People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

It doesnt't really matter as they can disembark from any point now.

Unbalanced armies.

Horribly points costs, and worse power level.

GW not being, in general, competent at game design.

But I like yours!

The players

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

The cost of the rules between editions and books

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

Glad I'm not the only one that twitches when I see rear door mounted lascannons.

The assualt ramp is for assualting from and a land radier technically only has one side door moddeled as functional.

Currently people using non codex soup options to complain about codex's being better than theirs.
People trying to twist rules where RAI is clear but GW fluffed the RAW.
That GW keeps spending way too much time and pages of a rule book and codex on fluff instead of just doing a good job with the rules.

Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

 skchsan wrote:
Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

whispering into the ether...

BCB

 Desubot wrote:
The players

Yup.

The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

Glad I'm not the only one that twitches when I see rear door mounted lascannons.

I'm with you, brother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the fact GW expects us to believe some of the "aircraft" in 40k can go supersonic...

The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

Leman Russ’ model not having a beard.

Mould Lines!

Seriously there is something soul destroying about spending hours and hours just scraping little lines off the model before you can even get the joy of putting it together (esp if its got really fine details on the line - like ridges on pipes or plasma cannon ridges or just ANY detail)

Flamers being the go-to anti-air weapon in the 41st millennium

Oh man...those mold lines on the plasma guns...


Oh, and the players who abuse RAI in the name of RAW.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

Dang it, not only have I never really liked the Russ tanks looks but I never picked up on that. Now it’s all I see when I look at one. Does it have road wheels behind the armor if you cut a 1/4inch or so of it away?

Codices. They’re so outmoded as a game aid their replacements are being replaced.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

This for me as well

 Desubot wrote:


The players

Exalted!

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

So, Dakka Dakka?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dosiere wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

Dang it, not only have I never really liked the Russ tanks looks but I never picked up on that. Now it’s all I see when I look at one. Does it have road wheels behind the armor if you cut a 1/4inch or so of it away?

The Leman Russ' lack of suspension is mainly because it was based on WW1 tanks which had...no suspension.



It's not an oversight (a terrible design decision for actually making a tank? sure...)

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

I think the greater problem has to do with GW's design methodology encouraging such binary distinctions. Things are so offensive that there's little functional utility to be had in the game than raw wound output and the delivery systems to ensure the can be used as early as possible, and those values tend to be universal and clear cut in a game where raw volume tends to supercede all. You either can annihilate your targets in the first turn, or you simply cannot function in the current meta. The above attitude is the only one that gets to exist in a tournament environment because there's no leeway for other forms of utility or usability to develop.

Simply put, there's no reason for that attitude to change until GW designs less around just taking models off the table, and instead around a good nuetral game. But good nuetral play is hard, so good luck on that one.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Flamers being the go-to anti-air weapon in the 41st millennium

...it isn't? Anyway. Things that bug me about 40K. Ridiculous statements.

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

Marines know how to duck.

skchsan wrote:Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

Lance845 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The players

Yup.

^-fosho-^

WAAC jerkwads who bring Rowboat to an 1800pt game and then want me to rematch 2 weeks later against the same list.

Unpainted fakeworld models and the people who ask me if my legit stuff is counterfeit like theirs.

Unpainted models in general. while I understand not everyone has the time & money (if you're chasing meta then I have no sympathy) to do it all.
I take the time to paint all my stuff and would like it if my opponents would do the same.

Anybody that complains about something they have zero control over. I don't bitch & moan about taxes even tho I don't want to pay (as much).

My biggest complaint simply comes down to GW not being consistent. They seem to rule on confusing/contradictions by throwing a dart at a board and going with whatever it says, or simply say "discuss it with your opponent first, but remember to have fun."

They have gotten better recently, but still.... bah. lol

 chromedog wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

Marines know how to duck.

In the case of the Crusader pattern in particular that'd be an impressive display of limbo skills.....

Rampant hatred of armies other than ones they own.

"My codex can't do that so yours shouldn't either!"

TYRANIDS!!!!

Hahahah! Badum-tiss!

Basically everything 8th edition.

I entered 8th hoping for things to be good but quickly I found myself playing a game that just felt so boring to play that I found myself wanting to go back to 7th because at least that horribly balanced edition was fun. It felt like they took 7th, stripped out all the complexity, cobbled together a basic ruleset that is very bare bones, made almost every unit profile vanilla as feth, and somehow it's a smashed hit. GW basically did zero innovation with the game (stratagems are basically borrowing from Blood Bowl's rerolls and things like wizards/bribes, etc) and yet in the process of making a very basic edition they still managed to mess up terrain/cover rules to such a degree that they almost never come into play. The game is an alpha strike garbage fest and the only reason balance isn't as huge of a problem because in the process of gutting everything they made weapon and unit profiles very similar to each other so you don't have as many cases of extremely powerful armies and very weak armies. Then again a good amount of factions are held together by one or two decent units in a sea of junk (Orks with Boyz spam, Tau with Commander Spam).

The fluff of 8th also really irks me because it basically ignores everything xenos outside of Eldar, introduces the super Heresy of Primaris Marines, has big papa smurf resurrected by and Eldar death god (*cough* Heresy *cough*), and yet everybody is all cool beans with what transpired despite it being a massive red flag to any person of power in the IoM. And then it devolved into more hero hammer where it's basically Rowboat's cruise-aid across the Imperium fighting other chaos primarchs. The xenos races are basically ignored in all of this.

Racerguy180 wrote:

skchsan wrote:Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

Lance845 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The players

Yup.

^-fosho-^

WAAC jerkwads who bring Rowboat to an 1800pt game and then want me to rematch 2 weeks later against the same list.

Unpainted fakeworld models and the people who ask me if my legit stuff is counterfeit like theirs.

Unpainted models in general. while I understand not everyone has the time & money (if you're chasing meta then I have no sympathy) to do it all.
I take the time to paint all my stuff and would like it if my opponents would do the same.

Anybody that complains about something they have zero control over. I don't bitch & moan about taxes even tho I don't want to pay (as much).

The players that complain about how other people decide to play with their toy soldiers and how they spend their free time and then complain about people who complain about things they have no control over, such as how other people play with their toy soldiers and spend their free time.

How much GW paint costs.

Don't understand the hate on land raiders. The vehicle has a front assault ramp ffs, not getting out under cover is totally a marine thing (that's what frag assault launchers are for). I think the 2 main assault variants look better with the guns in the front sponsons, but the Godhammer looks a lot better with the lascannons mounted on the back. Not all that impractical.

Jbz` wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

Marines know how to duck.

In the case of the Crusader pattern in particular that'd be an impressive display of limbo skills.....

Apart from that, land raiders have that whole "assault ramp" front hatch to run out of. Side hatches are for embarking.
And with lascannons, that extra 1" or so further range shouldn't make a sparrow's fart of difference in a hurricane.

Besides, when the fraggin' INSTRUCTIONS say you CAN put them in the front slot, I'm going to call the argument invalid.
Now if the instructions said to put them only in the front ones, then you might have a point, but they don't.

I think I'm partially in agreement with the players. Mainly a certain flavor of them. The win at all costs. We have 1 dude who doesn't play 40k because he can't cheese it to an auto win like he could in 7th. So he only plays Sigmar now.

I also played in a tournament recently, and 2 dudes older than me that I played against..(Both had almost max points, so Im sure they slaughtered their last opponents) could not stop complaining about my army and when things went slightly below average for them they always said something. Calling my army easy mode, the dice hate me, calling my armies rules stupid.

I cannot stand people who also attempt to manipulate the rules to help themselves win, especially when these people have played for years. Take your loss like a man you man child.

 KingCorpus wrote:
We have 1 dude who doesn't play 40k because he can't cheese it to an auto win like he could in 7th. So he only plays Sigmar now.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Mostly the fuzzily written, bloated and imbalanced rules and GW's blatant favouritism, particularly regarding model releases. 8th edition has made the rules better, but the favouritism is as strong as ever. So far they've mostly focused on two flavours of Marines: Primaris and Death Guard. They're missing out on the people who don't want burly men dressed in painted cylinders.

There's a lot of toxicity in the online community, but the players I've come across in real life have been very nice people. I'm sure there are bad eggs out there, but they're not common enough that you're guaranteed to come across them, apparently.

The price of models. Only reason I don't play anymore.

The autocannons (or are they just autoguns?) On the side of Taurox Primes. They're just about to shoot themselves....

HuskyWarhammer wrote:The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

This annoys me about Dakka, not 40k. In reality, a surprising mix of armies and units can make a right mess of you on the table, and are fun to play with/against.

Overread wrote:Mould Lines!

So much. Particularly when you miss them and then spot them halfway through painting the thing. FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

I tell you what though, the newer models are infinitely better. The Vertus Praetors kit from custodes has hardly any mold lines at all - and the ones that it does have end up getting covered by fancy armour plates. Whereas the Skinks I am building are... O_o


Another one - a version of mold lines - it's where the sprue attaches to the model on a rounded surface that will be visible on the final model. So hard getting the cut to be smooth and having that part end up flat. And then when you scrape it away you can end up with a dent.


I guess my real problem with the game of 40k is the time and effort it takes between deciding you want to use a specific "game piece" and the ability to actually put it on the table. Assuming youre not willing to play gray plastic of course.

People claiming orks are fine.

 darkcloak wrote:
TYRANIDS!!!!

Hahahah! Badum-tiss!

It took a whole page for this, Dakka I am disappoint.

The players( To a certain degree) Win at all cost players and sometimes the rules

How horde units can effectively 'kill' a transport and unit(s) inside by surrounding it. It's just silly.

Also the fact that big tanks should be one of the best anti-horde weapons, by using their sheer bulk mass.

Also the fact that dreadnoughts are hilariously inefficient against hordes, especially after you watch few select Dawn of War trailers.

Also the fact that most anti-horde weapons seem to be point by point more efficient in taking out MeQ units than actual hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the fact that assault marines and raptors are just hilariously inefficient in melee and on top of this they get no help in the charge after deepstriking. So I guess their function is to carry special weapons, but then their rules limit them to only 2 per squad. On top of all this they are more expensive than regular MeQs which are already hilariously easy to remove.

The old Tank Shock rules. I was fond of the idea of ramming tanks into infantry but found the rules very dissatisfying.

There would be times I would Tank Shock a unit with it's back against a piece of scenery, it would be placed about 6 inches to the left. Then I would do it again with another Rhino, the unit would be forced to move again about the same distance.

After a certain distance, the unit needed to be squished. The rules never supported that.

In 8th edition, the rules prevent Tank Shock entirely. It's like GW hates mass.

Player attitudes.

This is always what makes a game fun for me. To play without worrying about the win and just have fun.

I have had more fun playing a power gamer who was a great personality than I have against players who I know I'll beat but just gripe and moan throughout the game. The win isn't worth it.

Primaris Marines.

Space Marines were already powerful... but now they're broken.

And how long will it be before we get:

Grey Knight Primaris Marines!


the nightmare

The thing that bothers me the most about 40k is the internet community built around it, myself included. So much salt...

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't understand the hate on land raiders. The vehicle has a front assault ramp ffs, not getting out under cover is totally a marine thing (that's what frag assault launchers are for). I think the 2 main assault variants look better with the guns in the front sponsons, but the Godhammer looks a lot better with the lascannons mounted on the back. Not all that impractical.

Land raider assault ramp opens forward straight towards the enemy. A shot going in would hit the inside of the land raider . Imagine a lascannonn round going right into the engine in the rear or an explosive round exploding in with the marines boxed in. My marines will use the side exits, thank you, which is why my lascannons will. Be forward mounted.

Techpriestsupport wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't understand the hate on land raiders. The vehicle has a front assault ramp ffs, not getting out under cover is totally a marine thing (that's what frag assault launchers are for). I think the 2 main assault variants look better with the guns in the front sponsons, but the Godhammer looks a lot better with the lascannons mounted on the back. Not all that impractical.

Land raider assault ramp opens forward straight towards the enemy. A shot going in would hit the inside of the land raider . Imagine a lascannonn round going right into the engine in the rear or an explosive round exploding in with the marines boxed in. My marines will use the side exits, thank you, which is why my lascannons will. Be forward mounted.

it makes sense in the setting though, a land raider is an assault tank, meant to spit giant armoured men equipped with swords made of chainsaws and shooting rocket propelled grenades. All of your concerns were considered I'm sure, but the idea of the assualt ramp is to charge out of, consequences be damned.

Any model bigger than a leman russ or a dread Especially superheroes.

I also hate the fact that some kits are short on bitz, like drukhari scourges that can only be played with a stock dude and 4 special weapons of the same type and yet there's only ONE special weapon of each type in their box. Same for killa kans, only one weapon per type.

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that there are 10+ different human factions. Not to mention that the majority of GW releases are about imperium and basically 80% or even more of them is either imperium or chaos.

I can't stand players that only brings optimized lists ready for tournaments in casual games, even against beginners and even if they own huge armies, but that's something about those people actually, it has nothing to do with 40k.

I'm willing to bet that those back walls are very heavily armored. The assault ramp is meant to be used for just that, an assault. You send your troops right into the other army. They can immediately shoot and be formed up without having to maneuver around each other and/or weapons. As an additional plus all of your troops can disembark en masse rather than waiting for the guy in front of them to get out the door. You'll notice that the side sponsons do not cover the front of the vehicle so I assume that's where the designers thought the troops would be coming out from.

Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

People who get mad at average or above average results on dice.

Typically, this is people who play big, super-elite hero type units. I've seen folks get incredibly emotional and angry over a unit forced to take 9 2+ armor saves failing one. If you roll like crap and get six ones or whatever, I can understand a little frustration, but if you roll 3 3+ saves and one fails...don't be slamming the table or rolling your eyes and going "of COURSE it fails".

So many people consider rules and dice to be inconvenient barriers in the way of their awesome dudes rightfully wiping the floor with yours. And anything that contradicts that is unfair.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

You do realize there is a significant difference between "refusing" to get better and "being unable" to get better, yes? It's like saying poor people "refuse" to be rich.

As for blaming the circumstances... sure. But that doesn't make it a personal flaw. Having too much work to do, or having children, or having a wife, or simply enjoying other things more than 40k, is not a personal flaw. They may not improve, but they don't have to. No one should make them. No one should say "you must spend six hours a week doing 40k-related things, to improve." They should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they want. And yes, this includes attending GTs. Bad players should be able to attend GTs, even if they have no hope of winning, if they want to.

Players that have no concept of time. I know it's a social game and we're all having fun but taking longer than 4 hours to play out 2K points gets on my nerves.

Its definitely a great game, but I think GW has made some big mistakes in courting a specific type of player with their space marine branding. What started as a cool idea has more or less devolved into a mary sue power fantasy.Now the community is inundated with constant threads complaining that their tabletop experience didn't match their expectations. I think GW could fix this problem by writing more books where space marines- especially first founding chapters- are killed more frequently in mundane ways.

My unpainted models

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

You do realize there is a significant difference between "refusing" to get better and "being unable" to get better, yes? It's like saying poor people "refuse" to be rich.

As for blaming the circumstances... sure. But that doesn't make it a personal flaw. Having too much work to do, or having children, or having a wife, or simply enjoying other things more than 40k, is not a personal flaw. They may not improve, but they don't have to. No one should make them. No one should say "you must spend six hours a week doing 40k-related things, to improve." They should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they want. And yes, this includes attending GTs. Bad players should be able to attend GTs, even if they have no hope of winning, if they want to.

You're confusing getting better with 'making massive leaps in skills' which is simply not how personal development works. Also there are vast differences between developing a skill versus acquiring wealth so that's not an apples to apples comparison. And yes blaming anything is a personal flaw - even if you only play 1 40k game a month you have the opportunity to get better, even if your only games ever are at a GT you have the opportunity to get better. It is 100% this line of thinking that frustrates me because it makes it seem like if you aren't able to make large strides in developing a skill set it isn't worth pursuing. Ultimately if your enjoyment is painting then you should get better at it, if its forging the narrative then get better. You should always endeavor to achieve more and further develop your skills, small wins are still progression - but you have to make the choice to improve (and that is a mental decision only).

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

You do realize there is a significant difference between "refusing" to get better and "being unable" to get better, yes? It's like saying poor people "refuse" to be rich.

As for blaming the circumstances... sure. But that doesn't make it a personal flaw. Having too much work to do, or having children, or having a wife, or simply enjoying other things more than 40k, is not a personal flaw. They may not improve, but they don't have to. No one should make them. No one should say "you must spend six hours a week doing 40k-related things, to improve." They should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they want. And yes, this includes attending GTs. Bad players should be able to attend GTs, even if they have no hope of winning, if they want to.

You're confusing getting better with 'making massive leaps in skills' which is simply not how personal development works. Also there are vast differences between developing a skill versus acquiring wealth so that's not an apples to apples comparison. And yes blaming anything is a personal flaw - even if you only play 1 40k game a month you have the opportunity to get better, even if your only games ever are at a GT you have the opportunity to get better. It is 100% this line of thinking that frustrates me because it makes it seem like if you aren't able to make large strides in developing a skill set it isn't worth pursuing. Ultimately if your enjoyment is painting then you should get better at it, if its forging the narrative then get better. You should always endeavor to achieve more and further develop your skills, small wins are still progression - but you have to make the choice to attempt o get better (and that is a mental decision only).

What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Its definitely a great game, but I think GW has made some big mistakes in courting a specific type of player with their space marine branding. What started as a cool idea has more or less devolved into a mary sue power fantasy.Now the community is inundated with constant threads complaining that their tabletop experience didn't match their expectations. I think GW could fix this problem by writing more books where space marines- especially first founding chapters- are killed more frequently in mundane ways.

Unfortunately, only the Imperial Fists and their successors can die on mass for the entertainment of the reader

Scarabs and tyranids bug me the most.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

Getting better is doing any number of things better and evaluating where you did well and where you didn't. Were you able to finish the game in a faster time frame than last week? Did you make better choices in the shooting phase this time? Were you better able to screen against your opponent than your prior game? All of these are relatively small improvements but if you choose (keyword) to take an active role in examining these pieces you are improving, you are getting better at 40k. If you take these small things they will eventually snowball into bigger and bigger improvements.

And if you aren't passionate about a thing why are you doing it? Who cares if its your job? I believe in this entire process not just for 40k and my work life but really my entire life, you should always always be looking for ways to improve. Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating.

If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

 auticus wrote:
If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

Correct and if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that fact - I specifically said if painting is your hobby get better at painting, if forging the narrative is your hobby get better at storytelling. I entirely acknowledge(d) that there are multiple venues through which one can improve in the hobby of 40k. The issue is that many people choose not to in any facet.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

Getting better is doing any number of things better and evaluating where you did well and where you didn't. Were you able to finish the game in a faster time frame than last week? Did you make better choices in the shooting phase this time? Were you better able to screen against your opponent than your prior game? All of these are relatively small improvements but if you choose (keyword) to take an active role in examining these pieces you are improving, you are getting better at 40k. If you take these small things they will eventually snowball into bigger and bigger improvements.

And if you aren't passionate about a thing why are you doing it? Who cares if its your job? I believe in this entire process not just for 40k and my work life but really my entire life, you should always always be looking for ways to improve. Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating.

Why should people care? You haven't shown me that.

And as for your question about "why aren't you passionate about something why are you doing it?" well, the answer is that they get enjoyment out of some other part. Perhaps they enjoy the narrative of the game, and it doesn't matter how long it took, or perhaps they got a kick out of seeing if they could kill my Warlord rather than making good shooting choices? Maybe they were more excited to see a whole Leman Russ tank company on the field than they were concerned with screening it?

People don't have to get better from a competitive perspective to get better at the parts of the game they enjoy. They do have to choose to get better at those parts, you're right, but if they want to spend their energy at getting better at something else (making a inherently unbalanced list work) then who are you to tell them "NO! You must shorten your game length! You must screen your models! Why are you focusing on that irrelevant task?!"

And since they lack infinite time to look at warhammer (because of life commitments) then they only get better in the areas of the game they prioritize, rather than the ones you think they should prioritize.

This is why casual players don't really "get" competitive players: the view that if you're not competitively improving, you must not be passionate about the game. That's silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

Correct and if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that fact - I specifically said if painting is your hobby get better at painting, if forging the narrative is your hobby get better at storytelling. I entirely acknowledge(d) that there are multiple venues through which one can improve in the hobby of 40k. The issue is that many people choose not to in any facet.

This standard is impossible to prove. How do you know someone is getting better at storytelling? It's in their head. How do you know someone is improving in looking up the minute details of fluff that would affect how they build their list?

It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

That's all well and good but the point of this thread is stuff that bugs you and that bugs me. So effectively what you did was you took issue with my tone (understandable, I tend to read as confrontational, especially via text when I'm not making a conscience effort to soften my language) and decided to take issue with my position as well - that said the point of the thread is clear and I stated what bugs me. What bugs you is me.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

That's all well and good but the point of this thread is stuff that bugs you and that bugs me. So effectively what you did was you took issue with my tone (understandable, I tend to read as confrontational, especially via text when I'm not making a conscience effort to soften my language) and decided to take issue with my position as well - that said the point of the thread is clear and I stated what bugs me. What bugs you is me.

Well, yes. What bugs me is people telling other people how to live their lives, when it has no impact on them at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, yes. What bugs me is people telling other people how to live their lives, when it has no impact on them at all.

And there you go, you've arrived at the point of the thread.

 Corennus wrote:
Primaris Marines.

Space Marines were already powerful... but now they're broken.

And how long will it be before we get:

Grey Knight Primaris Marines!


the nightmare

Grey Knight Primaris Custodes MegaExtremelords! Wearing mega ultra doomarmour.


... or you could just play knights, but they are not any kind of Space Marine so don't count.

The codices and supplementary books in gloss are nice.
But players need a less expensive access to the game.

Igougo is the only thing that really bugs me about the game. There is too much time where you just wait and have little to do aside from making armorsaves.
The turn sequence of lotr would be a step in the right direction (I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, we both fight CC). Or an activation system, but I have no experience with those aside from Star Trek Attack Wing.

The biggest complaint I have is that every time a new edition comes out it is streamlined for all of a month or 2.
Then all the codices start mucking it up.

This particular edition is the worst in regard to the promise vs delivery. Don't get me wrong, 8th is my favorite edition so far, but the rules when they first dropped were the simplest I've ever seen.
The fact that you could buy only 5 books (the indexes) to have all the rules for every faction was quite delightful.

Then they started up the codices, which pilled on rule after rule after rule. Yes, the indexes were bland and needed flavor, but when so much flavor is added you can no longer taste the original dish, you have to say enough is enough.

-

This thread is so therapeutic

Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

Reemule wrote:
Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

So no Ynnari, no assassins, sisters of silence, anything like that?

Unpainted armies.

Poor sportsmanship.

Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

So no Ynnari, no assassins, sisters of silence, anything like that?

Exactly.

Sister of silence should be part of a single faction with SoB, inquisition, Grey knights, etc and Ynnari should just be 3 characters available in the Eldar or Drukhari codexes.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

This, so much this!

All marks of Land Raider guns should be on the front doors, it makes me sad when they're on the back! Also, it looks so much better on the front.

I hate when I have a unit that can't see an enemy unit/character (wall, corner, etc) but it can see an enemy character just an inch further away In front of it and they cant shoot. So stupid.

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

The "we don't have a plastic box labeled "unit X", therefore unit X is not allowed" attitude from GW. The push to single-loadout/single-pose units. People saying "It's GW's responsibility to fix all the things, I must assume that every game I play is a hardcore tournament game in which I have no ability to talk to my opponent about what I'd like to play and no responsibility for adjusting lists, tables, or the mission, because it's obviously GW's fault I'm not having fun." People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face. And people who try to impose their interpretation of the fluff on other peoples' armies.

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

Reemule wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

If its not Battle Forged you can't play in Matched Play.

Reemule wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

Crucially, playing matched play against an opponent requires armies to be battle-forged. So you would also be prevented from playing in most of the games around the country here in the US.

EDIT:
ninja'd! Good one Farseer.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The "we don't have a plastic box labeled "unit X", therefore unit X is not allowed" attitude from GW. The push to single-loadout/single-pose units. People saying "It's GW's responsibility to fix all the things, I must assume that every game I play is a hardcore tournament game in which I have no ability to talk to my opponent about what I'd like to play and no responsibility for adjusting lists, tables, or the mission, because it's obviously GW's fault I'm not having fun." People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face. And people who try to impose their interpretation of the fluff on other peoples' armies.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Then that is the errata. " If your playing Matched play Battleforged is based off your Chapter (or equivilent) and what currently counts as battle forged is allowed, but does not give you battle forged +3 cp"

The overall scale creep of the past few editions.

Reemule wrote:
Then that is the errata. " If your playing Matched play Battleforged is based off your Chapter (or equivilent) and what currently counts as battle forged is allowed, but does not give you battle forged +3 cp"

You could also just write "A player gets -3 CP if all the units in their army do not include identical faction keywords" and call it a day.

And it's still broken because in Imperial Guard, Tech-Priest Enginseers do not have <Regiment> and have <Forge World> instead, which means (by both your and my rewritten definition) that any guard player who brought one would lose 3 CP, and in your Errata, a Mechanicus Player could bring Astra Militarum Enginseers and preserve the +3CP, but Astra Militarum itself couldn't.

I doubt that is intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
The overall scale creep of the past few editions.

Do you mean in model size or game size?

Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

Another thing that bugs me is stratgems from different codex that do the exact same thing for the exact same command points - but one has extra restrictions to the other. It inspires much anger.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

I think you should be able to deny anywhere on the table but the further away you are it's -1 for the wc value and if you deny it the original caster would suffer 1 mortal wound. not sure what the distances would be but I could see this working.

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

"Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating."

Forums, and folks who say stuff like this on forums.

Seriously...anyone who forgets this is just a game for everyone involved except GW, who is trying to make a profit off you, and is not always gracious or considerate of their customers when they do it.

 Aetare wrote:
This thread is so therapeutic

Oh, glad it's helping. Can I have your address so I can. Mail you a therapist bill?

The existence of the Tau - or, if that is too extreme, the existence of the Tau Big Stompy Robots of Stupidity after the rather cool initial background where they saw such things as a waste of resources, instead using combined arms to deal with big targets.

The online community.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The online community.

There's an online community IN 40k?

That ones new to me. I presume they enjoy that show My Little Thunderwolf and their fave food is Grox tendies.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The online community.

There's an online community IN 40k?

That ones new to me. I presume they enjoy that show My Little Thunderwolf and their fave food is Grox tendies.

I'm making a distinction between the people you see face to face in FLGSs or the like and the people on sites like this. No one in my group moans about 8th at every chance or refuses to talk about anything except top tier competitivness so it's unfair to lump them in together.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

It also doesn't help that some players don't seem to want to have to think in order to play, or want to play against units which are interesting to use and interesting to face and counter. Look at how much hate the JSJ mechanics of Tau got. You would see people complaining that it meant that units which could JSJ were untouchable. But a Crisis suit could move 6" in the movement phase and would average 7" in the assault phase (I think it should have stayed at a flat 6", neither player would be caught out by a skewy roll rendering their plan useless). It was possible to hem Crisis teams in and trap them with nowhere to escape to through move and countermove. Actually making movement important beyond just getting your guns into position is what has been seriously lacking in 40K for a while and it is only getting worse.

Eldar jetbikes, on the other hand, were certainly broken with JSJ, as they had such high potential movement that hemming them in was next to impossible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

But not everyone only plays OP lists, in fact it's probably a large minority that does. The internet just assumes that every opponent is TFG.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

It's just modelled with the suspension fully depressed. The Leman Russ does that when digging in to fire their main cannons to 1) lower their target profile and 2) protect the more vulnerable working parts.

You're welcome!

“That guy who is just a little too into Nazis” being at the friendly local game store and actively making people uncomfortable.

People complaining that Armies that aren’t Top Tier need to be nerfed. Because they play better than previous editions.

Soup being a thing. I’d like to know if Blood Angels actual won a tournament not that someone took Ultramarines and then allied in 10 Blood Angels. Also how other armies are at a disadvantage because they can’t. IE. Xenos except Eldar who do have soup.

Plastic Sisters not being out yet.

As a fan of Epic I was annoyed that apocalypse killed off Epic. GW being a business shifted their focus into making the Epic models into 28mm scale as they were more profitable.

Flyers, super heavy vehicles, and gargantuan creatures have no place in 40k, it makes the scale of the game rules a bit odd on places and dilutes the focus of the rules. Detailed rules for pistols and detailed rules for titans weapons, all the while limited by a D6 system.

However having said all that they do make great center piece models.

 Desubot wrote:
The players

100% this.

Some people I had to play with before I stopped playing with non-friends.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

This is why I love Thousand Sons. There are few places you can be out of range of my psykers and with an extra 6" there is little you can do to stop me most of the time.

Racerguy180 wrote:

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

Not getting into CC, and not getting to move, is pretty bad. The unit eats a round of overwatch for just standing in place and is going to be shot at close range and/or assaulted by the enemy. Isn't that bad enough? Should there be a penalty for missing an attack or failing to wound?

1. The lack of firing/armor archs on tanks/monstrous creatures.
2. The janky cover/terrain rules
3. Mortal wounds, nice idea needs a tweek
4. 3++ or better saves
5. "Perfect" deepstrike
6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.
7. The detachment system, should be tailored for each type of play, overlap is fine, but supreme command should not be available in competitive play. Tau commander spam and the piss poor index was a great example of why.
8. Single Lords of war under 3k, fliers under 3k. I just think it is silly. The full detachment is fine.
9. The rerolls, all the rerolls... can we dump the miss/fail to wound rerolls - change them to a +1 on the dice roll. Leave the reroll 1s as the only model based rerolls. While keeping CP based rerolls.

clownshoes wrote:

6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.

I'd like to see the player that uses lasguns to bring down tanks instead of lascannons.

clownshoes wrote:
1. The lack of firing/armor archs on tanks/monstrous creatures.
2. The janky cover/terrain rules
3. Mortal wounds, nice idea needs a tweek
4. 3++ or better saves
5. "Perfect" deepstrike
6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.
7. The detachment system, should be tailored for each type of play, overlap is fine, but supreme command should not be available in competitive play. Tau commander spam and the piss poor index was a great example of why.
8. Single Lords of war under 3k, fliers under 3k. I just think it is silly. The full detachment is fine.
9. The rerolls, all the rerolls... can we dump the miss/fail to wound rerolls - change them to a +1 on the dice roll. Leave the reroll 1s as the only model based rerolls. While keeping CP based rerolls.

1. 40k is abstract. I like the idea of a tank firing on the move and at some point during it's move from point A to B it was rotating turrets and firing.
2. Agreed, terrain and cover in general needs a rework at the moment.
3. This was the answer to death stars. IMO a mechanic like this is needed as a counter for the really nasty units. Problem is that it is far too common now. I remember in early days of the 8th previews they said that MW would be "rare but powerful"
4. This is why we have MW. Besides nothing has better than a 3++ save that I'm aware of. I think GK can have a model with a 2++ in combat only and even then it's "meh" in the current meta.
5. I like it this way. Scatter was a pain. Only change I would make is to remove the ability to deepstrike turn 1 - or at least make it a 3+ turn 1 and then automatic from turn 2
6. In theory. When was the last time you saw basic weapons do anything to vehicles. Lascannons (or equivalent) are still the anti-tank go to and hasn't changed. I still remember everyone freaking out how lasguns "could kill a land raider"
7. Nothing wrong with them IMO. They support varied play styles and are actually implemented well. Tau Commander spam was a result of the index, not because of detachments. They were spammed because everything in comparison was 'trash' - this is now moot anyway as new codex has removed commanders - max 3 in matched play (assuming 3 detachments).
8. sorry, don't agree. CA pretty much killed off all FW heavies in matched play anyway due to massive price increases.
9. Sort of agree. 8th is definitely becoming "herohammer" with big blobs supported by characters. Rerolls from characters have always been a thing to some degree, but used to only effect one unit. They could use some work but I like the changes IMO

A squad of marines or even 3 should inspire fear....in the lore they do....in game not so much.

The eldar are a dying race....yet all their tech involves throwing lots of eldar lives away with in your face fighting?

Both of those factions should be represented the lowest of all model counts.

1 to 3 eldar in a squad..but it is a b-ass squad with tech that is nuts.

10 Marines....is the anchor to any battle line toughest unit in a game to kill..

Would love to see an edition where they cost 100 points a model but are sooo worth the price.

Hundreds of Guard....check
Hundreds of Nids....check
Hundreds of Orks.....check
15 marines......omg that is OP
a dozen eldar....this is going to be tough!

Pink Horror wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

Not getting into CC, and not getting to move, is pretty bad. The unit eats a round of overwatch for just standing in place and is going to be shot at close range and/or assaulted by the enemy. Isn't that bad enough? Should there be a penalty for missing an attack or failing to wound?

No, since charging is completely optional (I guess shooting is but not really). but maybe if you fail the charge you should be forced to move the actual distance you rolled? I just look at it as if you are trying to charge but fail to make the distance you need, you're put into a more dangerous position of being left out in the open. or maybe have a penalty in the next shooting phase?

Why stop at charging? If you shoot at something in the Shooting phase and miss, then why doesn't the unit become disorientated and can not do anything for the next turn? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Taking Overwatch is already a risk/reward for charging, and now in 8th with units being able to overwatch more than once is another consideration. I think it's fine as it is.

Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

It also doesn't help that some players don't seem to want to have to think in order to play, or want to play against units which are interesting to use and interesting to face and counter. Look at how much hate the JSJ mechanics of Tau got. You would see people complaining that it meant that units which could JSJ were untouchable. But a Crisis suit could move 6" in the movement phase and would average 7" in the assault phase (I think it should have stayed at a flat 6", neither player would be caught out by a skewy roll rendering their plan useless). It was possible to hem Crisis teams in and trap them with nowhere to escape to through move and countermove. Actually making movement important beyond just getting your guns into position is what has been seriously lacking in 40K for a while and it is only getting worse.

Eldar jetbikes, on the other hand, were certainly broken with JSJ, as they had such high potential movement that hemming them in was next to impossible.

Let me expand: there are units that are "OP" that may be the only thing holding a Codex together (e.g. take away my Vertus Praetors and you can kite the rest of my Custodes until doomsday, they'll never get close enough to do damage), there are units that people claim are "OP" based on their personal experience of the unit that are simply having an incredibly good matchup (a Custodes player grumbling about Hellblasters would do well to consider that he's handing them a table full of optimal targets, if you put down an army that's got chaff and the ability to outrange them they're a lot less intimidating), there are units that may not be horrifically "OP" on numbers but are simply incredibly irritating to see on the table (corner-camping Manticore/Basilisk firebases). Assuming that everything exists in a binary state of "OP"/"not-OP" and that applying some kind of large/blanket nerf to the "OP" unit is necessary rather than trying to look at the situation as a whole is the problem.

As to your example the problem JSJ presents has nothing to do with how far the unit moves and everything to do with its ability to move to get line of sight, fire, and move back out of line of sight. The people who were complaining about JSJ were people whose Codexes nailed their feet to a gunline (ex. many Guard armies) who felt that the only efficient thing their army did was getting hard-countered (since the Tau were getting to blast them without giving them any ability to react or respond).

In this case as in the case of many "OP" units/armies/mechanics the problem isn't the "OP" unit, it's the limited/one-dimensional armies that they hard-counter. Changing the battlesuits would take away an interesting and characterful mechanic that discouraged gunlines and forced more mobile play, but to do that you need to take the Guard book that can't really do anything effectively other than a gunline and give it the ability to do more mobile play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

Don't worry. I know a guy who put both the sponsons on his Crusader on the same side because there was no rule telling him he couldn't and he wanted to make sure he'd get both sponsons' shots more of the time. You will never have the dumbest-looking Land Raider.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

Don't worry. I know a guy who put both the sponsons on his Crusader on the same side because there was no rule telling him he couldn't and he wanted to make sure he'd get both sponsons' shots more of the time. You will never have the dumbest-looking Land Raider.

I don't know why, but that would be hilarious to see during a game of pre-8th constantly spinning in a circle so it could get both mounts firing.

Except Astra militarum got that with their double shooting no to hit penalty Leman Russ's, not to mention they always had nlos artillery.

Right now my biggest bug is it feels like GW is basing buffs, nerfs and points cost for units based upon 7th edition performance not based upon how they work in 8th edition.

 admironheart wrote:
A squad of marines or even 3 should inspire fear....in the lore they do....in game not so much.

The eldar are a dying race....yet all their tech involves throwing lots of eldar lives away with in your face fighting?

Both of those factions should be represented the lowest of all model counts.

1 to 3 eldar in a squad..but it is a b-ass squad with tech that is nuts.

10 Marines....is the anchor to any battle line toughest unit in a game to kill..

Would love to see an edition where they cost 100 points a model but are sooo worth the price.

Hundreds of Guard....check
Hundreds of Nids....check
Hundreds of Orks.....check
15 marines......omg that is OP
a dozen eldar....this is going to be tough!

GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff. They do it to make them more interesting amd balanced to play. They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

 Sim-Life wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
A squad of marines or even 3 should inspire fear....in the lore they do....in game not so much.

The eldar are a dying race....yet all their tech involves throwing lots of eldar lives away with in your face fighting?

Both of those factions should be represented the lowest of all model counts.

1 to 3 eldar in a squad..but it is a b-ass squad with tech that is nuts.

10 Marines....is the anchor to any battle line toughest unit in a game to kill..

Would love to see an edition where they cost 100 points a model but are sooo worth the price.

Hundreds of Guard....check
Hundreds of Nids....check
Hundreds of Orks.....check
15 marines......omg that is OP
a dozen eldar....this is going to be tough!

GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff. They do it to make them more interesting amd balanced to play. They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

Also if they were fluff levels of power (which themselves are all over the place) they would be high points cost and hence very low sales.

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

The Taurox is my pet hate, for the same reason. The guns, by default, are mounted behind the doors, which open 'normally', so you have protection from enemy fire as you get out, but you will be obliterated by the guns on your own vehicle. Anyone who takes the risk of riding in a Taurox in the 41st millenium is totally badass.

My pet hate is kits that don't come with enough bits to make the standard unit configuration - so devastator kits that come with one of each heavy weapon, and khorne berzerkers not having enough chainaxes for the whole squad. However, I usually understood this to mean that 'chainaxes' in the codex meant 'chainaxe or chainsword', in which case, my pet hate is unnecessarily specific codex wordings that don't relate to the kits! So either update the kit to have enough chainaxes, or change the wording in the codex (NB: I don't have the 8th ed codex).

My pet hate is one that looks like it's being rectified (via primaris marines), and that is models without helmets that aren't actually carrying a helmet. Some people hate helmetless models full stop, because you'd be an idiot to not wear one in battle, which is true. However, I see models as able to represent different moments in time, so they aren't necessarily fighting at the moment the were captured in plastic. They could be on a hill, overseeing the battle, on board their strike cruiser, resting after a bloody melée, and so on, and they could be helmetless for those moments, but they are, they should have a helmet on their belt, backpack, or in one hand. Granted, I make no effort to rectify this myself, and hence my own models annoy me... hahaha

I hate that I can't take an Enginseer in my Death Korp army without bringing more skitarii or paying 1CP for the Aux detachment.

I also hate that some people have labelled me a soup player because I bring that single Enginseer.

 Romeo Blue wrote:
I hate that I can't take an Enginseer in my Death Korp army without bringing more skitarii or paying 1CP for the Aux detachment.

I also hate that some people have labelled me a soup player because I bring that single Enginseer.

That sucks. It's weird how things have changed. The word 'soup' as an insult should not be used for people augmenting a force with fluffy extra models (Assassins, Inquisitors, Enginseers).

dosiere wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

Dang it, not only have I never really liked the Russ tanks looks but I never picked up on that. Now it’s all I see when I look at one. Does it have road wheels behind the armor if you cut a 1/4inch or so of it away?

It used to, but it doesn't now - the current kit has two fewer sprues (the wheels sprue and the track links sprue) than the old kit, as they eliminated parts that had no use.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
A squad of marines or even 3 should inspire fear....in the lore they do....in game not so much.

The eldar are a dying race....yet all their tech involves throwing lots of eldar lives away with in your face fighting?

Both of those factions should be represented the lowest of all model counts.

1 to 3 eldar in a squad..but it is a b-ass squad with tech that is nuts.

10 Marines....is the anchor to any battle line toughest unit in a game to kill..

Would love to see an edition where they cost 100 points a model but are sooo worth the price.

Hundreds of Guard....check
Hundreds of Nids....check
Hundreds of Orks.....check
15 marines......omg that is OP
a dozen eldar....this is going to be tough!

GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff. They do it to make them more interesting amd balanced to play. They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

Also if they were fluff levels of power (which themselves are all over the place) they would be high points cost and hence very low sales.

Those aren't fluffy, they're stats that would be given to an action movie protagonist, hence the term ''Movie''.

 corpuschain wrote:


The Taurox is my pet hate, for the same reason. The guns, by default, are mounted behind the doors, which open 'normally', so you have protection from enemy fire as you get out, but you will be obliterated by the guns on your own vehicle. Anyone who takes the risk of riding in a Taurox in the 41st millenium is totally badass.

You could always ... take your finger off the "Fire" button when dudes are getting into or out of the van... maybe you could even have a warning sign on it.
Unless its conscripts, because the bullet might go through them and still hit the enemy...

(of course trying to re-embark in the middle of a firefight while the crew is distracted by shooting the enemy and might not notice you approaching might be chancy)

Cheeslord wrote:

 corpuschain wrote:


The Taurox is my pet hate, for the same reason. The guns, by default, are mounted behind the doors, which open 'normally', so you have protection from enemy fire as you get out, but you will be obliterated by the guns on your own vehicle. Anyone who takes the risk of riding in a Taurox in the 41st millenium is totally badass.

You could always ... take your finger off the "Fire" button when dudes are getting into or out of the van... maybe you could even have a warning sign on it.
Unless its conscripts, because the bullet might go through them and still hit the enemy...

(of course trying to re-embark in the middle of a firefight while the crew is distracted by shooting the enemy and might not notice you approaching might be chancy)

I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to link the door handle to the firing mechanism, so when you turn it, the gun is disabled. They only re-enable once the door is closed.
I'm sort of tempted to get a Taurox now, if only so I can refer to it on the tabletop as the 'van of death', with the special rule that every model embarking or disembarking has to take a dangerous terrain test.

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff.

Where?

 Sim-Life wrote:
They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

What in MOVIE marine don't you understand? Do you actually believe that Silvester Stallone could beat a whole army by himself?

People who get angry when they're super mega cannon doesn't play my army off the table turn 1.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff.

Where?

 Sim-Life wrote:
They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

What in MOVIE marine don't you understand? Do you actually believe that Silvester Stallone could beat a whole army by himself?

Jesus Christ, calm down lad.

People on the internet bug me most.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Flamers being the go-to anti-air weapon in the 41st millennium

That is absurd, but really that stems from the inclusion of fighter type aircraft in a tactical game meant to be for infantry and tank type armies. Infantry and tanks simply don't slug it out with aircraft at all, they should be represented at command point expenditures for bombing runs and whatnot. You want an anti-aircraft stuff to counter that sure, but once you make them units on the board it's kinda hard sooner or later to not get things like taking out air superiority craft like Crimson Hunters with flamethrowers.

I would've thought you could add aircraft as fast skimmers. So they're acting as support but not flying around.

pm713 wrote:
I would've thought you could add aircraft as fast skimmers. So they're acting as support but not flying around.

Skimmers sure, but pretty sure what the OP was talking about were units that are definitely more F-16(Crimson Hunters, Ork Dakka Bombers) than hovercraft(Repulsor, Jetbikes). When you have specified traits like supersonic and hard to hit flier penalties I think they were going for actual aircraft, and those frankly don't fit all that well in a game meant to represent infantry/tank combat. But opinions will vary of course.

Gwarok wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I would've thought you could add aircraft as fast skimmers. So they're acting as support but not flying around.

Skimmers sure, but pretty sure what the OP was talking about were units that are definitely more F-16(Crimson Hunters, Ork Dakka Bombers) than hovercraft(Repulsor, Jetbikes). When you have specified traits like supersonic and hard to hit flier penalties I think they were going for actual aircraft, and those frankly don't fit all that well in a game meant to represent infantry/tank combat. But opinions will vary of course.

They don't but you just make them to have hovercraft rules. It would have been better without them but you can't just remove them now. It's not like GW actually care about things looking functional anyway.

Now that I think of it, lots of things irritate me that would be a snap to fix.

1) They don't have generic chapter masters anymore. If you want one and aren't playing a fleshed out chapter with its codex you're stuck with paying 3CP get that it. Seems like a simple +10pts or something on a Capt would get the job done. I'd love to have a Chapter Master in the back of an Iron Hands or Imperial Fist artillery battery, allowing the Whirlwinds and Thunder Cannons to reroll their shots as they very fluffily rain down a barrage of fire from miles away to break their enemies before the infantry assault, but I'm not paying 3CP to do it.

2) Space Marine transports only work for some given types of troops, like Primaris only in Repulsors and nothing else. Does any other race have that issue? No, all their transports can take all their units, the bigger ones just take up more space. There is a special transport for scouts, termies, and primaris, and Rhinos only work for scouts and regular marines. Seriously, wtf? It's like they went out of their way to over complicate things, maybe it's a fluff thing.

3) 1000 Space Marines per chapter, and they take a decade or longer to train, in a world where even they die like flies? Every single chapter would be good for one solid engagement then have to take a decade off to get back to fighting strength. And how the hell do the veterans have like 100+ years under their belt? No way any of them would last that long unless they were on guard duty back home the whole time. That's not even enough marines to properly staff the training center back home.

4) Battle Barges are like 7 miles long, with roughly the dimensions of a brick, yet can only transport 4 companies of marines? Lol, that's 400 guys in a volume of space you could literally fit every building of a multi million population city into. Even with the most lavish wastage of space on things like Cathedrals and High Gothic architecture, that's silly. Modern super amphibious craft are less than 1000ft long and can land a mechanized division. 400 men of even Space Marine stature standing in a 20x20 parade formation at the front of the ship would not be visible to the naked eye from an observer at the back of the ship, 7 miles away. That is how big a battle barge is.

As the man once said, I agreed to suspend my disbelief, not hang it from the neck until dead, but I have developed the skills to ignore these things in my affection for a pretty awesome game. I mean, I'll put up with a lot to get to shoot at space orks.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff.

Where?

 Sim-Life wrote:
They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

What in MOVIE marine don't you understand? Do you actually believe that Silvester Stallone could beat a whole army by himself?

Jesus Christ, calm down lad.

Wow, I second that...

Back to the topic, what bugs me the most is people who take a silly hobby and game entirely too serious.

One thing to note-a "dead" model may not actually be dead, just out of commission. While a Guardsmen that is slain probably represents someone who won't be going home to their family, a Marine removed from the tabletop might just need a day or two of rest and surgery.

"3) 1000 Space Marines per chapter, and they take a decade or longer to train, in a world where even they die like flies? Every single chapter would be good for one solid engagement then have to take a decade off to get back to fighting strength. And how the hell do the veterans have like 100+ years under their belt? No way any of them would last that long unless they were on guard duty back home the whole time. That's not even enough marines to properly staff the training center back home.

4) Battle Barges are like 7 miles long, with roughly the dimensions of a brick, yet can only transport 4 companies of marines? Lol, that's 400 guys in a volume of space you could literally fit every building of a multi million population city into. Even with the most lavish wastage of space on things like Cathedrals and High Gothic architecture, that's silly. Modern super amphibious craft are less than 1000ft long and can land a mechanized division. 400 men of even Space Marine stature standing in a 20x20 parade formation at the front of the ship would not be visible to the naked eye from an observer at the back of the ship, 7 miles away. That is how big a battle barge is.

As the man once said, I agreed to suspend my disbelief, not hang it from the neck until dead, but I have developed the skills to ignore these things in my affection for a pretty awesome game. I mean, I'll put up with a lot to get to shoot at space orks."

This, in spades. Especially the last. Although I find Gwarok's shabby treatment of misunderstood Space Orks somewhat disturbing

If the miniatures weren't so great, and the IDEA of the game wasn't so appealing, it would be tough to accept GW antics and rulesets.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW have acknowleged in the past that Marines are underpowered compared to fluff.

Where?

 Sim-Life wrote:
They actually wrote up rules for more True To Fluff rules in an old Chapter Approved and called them Movie Marines.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

What in MOVIE marine don't you understand? Do you actually believe that Silvester Stallone could beat a whole army by himself?

Considering that most Black Library authors seem to treat marines as movie marines it is no wonder many people think that's how they should be. I guess I can add that to the list of 40K things that annoy me, BL hyperbole creeping in the studio fluff. Matt Ward is nothing compared to some of the BL stuff.

The Primaris statline does a great job of representing marines as feeling fitting to their fluff in comparison to most other units. It's the statline that should really be representing marines in all their forms, without distinction.

There's the problem of them not being particularly good, but the foundation is there, it just needs some development.

 Fafnir wrote:
The Primaris statline does a great job of representing marines as feeling fitting to their fluff in comparison to most other units. It's the statline that should really be representing marines in all their forms, without distinction.

There's the problem of them not being particularly good, but the foundation is there, it just needs some development.

Then there's the problem of buffing other units around them.

What's really beginning to bug me, is the lack of support for Imperial Guard/DKoK from Forgeworld lately. FW really need to update their lists soon, it's been 3/4 of a year now since the IA: Index came out. I know and understand things fell apart a bit with the tragic and unexpected death of writer Alan Bligh, but surely someone else could take over after him?

The some times very salty community in the internet.
A bit the "the sky is falling" attitude that some people have here.
Very unbalaced units.

painting 120 gants ^^ but i do it voluntary so its my own fault ^^

 Zingraff wrote:
What's really beginning to bug me, is the lack of support for Imperial Guard/DKoK from Forgeworld lately. FW really need to update their lists soon, it's been 3/4 of a year now since the IA: Index came out. I know and understand things fell apart a bit with the tragic and unexpected death of writer Alan Bligh, but surely someone else could take over after him?

this is the case for all factions or did i miss something?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

What's the difference anyway? The turret swivels 180 degrees. The gun can shoot across the door regardless of where you put it.

 corpuschain wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:

 corpuschain wrote:


The Taurox is my pet hate, for the same reason. The guns, by default, are mounted behind the doors, which open 'normally', so you have protection from enemy fire as you get out, but you will be obliterated by the guns on your own vehicle. Anyone who takes the risk of riding in a Taurox in the 41st millenium is totally badass.

You could always ... take your finger off the "Fire" button when dudes are getting into or out of the van... maybe you could even have a warning sign on it.
Unless its conscripts, because the bullet might go through them and still hit the enemy...

(of course trying to re-embark in the middle of a firefight while the crew is distracted by shooting the enemy and might not notice you approaching might be chancy)

I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to link the door handle to the firing mechanism, so when you turn it, the gun is disabled. They only re-enable once the door is closed.
I'm sort of tempted to get a Taurox now, if only so I can refer to it on the tabletop as the 'van of death', with the special rule that every model embarking or disembarking has to take a dangerous terrain test.

I've never seen a player run taurox that didn't have the autocannons in the turret. Only in the GW books are they mounted on the chassis.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 corpuschain wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:

 corpuschain wrote:


The Taurox is my pet hate, for the same reason. The guns, by default, are mounted behind the doors, which open 'normally', so you have protection from enemy fire as you get out, but you will be obliterated by the guns on your own vehicle. Anyone who takes the risk of riding in a Taurox in the 41st millenium is totally badass.

You could always ... take your finger off the "Fire" button when dudes are getting into or out of the van... maybe you could even have a warning sign on it.
Unless its conscripts, because the bullet might go through them and still hit the enemy...

(of course trying to re-embark in the middle of a firefight while the crew is distracted by shooting the enemy and might not notice you approaching might be chancy)

I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to link the door handle to the firing mechanism, so when you turn it, the gun is disabled. They only re-enable once the door is closed.
I'm sort of tempted to get a Taurox now, if only so I can refer to it on the tabletop as the 'van of death', with the special rule that every model embarking or disembarking has to take a dangerous terrain test.

I've never seen a player run taurox that didn't have the autocannons in the turret. Only in the GW books are they mounted on the chassis.

You don't know about the BEST Taurox in the game then. The Taurox Prime w/ Gatling Cannon.

What bugs me about 40k?

Tyranids!

 Zakiriel wrote:
What bugs me about 40k?

Tyranids!

badum TISs

 Zakiriel wrote:
What bugs me about 40k?

Tyranids!

get out.

take this exalt with you.

I hate the unwieldy rule - it is so obvious that the developers intended this to be a shooting dominated game. What is worse there are units that effectively have a power fist (etc) and can ignore the rule. A scrawny Tau can hit a pebble a mile away with his railgun but a Space Marine can't punch an enemy all up in his grill?!?!?!

8th ed.

How about it's just as easy to hit a titanic model as a grot. There are no size modifiers so it's all based off your model's BS.

Pink Horror wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

What's the difference anyway? The turret swivels 180 degrees. The gun can shoot across the door regardless of where you put it.

Lol, never really thought of it like that!