do not understand why you feel you shouldn't have to change your list depending on what army your opponent is fielding. If I play against Tau I bring lots of AV and 4+ saves. If I play against marines I bring more fast attack and bodies. And if I play against something else I'll bring something else. I'm not going to bring units into a fight if I know they won't do anything worthwhile. This doesn't mean the game is unbalanced, it just means that specific army has an advantage in one way over that unit. That's how it should be. It adds variety to the game. If I could beat marines in the same way I could beat Tau then the game would get quickly boring- but the fact is I have to use different strategies, units, and tactics to pull off a win against those two armies.

And that's the rush you get from a successful strategic victory. You brought the right things and deployed them in the right way to rub your opponent's advantages. It's just tactics. In the twenty or so games I've played (I'm still pretty new) I have never once seen a grav weapon aimed at me because my opponents know grav isn't that great against orks. And I don't begrudge them for being list-tailors or anything, it's just knowing the do's don't's of facing one particular army. Hell, I don't even care if my opponent brings a riptide or a titan. It's a challenge. Sure, that titan blasted the hell out of my orks and that riptide was a damn bugger to catch, but I still caught and killed them because I focused them with the right unit. (The unit was Meganobz. In both cases. Meganobz solve everything. )

Traditio wrote:
Note that what I suggest in the OP requires ZERO house rules. It only requires that the players slightly adjust their attitudes.

I see. Zero house rules. So why is it that you just came up with a bunch of house rules in this thread? Or are you going to pretend that they aren't house rules because you called them "principles for list construction", even though you're treating them as rules by refusing to play against anyone who doesn't follow them?

No. I won't be inclusive of power gaming donkey caves. I won't be inclusive of people who refuse to fight fair and treat the game as the spectacle that it is. I won't be inclusive of rules lawyers who value winning over in-game immersion.

IOW:

"IF YOU HAVE FUN DOING THINGS I DON'T ENJOY YOU ARE A TFG AND I DON'T WANT YOU IN MY COMMUNITY".

Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You want to play "My Tactical Marines can kill everything"

"Everything" is an ambiguous term:

If by "everything" you mean:

"It is not the case that there exists an x such that x is a model in my army and my opponent cannot kill x with an army composed primarily of tactical marines," then yes, that's what I mean.

If by "everything," you mean:

"For all cases x, if x is a model in my opponent's army, then my tactical marines will have killed it by the end of the game," then no, that's not what I mean.

The enemy also wants to do stuff for 5 turns, like summon their extra daemons or use the awesome tanks. If you rock up and complain that they're cheesy TFGs for taking an AV14 tank or 2, or tanking 4+ vehicles of any description, or summoning 1 squad of Daemonettes then guess what, they can also find another person to play. And most people would actually play them because those are all reasonable things.

Yes. I have no problem refusing to play someone who wants to do unfair, powergaming bull gak for 5 turns.

You want daemonettes? Then instead of running pink horrors of tzeentch, run daemonettes and pay their points cost.

You want a bloodthirster? Then run a bloodthirster and pay its points cost.

I don't run Pink Horrors or anything other than Slaanesh.

However according to you I'm a TFG power gamer because I have 2-3 of my 5-6 Psykers using Malefic, have 2 min Daemonette troop squads and spam Seeker Chariots and Seekers.
Summoning and more points spend on MCs, Cavalry, Vehicles and Super-Killy-and-Buffy Psychic HQs apparently makes me a bad person for running mono-slaanesh.

How is summoning a 10-strong squad of Daemonettes 1 every 3-5 turns per Summoning HQ (2-3) more power-gamey than the alternative I could be doing: Invis Spam. Those 2-3 Lvl 2 Psykers could instead be rolling on Telepathy like the rest of them. Then instead of Summoning and Psychic Skrieking you I'd have several Invis squads running at you.

Peregrine wrote:I see. Zero house rules. So why is it that you just came up with a bunch of house rules in this thread? Or are you going to pretend that they aren't house rules because you called them "principles for list construction", even though you're treating them as rules by refusing to play against anyone who doesn't follow them?

Do you really not see the difference between changing the rules for a model, on the one hand, and imposing restrictions on which models, powers,etc. you will and won't use?

IOW:

"IF YOU HAVE FUN DOING THINGS I DON'T ENJOY YOU ARE A TFG AND I DON'T WANT YOU IN MY COMMUNITY".

Yes. In other contexts, this is completely non-controversial.

If you have fun by wiping your cheeto covered fingers all over somebody else's furniture, then you are TFG and I don't want you in my home.

If you have fun by activating glitches in a video game and making it crash, then you are TFG and I won't want to play video games with you.

I could go on.

If your idea of fun in playing 40k comes primarily from winning, and not from the spectacle, then you may or may not be TFG, but I don't want to play the game with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:I don't run Pink Horrors or anything other than Slaanesh.

However according to you I'm a TFG power gamer because I have 2-3 of my 5-6 Psykers using Malefic, have 2 min Daemonette troop squads and spam Seeker Chariots and Seekers.
Summoning and more points spend on MCs, Cavalry, Vehicles and Super-Killy-and-Buffy Psychic HQs apparently makes me a bad person for running mono-slaanesh.

How is summoning a 10-strong squad of Daemonettes 1 every 3-5 turns per Summoning HQ (2-3)

A 10 man squad of slaaneshi daemonettes costs 90 points. Explain to me why it's OK for you to play with 1850 + (90 multiplied by the number of units summoned) points whereas your pponent only is playing at 1850. You want slaaneshi daemonettes? Then pay their points costs and include them in your army list.

more power-gamey than the alternative I could be doing: Invis Spam.

Except, that's also power gamey and violate the basic principles of the OP.

Let me simplify the OP for you:

NO SHENANIGANS. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Traditio wrote:

IOW:

"IF YOU HAVE FUN DOING THINGS I DON'T ENJOY YOU ARE A TFG AND I DON'T WANT YOU IN MY COMMUNITY".

Yes. In other contexts, this is completely non-controversial.

If you have fun by wiping your cheeto covered fingers all over somebody else's furniture, then you are TFG and I don't want you in my home.

If you have fun by activating glitches in a video game and making it crash, then you are TFG and I won't want to play video games with you.

I could go on.

If your idea of fun in playing 40k comes primarily from winning, and not from the spectacle, then you may or may not be TFG, but I don't want to play the game with you.

And playing to win immediately eliminates all possibility of a spectacle? I've seen games with OP lists provide a spectacle and seen "Stuff Happen". You can't seem to grasp the fact that the Spectacle of the game and Powerful Lists are not two mutually exclusive things.

Traditio wrote:Let me simplify the OP for you:

NO SHENANIGANS. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

And your definition of shenanigans seems to be ridiculous and highly subjective.

IllumiNini wrote:And playing to win immediately eliminates all possibility of a spectacle?

I didn't make this claim.

I've seen games with OP lists provide a spectacle and seen "Stuff Happen". You can't seem to grasp the fact that the Spectacle of the game and Powerful Lists are not two mutually exclusive things.

Stuff can happen when OP lists are played against each other. However, this is often contrary to the intention of the constructor of the list. As Tactical Spam himself said, his armored list was built to ensure that nothing actually happens...at least, for his opponent.

And your definition of shenanigans seems to be ridiculous and highly subjective.

Let your opinion be what it may, but note the following:

It would ensure that more people would consider their games fair, fun and action packed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:And Traditio: If you honestly think that a Land Raider Spearhead and a Armour Task Force with 2x Lonely Vindicators in it is overpowered, clearly you know nothing about how little firepower Land Raiders actually have as well as how easy Vindicators are to kill.

It has nothing to do with overpowered or not overpowered. The intention of the list is to invalidate most of the opponent's army and play the hide and seek game.

That may not be OP.

But it's not entertaining. It's frustrating and chore-like.

Traditio wrote:

And your definition of shenanigans seems to be ridiculous and highly subjective.

Let your opinion be what it may, but note the following:

It would ensure that more people would consider their games fair, fun and action packed.

And how is this anything but highly subjective?

IllumiNini wrote:And how is this anything but highly subjective?

Because fun is had by doing stuff, and it is not the case that fun is had by not doing stuff.

This holds true universally.

Pretty simple, really.

And for anyone who may be reading this, I propose the question:

When is the last time that you played a space marine battle company and did NOT have fun?

Traditio wrote:
Do you really not see the difference between changing the rules for a model, on the one hand, and imposing restrictions on which models, powers,etc. you will and won't use?

No. "Riptides cost 100 points more" and "if you take a Riptide you must take 100 fewer points" are functionally identical rules. You might pretend that you aren't making model-specific house rules, but you are making a whole bunch of house rules about what is a legal list.

If you have fun by wiping your cheeto covered fingers all over somebody else's furniture, then you are TFG and I don't want you in my home.

Lol what? Are you honestly trying to argue that playing 40k competitively is equivalent to ruining someone else's furniture?

Traditio wrote:
A 10 man squad of slaaneshi daemonettes costs 90 points. Explain to me why it's OK for you to play with 1850 + (90 multiplied by the number of units summoned) points whereas your pponent only is playing at 1850. You want slaaneshi daemonettes? Then pay their points costs and include them in your army list.

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc. And I strongly suspect that demons have been balanced with the assumption that you will use at least some amount of summoning. For example, perhaps all demon psykers are "overcosted" by X% to account for getting Y points worth of extra models through summoning.

Now, summoning has been the core of some lists that aren't much fun to play against, but a blanket ban on summoning is massive overkill.

Peregrine wrote:No. "Riptides cost 100 points more" and "if you take a Riptide you must take 100 fewer points" are functionally identical rules. You might pretend that you aren't making model-specific house rules, but you are making a whole bunch of house rules about what is a legal list.

They're not the same thing.

Saying "Riptides cost 100 points more" presupposes a public agreement with respect to that rules change.

If we've made that rules agreement and you then fail to account for the points increase in your list, I can subsequently accuse you of cheating.

No such agreement is necessary in order to impose a personal 100 point handicap. You simply take 100 fewer points, whether or not you specifically call your opponent's attention to it.

It works out the same way, but the latter isn't really a rule change. The riptide's points cost remain formally the same. You just have less of other things.

Lol what? Are you honestly trying to argue that playing 40k competitively is equivalent to ruining someone else's furniture?

I'm just saying: we censor/exclude/penalize people all the time based on their having a different conception of having fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Once when I played a cooperative video game with a friend of mine, my conception of fun was committing suicide by jumping into the lava over and over again.

My friend decided to play a different [one player] game after that. Do I fault him for it? No, not really.

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."

So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?

And I strongly suspect that demons have been balanced with the assumption that you will use at least some amount of summoning. For example, perhaps all demon psykers are "overcosted" by X% to account for getting Y points worth of extra models through summoning.

This is pure speculation.

Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this overcosted?

Now, summoning has been the core of some lists that aren't much fun to play against, but a blanket ban on summoning is massive overkill.

It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

Traditio wrote:
If we've made that rules agreement and you then fail to account for the points increase in your list, I can subsequently accuse you of cheating.

And if your opponent doesn't take the 100 points per Riptide point deduction you accuse them of being a TFG and refuse to play. It isn't a "personal handicap" when it's backed up with threats of being shunned from the community if you don't obey.

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."

So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?

Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

If you'd actually read the post you just quoted you would have seen that I said this already.

This is pure speculation.

Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this overcosted?

I don't have enough experience with the demon codex to give an answer I'm confident in, and I know better than to get into a debate over exact point values with you.

It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

Sorry, but "I think this might be unfair" is not a very credible argument when you also think a bunch of other things are unfair. Your personal definition of "unfair" seems to be "any list I can't consistently beat with my tactical spam army".

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No. "Riptides cost 100 points more" and "if you take a Riptide you must take 100 fewer points" are functionally identical rules. You might pretend that you aren't making model-specific house rules, but you are making a whole bunch of house rules about what is a legal list.

They're not the same thing.

Saying "Riptides cost 100 points more" presupposes a public agreement with respect to that rules change.

If we've made that rules agreement and you then fail to account for the points increase in your list, I can subsequently accuse you of cheating.

No such agreement is necessary in order to impose a personal 100 point handicap. You simply take 100 fewer points, whether or not you specifically call your opponent's attention to it.

It works out the same way, but the latter isn't really a rule change. The riptide's points cost remain formally the same. You just have less of other things.

Why would you not tell your opponent?

And why would you not try to come to such a public agreement? If they need balancing, why not open it up to a community forum?

Traditio wrote:

Lol what? Are you honestly trying to argue that playing 40k competitively is equivalent to ruining someone else's furniture?

I'm just saying: we censor/exclude/penalize people all the time based on their having a different conception of having fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Once when I played a cooperative game with a friend of mine, my conception of fun was committing suicide by jumping into the lava over and over again.

My friend decided to play a different [one player] game after that. Do I fault him for it? No, not really.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

Traditio wrote:

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."

So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?

Why not?

Traditio wrote:

And I strongly suspect that demons have been balanced with the assumption that you will use at least some amount of summoning. For example, perhaps all demon psykers are "overcosted" by X% to account for getting Y points worth of extra models through summoning.

This is pure speculation.

Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this overcosted?

Why do you think this is pure speculation? These codeces are all play-tested and balanced to a point, so regardless of how well they're actually balanced, it means that his statement is not pure speculation.

Traditio wrote:

Now, summoning has been the core of some lists that aren't much fun to play against, but a blanket ban on summoning is massive overkill.

It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

Is it at least apparently unfair? Or is it simple a case of you don't like summoning because you don't employ it and/or subjectively think it should be removed from the game? I suspect it's the later.

Peregrine wrote:And if your opponent doesn't take the 100 points per Riptide point deduction you accuse them of being a TFG and refuse to play.

But not a cheater. Note the distinction.

It isn't a "personal handicap" when it's backed up with threats of being shunned from the community if you don't obey.

It depends on the context. If it's an unwritten, but commonly understood, rule at your FLGS, then yes, for all intents and purposes, it's a house rule.

But this isn't what I'm recommending. I'm saying that regardless of your local meta, 40k players could achieve greater balance and fun by personally adopting the NO SHENANIGANS mentality and act accordingly when constructing their own armies.

Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

Sorry, but "I think this might be unfair" is not a very credible argument when you also think a bunch of other things are unfair.

You payed 1850 points but end up with much more than that. That's at least prima facie unfair.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

IllumiNini wrote:The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

Lol no.

We're talking about GW.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

Lol no.

We're talking about GW.

So now you want to attack GW? They may not have balanced it very well, but I think I can speak for many people on this forum when I say that summoning is not as wildly unbalanced as you seem to think it is.


And I'm sorry, but this thread is getting wildly out of hand because you can't seem to understand that everything you've proposed is highly subjective and generally considered to be poor changes that either don't address any issue, don't fix an issue properly, or are down-right ridiculous.

IllumiNini wrote:Why would you not tell your opponent?

Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.

My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."

I fail to see why you find this problematic.

Why not?

The points system is there for a reason. Just saying.

Traditio wrote:
But not a cheater. Note the distinction.

Do you honestly think that this is a compelling argument?

But this isn't what I'm recommending. I'm saying that regardless of your local meta, 40k players could achieve greater balance and fun by personally adopting the NO SHENANIGANS mentality and act accordingly when constructing their own armies.

No, that's not what you're saying. You aren't just saying "this is a fun way to play the game", you're saying "play this way or I will refuse to play against you and call you a WAAC TFG".

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

And you have no way of proving that it doesn't work this way. Your opinions on the subject are just as speculative as mine.

You payed 1850 points but end up with much more than that. That's at least prima facie unfair.

No it isn't. Why do you keep ignoring the likely possibility that 1850 points of demons includes, by design, X points worth of summoned units? For example, let's say GW makes a summoning psyker cost 50 points more than a psyker would in another army, to reflect the fact that the psyker will summon 100 points worth of additional models (getting them at a 50% discount to reflect the lesser value of summoned units relative to "real" units).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

Why shouldn't you have to have a discussion with your opponent when you want to change the rules of the game?

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

IOW:

"I AM SELF-EVIDENTLY RIGHT MY WAY OF HAVING FUN IS MORALLY SUPERIOR AND YOU ARE SELF-EVIDENTLY WRONG BECAUSE I SAID SO".

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Why would you not tell your opponent?

Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

Who says it's mainly spectacle based? People play it for different reasons - each is valid. Sometimes, they're not mutually exclusive. TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

And of course, you revert to the "if you don't agree with my premise, you're abnormal from what I think people should be". Stay classy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.

My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."

I fail to see why you find this problematic.

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)
How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

And I won't even comment on my thoughts on your idea of fun being to sabotage the game, and simultaneously decry other people's fun.

Why not?

The points system is there for a reason. Just saying.

Which you want to change.

Psykers factor in their cost of Summoning for unreliability, and the fact it's not guaranteed.
You're imposing "optional" point values for no reason and with no mathematical logic.
Yet you only seem happy to give buffs out for marines.

Also, I'll just go back a few points - you said that guard were okay because they had several lists and some were
Normandy in Space, despite several being ones you'd cry foul at.
So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

Tradio you are a beautiful and unique snowflake. Never change.

Traditio has proposed his 'rules'.

He isn't going to change his mind. Let them fall to the bottom of the page.

I like to win... I also like to play, therefore I enjoy both of those categories.

The most fantastic games I've played recently were:

Against a demon summoning opponent, in the game I directed a seer star being led by my named Autarch into a swarm of daemons, Daemon princes and a Greater Unclean One. As the council began to fall, the Prince brought it's sword down onto the Autarch, by all rights killing her outright but the Phoenix gem she carried exploded wounding the prince and gave her enough time to thrust the Shard of Anaris into the monster, killing it and everything around it due to instability

Against 3 Imperial Knights in a 1250 point game against mostly Scatterlaser jetbikes for the league championship, playing positional chess against the behemoths was quite frankly a ton of fun for both of us, including the Wraithknights vs Imperial knights game we had for fun after.

With your rules I wouldn't get these games, you also suggest I shouldn't play this game at all because of my outlook on the game. You abuse my choice army, my choice of psykic powers and my opponents and that without handicapping myself I am That F$*king Guy. To say that I disagree with you is an understatement. But, I understand your view point.

There are many ways to enjoy this game Traditio, casually, narratively and yes even competitively, and when somebody goes into a game wanting one thing and is playing against a player wanting another, this happens. The way to fix this however is not pointless restrictions, TFG labelling, invalidating armies or whatever… speak to your opponent beforehand… ‘how do you want to play?’

@Torus:

I'm not gonna lie: You speak some solid truths!

On a side note: Are you sure you're not the voice of sensibility on this forum? If not, it sounds like you should be

I don't even know what the poll is asking.

40K is not headed in a nerf direction.

Tac marines have always been trash.

Traditio wrote:


NO SHENANIGANS!

But shenanigans are what makes things fun, special and interesting! To me, at least. I'll admit to being a powergamer, but I still want real fun, for both players. As such, I limit things in casual games myself. It's possible to powergame and not have a WAAC mentality, unless I'm straddling some weird line in my own head. I feel like all you're trying to do is force TFG to play checkers with you, but TFG won't play checkers with you, and anyone who isn't TFG is being punished by your rules because you refuse to adapt.

It's more fun to me if we both can bring units that do something different than each other, that interact in different ways with different situations. To me, your proposed house rules actually make this about as complicated as checkers, because every unit would have roughly the same capability. I'd rather play chess because the units in that would be much more varied (which is nothing against chess, as I enjoy it thoroughly, I just mean there's no point to 40k at that point). The setting has giant robots, killer monsters, supersoldiers, and regular soldiers. The setting itself seems to be what you have an issue with, and yes, it's constantly changing as they release more big bads. That change seems to be another problem for you.

Traditio wrote:

You call it tactics. I call it shenanigans.

You're not related to Zapp Brannigan at all are you?

Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide? TAC implies you have either a plan or unit(s) to deal with anything, even if it takes a few turns. It doesn't mean you can deal with everything... as long as there are no to very few vehicles, GMCs/MCs, or flyers, and pretty much only infantry to fight.

(Inb4 you ignore me for playing tau since early 5th.)

There's nothing measly about one Riptide, as they can withstand entire lists that lack D weapons firing at them. Even grav is an uphill battle, with it having a 3++/5+++.

That being said, a single Riptide can be cornered and assaulted. Five of them cannot be handled.

Martel732 wrote:
There's nothing measly about one Riptide, as they can withstand entire lists that lack D weapons firing at them. Even grav is an uphill battle, with it having a 3++/5+++.

That being said, a single Riptide can be cornered and assaulted. Five of them cannot be handled.

You are coming at it from the perspective of blood angels however right? SM with drop pod grav/grav bikes can very easily deal with them (regular marines obviously), psychic powers like shriek, or anything that hurts their LD. And assault obviously tears them apart due to the riptide's poor I and A.

(And the riptide has a decent chance to hurt itself when trying to get the 3++, but how to deal with a riptide is not really relevant)

Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Sure, but assuming we live outside of that world, riptide's CAN be dealt with, they're not unkillable. Hard sure (the stimm injector could use a points increase, as could the IA), but far better than a wraithknight/stormsurge/supremacy armor suit.

(Also assuming grav bikes are getting the first turn, otherwise yeah, they're not gonna get much done once the riptide gets the 3++)

 Wolfblade wrote:
Sure, but assuming we live outside of that world, riptide's CAN be dealt with, they're not unkillable. Hard sure (the stimm injector could use a points increase, as could the IA), but far better than a wraithknight/stormsurge/supremacy armor suit.

(Also assuming grav bikes are getting the first turn, otherwise yeah, they're not gonna get much done once the riptide gets the 3++)

Or the bikes don't die in transit.

There reaches a certain point in unit durability where it becomes so inefficient to kill them that they functionally are immortal. The Riptide certainly qualifies. You have to cough up for grav cents, a pskyer, and a drop pod to even have a chance.

Martel732 wrote:
Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Well theres always Posion, or Lascannons, or Grav Guns (these do actually work really went, Grav Cents in a Pod are nsty) Plasma works well as my Skitarii will attest to.

Riptides without Stimms arent all that awful, Stimmtides are actually incredibly annoying and if 3 of them show up you have a right to complain, much like if someone fields an Adamtium Lance. These things are not unbeatable, but they are very annoying to deal with for certain armies. Now with that being said i know a guy who has a Tau army and he has no intention of having more than 1 Riptide because, in his own words, "Why would i need more than one?"

Traditio wrote:
Do not use summons, for example. Summon spells are patently unfair. There is no justification for them.

No, they're fine.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Summon powers take several warp charges to cast successfully, require lists to be built around them, and aren't even entirely successful with that.

A bloodthirster is a 250 point model. An 11 man squad of pink horrors is 99 points.
I don't care what your justifications are. No summons. You want a bloodthirster? Then you pay for a bloodthirster.
Or, at the very least, you plan on using summoning powers? Then you take a hit to the number of points you can use. If you plan on sacrificing a unit of pink horrors for a bloodthirster, you only get 1700 points to play with in an 1850 points game.

What you fail to realise is that the points cost of a unit is not the only 'currency' that is spent. He does pay for the bloodthirster, both in terms of the summoning unit, and the unreliability of the summoning ritual.

You need to stop thinking soley in terms of 'points' as the objective measure of in-game currency. The cost of a unit is frankly a lot more complicated.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.
No thanks.

L2p. Your attitude is childish.

Traditio wrote:
Once when I played a cooperative video game with a friend of mine, my conception of fun was committing suicide by jumping into the lava over and over again.
[

Traditio wrote:
It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.
My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."
.

so you ruined your friends game? Gee that's nice.

Not surprised that you take your selfish, self centred and immature attitude elsewhere.

Traditio wrote:

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."
So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?
[

Because the points cost is not the only currency. That 1850pts is costed the way it is because it can bring other stuff into play, as well as the hurdles that it has to jump through in order to do this. You don't pay for individual bolt shells that you fire, or las cannon shots. Those summoned daemons are just 'ammunition' in precisely the same way.

Traditio wrote:
This is pure speculation.

And your arguments are myopic and utterly fail (or are unwilling to see) the bigger picture.

Traditio wrote:
Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this over costed?

300 odd points? For a thing that needs to get into melee? Looks fine. My stuff can either kill it fine, or kill the thing that tries to summon it. There is a work around. Therefore fine. Or apply grey knight to face.

Traditio wrote:
It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

No it's not 'apparently' anything. It's nowhere near 'unfair'. What's 'simple', or rather simplistic is your blinkered vision and grasp of the game.

The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Don't forget the Librarius Conclave is epic at casting powers...a formation native to his preferred book.

Better yet, I propose a blanket ban as a counter to Traditio's:

BAN SPACE MARINES

Seeing as they're one of the top codices in the game and that STUFF is supposed to HAPPEN (whatever that means), it must clearly follow that marines should be banned because an army of free transports and super librarians casting super duper powers all the time backed up by gravturions that melt everything, is clearly and obviously not fun or fair or an army where STUFF HAPPENS.

BAN MARINES. Marine players are obviously WAAC TFGs who only power game and abuse all the rules, so its easier to ban the whole book.

Problem solved.

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Even funnier, Tzeentch Daemons can't psychically shoot worth a damn due to how 7th ed's core rules has bent the army over a barrel, but summoning a single unit of 'Nettes or Dogs to prevent my Horrors from getting their faces effortlessly kicked in by even basic Tacticools is game-breaking and a complete TFG tactic?!

Guess Tzeentch isn't allowed to have any fun according to certain players.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Don't forget the Librarius Conclave is epic at casting powers...a formation native to his preferred book.

Better yet, I propose a blanket ban as a counter to Traditio's:

BAN SPACE MARINES

Seeing as they're one of the top codices in the game and that STUFF is supposed to HAPPEN (whatever that means), it must clearly follow that marines should be banned because an army of free transports and super librarians casting super duper powers all the time backed up by gravturions that melt everything, is clearly and obviously not fun or fair or an army where STUFF HAPPENS.

BAN MARINES. Marine players are obviously WAAC TFGs who only power game and abuse all the rules, so its easier to ban the whole book.

Problem solved.

My Orks can get behind this

Experiment 626 wrote:
Even funnier, Tzeentch Daemons can't psychically shoot worth a damn due to how 7th ed's core rules has bent the army over a barrel, but summoning a single unit of 'Nettes or Dogs to prevent my Horrors from getting their faces effortlessly kicked in by even basic Tacticools is game-breaking and a complete TFG tactic?!

Guess Tzeentch isn't allowed to have any fun according to certain players.

My biggest complaint with 7th, my Tzeentch Mind Bullets suck now (i mean they werent great in 6th either but...) and so we almost need to summon stuff to actually DO THINGS

 Grimmor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Well theres always Posion, or Lascannons, or Grav Guns (these do actually work really went, Grav Cents in a Pod are nsty) Plasma works well as my Skitarii will attest to.

Riptides without Stimms arent all that awful, Stimmtides are actually incredibly annoying and if 3 of them show up you have a right to complain, much like if someone fields an Adamtium Lance. These things are not unbeatable, but they are very annoying to deal with for certain armies. Now with that being said i know a guy who has a Tau army and he has no intention of having more than 1 Riptide because, in his own words, "Why would i need more than one?"

I've faced 5 stimtides with BA before. Why would they bother with anything else?

To OP,

Not sure if this has already been said, but I'll say it anyway:
1. You concluded that Normandy in Space was the ONLY fun way to play, if your fun doesn't come from winning. One, what was the point of the poll if you have already decided this, and two, it's purely subjective. Some people like playing against a giant thing (whether it is OP is another thing) and this is only because of who they are.

2. Leading on from my last sentence (sort of), I don't find fun in only winning, I do very much like the "spectacle" as you called it, but I like the idea/look of superheavies and fliers. Not because they are Op, but I think they make sense, and they look cool and add to the game. Using the Normandy comparison, wouldn't it more fun if you had squadrons of planes battling overhead, some sacrificing attacking the other fliers to attack ground troops, and being assaulted by other fliers. It makes it more of a spectacle. It's a new dimension, and superheavies follow this. Are you saying, if they were both balanced, you would rather have a game without them, even if you claiming to like the game for the "spectacle". And they can be balanced without completely removing them.

Wolfblade wrote:Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

The core of my army is:

A chaplain
A captain with power fist
2 devastator squads (each of whom have 4 missile launchers, which can glance landraiders on 6s)
2 assault squads (each of which has melta bombs)
6 tactical squads (which has 3 plasma cannons, which can damage AV 13 and lower, a plasma gun with melta bomb (I'm considering switching this out for a lascannon), and 2 multimeltas with meltabombs)

If that's not enough anti-tank to deal with your list, then your list needs to change, not mine.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

I don't demand that you change your list. See the OP. I'd simply refuse to play you in the first place. No Tau Need Apply.

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide?

You mean, the jump monstrous creature with the 72 inch range gun, 2+ armor save and a ridiculous invuln?

I stand by my initial claim: No Tau Need Apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Who says it's mainly spectacle based?

Are your models painted?

TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

My point had nothing to do with fluff. It has everything to do with STUFF HAPPENS or not.

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)

There's nothing "illegal" about it. There's nothing in the rulebook which says that you have to run 8 landraiders in a 2000 points game.

How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

You most certainly are. If there is a game group which derives its fun primarily from being powergaming WAAC TFGs, then by all means, they can and should exclude people who aren't like that.

And people like me can and should exclude powergamers.

It runs both ways.

That said, I once again wish to point out:

As of 6th edition, 40k is dying. Seriously consider that point.

So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

It has nothing to do with being OP or not OP. Tau are inherently unfun to play against. They're a one trick pony that rely entirely on shenanigans.

No thanks.

Martel732 wrote:
[I've faced 5 stimtides with BA before. Why would they bother with anything else?

Cuz Broadsides are cool and they need an AA gun? Or cuz they want a Skyray? Its not like the Riptide is the only good thing in that slot.

Also how the hell where they getting 5 Stimtides in that list? Double CADs?

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

The core of my army is:

A chaplain
A captain with power fist
2 devastator squads (each of whom have 4 missile launchers, which can glance landraiders on 6s)
2 assault squads (each of which has melta bombs)
6 tactical squads (which has 3 plasma cannons, which can damage AV 13 and lower, a plasma gun with melta bomb (I'm considering switching this out for a lascannon), and 2 multimeltas with meltabombs)

If that's not enough anti-tank to deal with your list, then your list needs to change, not mine.

If you're relying on krak missiles to bring down Land Raiders, I'm sorry mate, but your list is NOT TAC.
Plasma cannons are regarded as generally bad in nearly all aspects.
How are the multimeltas moving up to engage targets?

All in all - it's a decent fluff based battle company, but as you say later "my point had nothing to do with the fluff". So, considering you want your list to "do stuff" (what that stuff is still evades me), unless that stuff is look pretty and fail at every intended battlefield role due to a misguided definition of TAC, then your list is simply not TAC.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

I don't demand that you change your list. See the OP. I'd simply refuse to play you in the first place. No Tau Need Apply.

Fine. Due to your failure to clarify "stuff", I declare Space Marines to be anti-whatever-I-want. No games from me.

Do you honestly not realise how bad alienating an entire faction and player base from the game is? Or are you so utterly selfish that their wants don't matter to you?

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide?

You mean, the jump monstrous creature with the 72 inch range gun, 2+ armor save and a ridiculous invuln?

I stand by my initial claim: No Tau Need Apply.

Yes the monstrous creature that can't capture objectives and can be tarpitted with a relatively mobile unit. And it's "ridiculous invuln" only occurs if it can pass a 3+ roll and risk losing a wound if it fails. So, not a guaranteed

I echo my point on your intolerance of Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Who says it's mainly spectacle based?

Are your models painted?

How on Terra does that matter?
I'll let you guess, and I'll tell you once I know why it matters.

TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

My point had nothing to do with fluff. It has everything to do with STUFF HAPPENS or not.

So, fluff is irrelevant? So why have you claimed in the past about your Space Marines being outshot by Tau or Imperial Guard barrages killing your centuries old veterans if the fluff is irrelevant? Because artillery is a rather spectacular thing, and was CERTAINLY present in the Normandy invasions. As was soldiers being cut down as they stormed up - that's a spectacle.

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)
How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

You must certainly are. If there is a game group which derives its fun primarily from being powergaming WAAC TFGs, then by all means, they can and should exclude people who aren't like that.

And people like me can and should exclude powergamers.

It runs both ways.

That said, I once again wish to point out:

As of 6th edition, 40k is dying. Seriously consider that point.

Glad to see you finally acknowledge other groups who might enjoy something else other than what you like. Maybe we might get somewhere.
And I'm well aware. I've been playing far before 6th. But alienating an entire playerbase would be far worse than anything GW has pulled. That would be toxic.

So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

It has nothing to do with being OP or not OP. Tau are inherently unfun to play against. They're a one trick pony that rely entirely on shenanigans.

No thanks.

Inherently unfun? Jeez, I guess all the fun I had playing against those Tau was all a fluke. Glad to see that Traditio can come and tell me how to have fun.
I guess you've never played against a CQB Tau list yet, have you? I would take pleasure in playing you with a Tau list with no main Ranged Support and simply using Breachers and a CC Crisis Team. Or would that be too one-trick pony and shenaniganny for you? (Even though I still can't figure out what possible shenanigans would feature in this list)

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

The core of my army is:

A chaplain
A captain with power fist
2 devastator squads (each of whom have 4 missile launchers, which can glance landraiders on 6s)
2 assault squads (each of which has melta bombs)
6 tactical squads (which has 3 plasma cannons, which can damage AV 13 and lower, a plasma gun with melta bomb (I'm considering switching this out for a lascannon), and 2 multimeltas with meltabombs)

If that's not enough anti-tank to deal with your list, then your list needs to change, not mine.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

I don't demand that you change your list. See the OP. I'd simply refuse to play you in the first place. No Tau Need Apply.

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide?

You mean, the jump monstrous creature with the 72 inch range gun, 2+ armor save and a ridiculous invuln?

I stand by my initial claim: No Tau Need Apply.

You have 4 meltas bombs, and ONE powerfist, on squads that probably won't make it to melee range because they're fairly easily killed or avoided (even with 10 man squad sizes since for a minimum of 2 turn they'll be unable to assault and in the open.)

You're ONLY other significant AT is on platforms that MUST stand still or fire on snapshots (or not at all for the plas cannons). If you fire all the MLs at one target, you might get something done, but 8 S8 shots on T4 marines are pretty easy to either kill or just ignore, and when killed make points back for the killer very quickly. Your only methods of taking down AV14 are either VERY lucky melta bombs, or glances through melee (very hard to get there in the first place) or extremely squishy infantry with multi meltas that either need to snap shot, or hope it wanders within 12". Outside of that you either have ONE (iirc) krak nade throw per squad at 8", and ONE plasmagun (which can hardly be considered AT) for mobile firepower.

I fail to see how that makes it a TAC list. If your opponent brings free razorback instead of rhinos, you're boned pretty much straight off. He'd simply have too much armor for you to deal with because you made a terrible army comp. If you literally swapped the multimeltas for meltaguns you'd get a mobile 18" threat bubble vs tanks instead of a static 24" bubble, use any points saved to pick up REAL anti tank/MC/TEQ/etc weapons (i.e. grav cannon here or there, perhaps a predator with tri-las, even a vindicator would be better than snap shots with a multimelta)

But wait, that'd be shenanigans right? Can't have any of that!

So, your solution instead of figuring out a way to fight the big nasty riptide/flying hive tyrant/wraithknight/flyer/more than 1 or 2 tanks/anything but infantry on foot is to simply bury your head in the sand and cry that everyone else is WAAC TFGs? Got it.

Also is it a blanket ban on tau, no matter what I bring?

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

The core of my army is:

A chaplain
A captain with power fist
2 devastator squads (each of whom have 4 missile launchers, which can glance landraiders on 6s)
2 assault squads (each of which has melta bombs)
6 tactical squads (which has 3 plasma cannons, which can damage AV 13 and lower, a plasma gun with melta bomb (I'm considering switching this out for a lascannon), and 2 multimeltas with meltabombs)

If that's not enough anti-tank to deal with your list, then your list needs to change, not mine.

Your scrub anti-empowerment, and anti-enablement tirades are tiresome. You p, your attitudes, and your lists are as much to blame, and are the root cause of almost all of your problems.

The one constant in the universe is change. The wise adapt.

Traditio wrote:

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

I don't demand that you change your list. See the OP. I'd simply refuse to play you in the first place. No Tau Need Apply.
.

Real mature... Throw your toys out of the pram too, why don't you?

Or you know... L2p. Step out of that scrub mentality. All those things that you decry are just other ways, and other options of exploring the game, and they're all just as valid as tools for 'fun'. You are the only one standing in your way.

Traditio wrote:

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide?

You mean, the jump monstrous creature with the 72 inch range gun, 2+ armor save and a ridiculous invuln?

There's one of them. Which has every chance of blowing itself up chasing that invulnerable. And Bloody hell man, people have listed loads of ways of running them to ground and taking them out. The fact you refuse to empower yourself, enable yourself and use the entirely valid options to solve your problems is entirely a problem of your own making, and has nothing to do with the riptide.

Traditio wrote:

I stand by my initial claim: No Tau Need Apply.

Lol. This may surprise you but plenty people have fun playing with, and against tau. Take those blinkers down.

Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Who says it's mainly spectacle based?

Are your models painted?

Doesn't answer the question, and 'stuff happens' is so nebulous as to be utterly pointless as a metric.

Traditio wrote:

TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

My point had nothing to do with fluff. It has everything to do with STUFF HAPPENS or not.

Stuff happens in tank duels too, or didn't you know? 'Normandy in space' isn't the sum total of what 40k styles itself to be.

And if your point has nothing to do with fluff, it is irrelevant. Fluff is the cornerstone of this hobby.

Traditio wrote:

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)

There's nothing "illegal" about it. There's nothing in the rulebook which says that you have to run 8 landraiders in a 2000 points game.

By that same token, There is nothing in the rulebook which says you have to force yourself to a single limited marine build either.

There is nothing in the rulebook either than enforces your sanctimonious view of what defines fun,

Traditio wrote:

How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

You most certainly are. If there is a game group which derives its fun primarily from being powergaming WAAC TFGs, then by all means, they can and should exclude people who aren't like that.

It's not zero/sum. Just because people don't follow your ridiculous and stupid guidelines, or heavens forbid, maybe they like tanks and Knights, it doesn't make them 'power gaming', 'Waac', or 'tfg'. If anything, your behaviour is the hallmark of a tfg.

Traditio wrote:

And people like me can and should exclude powergamers.
It runs both ways.

There's no 'people like you'. There's just you.

Enjoy the cold. Enjoy your misery. Enjoy being a martyr. In the meantime We'll be having fun with our Knights and riptides, far seers nuking things with psyker powers, word bearers summoning daemons, white scars on bikes and drop podding space marines.

Traditio wrote:

As of 6th edition, 40k is dying. Seriously consider that point.

It's a long way from dying sunshine. A long way. Regardless of the other games out there (which I, and many others play), 40k is still the 600lb gorilla in the room.

Traditio wrote:

So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a
Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

It has nothing to do with being OP or not OP. Tau are inherently unfun to play against. They're a one trick pony that rely entirely on shenanigans.
No thanks.

I just don't think you are capable of having fun. They're neither a one trick pony (there's lots of ways of shooting people.) nor are they reliant on shenanigans - they're just tactics that you, in all your spite, arrogance, elitism and small mindedness would rather turn your nose up, rather than man up, figure it out and learn to deal with them.