What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
My impression is that modern 40K is more forgiving on taking lords of war in general games than it was in the past. In the past (esp when superheavies were FW only type models) it was often with opponents permission as a general social expectation in most areas since beating them required specific countermeasures which, if you didn't have, meant the lord of war was going to win the game without much difficulty.
Today I think the playing field is more level. As a result it might well come down to individual club and person level as to if they are default include or not.
Also if you play games with objectives and not just for kills; then taking them at lower points can even leave you with a disadvantage because you've a lot of points tied up in a single model on a single spot of the table.
thing is Lords of war these days aren't really a big deal. some people still hold old views, but in 8th edition really the differance is almost arbitray.
DarkHound wrote: What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
Id say it depends entirely on what your opponent is bringing and what sort of game you are agreeing to I think. Might be worth asking if LOW are good to go so they can bring their own etc.
The last thing I'd want is to drop on a knight on someone's fluffy list that doesn't have an answer and curb stomp them.
DarkHound wrote: What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
Entire armies of superheavies are now seen as kosher, GW did this when they made Knights an army unto themselves.
That said, in general, in and of themselves they don't tend to present to many balance issues. There's been a couple that have been able to be abused at various points, but have received targeted nerfs that reduced their overpowering capabilities without impacting the ability of people to bring such units. I've run Baneblade companies with 4 SH's in 2k games and have never done better than 50/50 with them.
Now, the larger issues of the game attempting to encompasse such a scale is a different matter, 40k can't decide what scale it wants to play at, creating a myriad of issues and problems related to that, but honestly bringing a grip of superheavies isn't the most busted thing the game has to offer, not by far.
For a tournament, you won't have any issues bringing as many Lords of War as you can fit in. For more casual games, check out your local meta and get a feel for stuff. For pickup games, it's gonna be super variable.
At 1500 points, for a pickup game, I’d like to know ahead of time if I’ll be facing more than 1 Super Heavy. At 1850, if I’m facing more than 2 Super Heavies, I’d like to know ahead of time.
I don’t personally enjoy playing against Lots of superheavies. One or two as a centrepiece is cool, but I don’t like facing an army of them, so I prefer a warning so I can tailor a list that will be fun to play, and play against. I find my opponent and I have more fun that way.
greatbigtree wrote: At 1500 points, for a pickup game, I’d like to know ahead of time if I’ll be facing more than 1 Super Heavy. At 1850, if I’m facing more than 2 Super Heavies, I’d like to know ahead of time.
I don’t personally enjoy playing against Lots of superheavies. One or two as a centrepiece is cool, but I don’t like facing an army of them, so I prefer a warning so I can tailor a list that will be fun to play, and play against. I find my opponent and I have more fun that way.
This is how the game should be played at a casual level. Talk to your opponent and work out something, be it lists or custom missions, that work for your armies.
For a small scale pick-up game, yeah a bit cheesy. For a tournament though, I'd say anything goes.
That being said, in the early days of 8th edition I just got back into the game after a 2-year hiatus. My second game ever of 8th edition was a tournament. I got serious crap (and not the friendly kidding kind) because I brought two Baneblades and a Shadowsword. Which was odd, considering I saw at least 2 knight-lists, a couple magnus/mortarion/lord of skulls combos, and a Tau FW supersuit list that was apparently okay to use.
Eonfuzz wrote: Let me cry as my army of 3 ork boyz squads fails to wound their one knight. fun.
Do the nobz in boyz units not carry powerklaws these days?
Hitting on 4's, wounding on 3's with 3 attacks.
1.5 hits, 1 wound, 4++ save means 0.5 wounds go through, average of 2 damage per hit, meaning 1 damage in assault per nob
Tell me more about how good powerklaws are lmao
Don't bring Titanic units in 1000 pts or below, don't bring more than one unless you're playing 1750+ pts. Ask your opponent before or after the game if they can have fun against Knights with their current list, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Knight-spam can be a frustrating list, just like any other skew list can be, 200 Gretchin and Smite spam requires some inquiring as well. If your opponent is bringing a competitive list you don't need to hold back IMO. Some lists will destroy your Knights, they're good but they're not top of the meta anymore.
Different Knights have different strengths, in the Knight Codex they're all about equally pts-effective some are more generalist some are more specialized. Many of the FW ones were weak before the FW Knight update, I'm not sure how they do now. If you don't take WL traits and Relics on Knights they're vastly less effective if you just want something stompy but you don't want to necessarily stomp your opponent maybe you can come to a middle ground where your opponent lets you use one or more Knights as long as you agree not to give them a WL traits or Relics.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hitting on 4's, wounding on 3's with 3 attacks.
1.5 hits, 1 wound, 4++ save means 0.5 wounds go through, average of 2 damage per hit, meaning 1 damage in assault per nob
Tell me more about how good powerklaws are lmao
Off the charge, and assuming 20 total orks make it into CC you get:
Eonfuzz wrote: Hitting on 4's, wounding on 3's with 3 attacks.
1.5 hits, 1 wound, 4++ save means 0.5 wounds go through, average of 2 damage per hit, meaning 1 damage in assault per nob
Tell me more about how good powerklaws are lmao
Off the charge, and assuming 20 total orks make it into CC you get:
Eonfuzz wrote: 220 points for 4 damage bois yeee haw goteeeem
If you only run boyz you're not going to have much anti-tank. More at 11.
Hold up, aren't we talking about pick up and play games? Are you saying that Ork players can't run Orks?
I was using it as an example of why Knights are degenerate in casual games lmao.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hold up, aren't we talking about pick up and play games? Are you saying that Ork players can't run Orks?
I was using it as an example of why Knights are degenerate in casual games lmao.
You'd be equally screwed against a list that runs Leman Russ's, Land Raiders, a Stompa or two, more than 1 Flyer... Using a bad list to try to prove a point is terrible.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hold up, aren't we talking about pick up and play games? Are you saying that Ork players can't run Orks?
I was using it as an example of why Knights are degenerate in casual games lmao.
You'd be equally screwed against a list that runs Leman Russ's, Land Raiders, a Stompa or two, more than 1 Flyer... Using a bad list to try to prove a point is terrible.
Running lists that are *just* leman russes or *just* stompas is also degenerate in casual games.
Change my mind.
JNAProductions wrote: Knights don’t have an invulnerable in close combat without a relic.
And if you're gamer enough to run a Knight in a casual sub 1000 list you're gamer enough to throw that invul relic on your knight.
...
Do you even know Knights at all?
Why would the gamer not choose an invul relic to stop 30% of the damage output of the only things that can hurt it.
And honestly, I don't really know Knights. Dont interest me in the slightest
Eonfuzz wrote: Hey now, I know what *I'm* doing, I keep saying *casual* games, not matched play, not narrative.
In your example, by bringing such a weak list you're kind of being TFG by complaining when people sit down across from you with the models they purchased. Even in a casual setting, you should still build a list that covers the basics.
Why would the gamer not choose an invul relic to stop 30% of the damage output of the only things that can hurt it.
Why would the ork gamer not bring a unit of MANZ or tank bustas to have actually antitank?
Okay-casual does not mean you intentionally build bad lists. And if you do, because you want to try something silly, like, say, a Stompa Mob, you talk to your opponent about it and ask them to tone their list down or use a fun scenario that lets you have a good fight.
I see no reason why, in a casual game, you shouldn't bring any anti-tank.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay-casual does not mean you intentionally build bad lists. And if you do, because you want to try something silly, like, say, a Stompa Mob, you talk to your opponent about it and ask them to tone their list down or use a fun scenario that lets you have a good fight.
I see no reason why, in a casual game, you shouldn't bring any anti-tank.
Right, which is why I'm saying it's degenerate in casual games.
In an ideal world you have a chat with the opponent, talk about goals and what you enjoy and play a game.
But with casual play you can't make any assumptions about lists. The example I was making above is the ideal "Ork Horde" of a massive green tide. Versus that one guy that brings in knights.
We, on the forums for the game, know that just green tide is bad against mechanized lists, but that casual ork player versus the knight gamer doesn't know that.
Thus, the onus is on the knight player to not be a degenerate, or talk to the ork player beforehand.
Edit: It's a bit like the fluffbunny who reads how great space marines are and builds a tactical only list and plays against a knight spammer. Who's in the wrong?
JNAProductions wrote: Okay-casual does not mean you intentionally build bad lists. And if you do, because you want to try something silly, like, say, a Stompa Mob, you talk to your opponent about it and ask them to tone their list down or use a fun scenario that lets you have a good fight.
I see no reason why, in a casual game, you shouldn't bring any anti-tank.
Right, which is why I'm saying it's degenerate in casual games.
In an ideal world you have a chat with the opponent, talk about goals and what you enjoy and play a game.
But with casual play you can't make any assumptions about lists. The example I was making above is the ideal "Ork Horde" of a massive green tide. Versus that one guy that brings in knights.
We, on the forums for the game, know that just green tide is bad against mechanized lists, but that casual ork player versus the knight gamer doesn't know that.
Thus, the onus is on the knight player to not be a degenerate, or talk to the ork player beforehand.
Edit: It's a bit like the fluffbunny who reads how great space marines are and builds a tactical only list and plays against a knight spammer. Who's in the wrong?
I'm sorry, but if you fail to beat a 4-Knight list with an Ork Horde, you're a terrible general or playing a pure kill points mission. You should be winning on objectives SO HARD, even without doing a lick of damage.
Not to mention, Orks have tools to counter Knights! Tankbustas. Meganobz, probably Evil Sunz and Tellyported in. Regular Nobz, same deal. SAG and SSAG.
If a player REPEATEDLY brings Knights when you lack the tools to counter them (say, you're new to the hobby and don't have a good collection yet) then yeah, they're a jerk and a dingus. But if you just say "Hey, want to play a 2k game?" and they say yes, you should generally be bringing a TAC list that can handle most things.
While one can argue that Knights are too good, that's not an inherent LoW problem. It'd be the same if I brought a horde of Intercessors-they're too powerful right now, so you'd likely be losing, but that's a BALANCE ISSUE, not a LoW issue.
Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
Yes, because even a fluff bunny can look at their own codex and see units that they can't easily kill with purer greentide. Or is this hypothetical fluff bunny supposed to have stopped reading before they saw the Stompa?
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
Did you miss where I said...
JNAProductions wrote: If a player REPEATEDLY brings Knights when you lack the tools to counter them (say, you're new to the hobby and don't have a good collection yet) then yeah, they're a jerk and a dingus. But if you just say "Hey, want to play a 2k game?" and they say yes, you should generally be bringing a TAC list that can handle most things.
Because it sure seems like you did.
In addition to that, fluffy=/=bad. A perfectly fluffy Space Marine Battle Company, while not tournament level or super cutthroat, is a powerful list still.
As for knowing anti-tank is required, well, I would expect anyone with moderate experience (say, a dozen games or more) to know that, yeah, you need something to handle big, tough models. They're not uncommon.
I won't say there's NO responsibility on the end of the winner, but it'd be foolish to say there's no responsibility on the loser either. The winner should, ideally, tone down their list if they face the same person in the future, as well as offering advice on how the loser can better their list. But if the loser of the match just says something like "Well, I'm not changing what I do, YOU CHANGE to make a better game for me!" they can feth off.
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
I've run fluffy Night Lords since fething 3rd edition, and I fething know how to beat a fething knight list. Just because someone cares about the fluff doesn't mean they don't have a clue about how the game works.
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
I've run fluffy Night Lords since fething 3rd edition, and I fething know how to beat a fething knight list. Just because someone cares about the fluff doesn't mean they don't have a clue about how the game works.
Congrats on playing the game for 20+ years!
What about Timmy who's just finished reading the novels and is building a luna wolves list full of tactical marines.
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
Did you miss where I said...
Nah, I saw it. It's the "Repeatedly" part where you're wrong. Knights in casual games are bad (I'm talking about pick up and play, no discusison beforehand).
If there is discussion beforehand it's totally fine as long as both people agree.
And it isn't really "just some" anti tank, if you are going up against a knight list and have "some" anti-tank it wont really cut it, thus the degeneracy.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
Okay, so clearly, we shouldn't include any models that someone might not like in their first game. No Leman Russes (they shoot 40 shots! and are T8!), no Knights (they have an invuln AND are T8!), no Custodes (T5 and 2+/4++ on a troop!), no Plaguebearers (they come 30 strong, are -1 to-hit, AND have layered saves!), no Harlequins (they can move so fast, shoot, charge, fall back, shoot, charge, it's crazy!), no Space Marines at all (they get extra AP on their weapons just for being there!), so on and so forth.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
Okay, so clearly, we shouldn't include any models that someone might not like in their first game. No Leman Russes (they shoot 40 shots! and are T8!), no Knights (they have an invuln AND are T8!), no Custodes (T5 and 2+/4++ on a troop!), no Plaguebearers (they come 30 strong, are -1 to-hit, AND have layered saves!), no Harlequins (they can move so fast, shoot, charge, fall back, shoot, charge, it's crazy!), no Space Marines at all (they get extra AP on their weapons just for being there!), so on and so forth.
No. Any Skew lists that require specific things to counter them is bad.
An all flier list, all leman russ etc etc.
Yet again, if you want to run a gamer list just talk to the person before hand.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
Okay, so clearly, we shouldn't include any models that someone might not like in their first game. No Leman Russes (they shoot 40 shots! and are T8!), no Knights (they have an invuln AND are T8!), no Custodes (T5 and 2+/4++ on a troop!), no Plaguebearers (they come 30 strong, are -1 to-hit, AND have layered saves!), no Harlequins (they can move so fast, shoot, charge, fall back, shoot, charge, it's crazy!), no Space Marines at all (they get extra AP on their weapons just for being there!), so on and so forth.
No. Any Skew lists that require specific things to counter them is bad.
An all flier list, all leman russ etc etc.
Yet again, if you want to run a gamer list just talk to the person before hand.
If you want to run a poorly-optimized "fluffy" list, just talk to the person beforehand.
JNAProductions wrote: If you want to run a poorly-optimized "fluffy" list, just talk to the person beforehand.
It cuts both ways.
Take it from a poster who can be stubborn, as you yourself have seen, Eonfuzz is trolling us right now and he'll keep moving the goalposts until you give up. There's a reason he's started ignoring all my replies.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
Okay, so clearly, we shouldn't include any models that someone might not like in their first game. No Leman Russes (they shoot 40 shots! and are T8!), no Knights (they have an invuln AND are T8!), no Custodes (T5 and 2+/4++ on a troop!), no Plaguebearers (they come 30 strong, are -1 to-hit, AND have layered saves!), no Harlequins (they can move so fast, shoot, charge, fall back, shoot, charge, it's crazy!), no Space Marines at all (they get extra AP on their weapons just for being there!), so on and so forth.
No. Any Skew lists that require specific things to counter them is bad.
An all flier list, all leman russ etc etc.
Yet again, if you want to run a gamer list just talk to the person before hand.
A horde list is a skew list.
And how did we go from "fluff bunnies" to "Little Timmy "?
Please excuse me, I have a search party to get together, got to find those goal posts.
JNAProductions wrote: So do you only consider a tabling a victory? Because again-you should be winning on objectives VERY HARD with an Ork Horde against a Knight list.
Casual, pick up and play isn't always objectives. Hell, a lot of timmy's-first-game I've seen is just a shooting gallery.
Okay, so clearly, we shouldn't include any models that someone might not like in their first game. No Leman Russes (they shoot 40 shots! and are T8!), no Knights (they have an invuln AND are T8!), no Custodes (T5 and 2+/4++ on a troop!), no Plaguebearers (they come 30 strong, are -1 to-hit, AND have layered saves!), no Harlequins (they can move so fast, shoot, charge, fall back, shoot, charge, it's crazy!), no Space Marines at all (they get extra AP on their weapons just for being there!), so on and so forth.
No. Any Skew lists that require specific things to counter them is bad.
An all flier list, all leman russ etc etc.
Yet again, if you want to run a gamer list just talk to the person before hand.
A horde list is a skew list.
And how did we go from "fluff bunnies" to "Little Timmy "?
Please excuse me, I have a search party to get together, got to find those goal posts.
Hate to say it, but little timmy is GW's target market.
JNAProductions wrote: If you want to run a poorly-optimized "fluffy" list, just talk to the person beforehand.
It cuts both ways.
Take it from a poster who can be stubborn, as you yourself have seen, Eonfuzz is trolling us right now and he'll keep moving the goalposts until you give up. There's a reason he's started ignoring all my replies.
Skipping 1 post does not mean "ignoring all of your replies" lmao.
Look, the onus is on the person who knows more about the game to warn the other player.
Generally, fluff bunnies play the game not for its mechanics, generally little timmy doesn't know he must have an adequate amount of anti tank. Generally, the gamer who plays knights knows more about the rules.
If the person who knows their list is unfun, or requires specific things to have an even playing field doesn't talk about it that's some degenerate play.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hate to say it, but little timmy is GW's target market.
Why did you ignore the comment about a horde list being a skew list?
Look, the onus is on the person who knows more about the game to warn the other player.
This isn't what you were arguing before. Your specific complaint was an all boyz army versus a knight, so why are we now talking about new players?
Generally, fluff bunnies play the game not for its mechanics, generally little timmy doesn't know he must have an adequate amount of anti tank. Generally, the gamer who plays knights knows more about the rules.
Why can't Timmy play Imperial Knights? Or Leman Russ spam? Or Fliers?
If the person who knows their list is unfun, or requires specific things to have an even playing field doesn't talk about it that's some degenerate play.
You mean like if a person brings a horde list against Imperial Knights and wins on objectives?
DarkHound wrote: What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
Well, in the circles I play in, the attitude has always been "Bring it on."
The only limitations have been 1) must fit within the pts (we don't allow lists to exceed the stated amount, not even by a pt), 2) your list must be legal.
As for unfair? Whatever I lose to of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote: Using knights outside of tournaments is pretty degenerate, but that's more of a balancing issue than a pick up and play contract.
Well since I & those I play with don't do tourneys.... Fortunately we don't share your PoV on this subject.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
If they don't realize they need AT they will if they come play with me & mine (regardless of knights being fielded).
Or they'll have to figure out some other way of dealing with armor.
Eonfuzz wrote: Right. Yet again you're implying the casual player has all those things, or knows anti-tank is required. Fluffbunnies are a thing, are they in the wrong?
I've run fluffy Night Lords since fething 3rd edition, and I fething know how to beat a fething knight list. Just because someone cares about the fluff doesn't mean they don't have a clue about how the game works.
Congrats on playing the game for 20+ years!
What about Timmy who's just finished reading the novels and is building a luna wolves list full of tactical marines.
Timmy will soon be filing an order for some AT units.
Eonfuzz wrote: 220 points for 4 damage bois yeee haw goteeeem
If you only run boyz you're not going to have much anti-tank. More at 11.
Hold up, aren't we talking about pick up and play games? Are you saying that Ork players can't run Orks?
I was using it as an example of why Knights are degenerate in casual games lmao.
So you bring 2000 pts of only orks so like...285 orks?
You realize right other armies would find THAT boring to face and not have enough shots to deal with either...You spam one dimensional list, there's always going to be hard counters.
Not to mention only noobs play kill point only so you can still be easily favourite.
But with casual play you can't make any assumptions about lists. The example I was making above is the ideal "Ork Horde" of a massive green tide. Versus that one guy that brings in knights.
We, on the forums for the game, know that just green tide is bad against mechanized lists, but that casual ork player versus the knight gamer doesn't know that.
So you think casual game means one dimensional boring ork boy only spam list that hard counters other armies even better than your army gets countered by knights...
Lol. Guess your meta is full of armies only boy spam hard counters and you enjoy roflstomping them. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCC!!!!
Why did you ignore the comment about a horde list being a skew list?
Because a fluffy greenie ork tide isn't a flavour of the month WAAC build.
This isn't what you were arguing before. Your specific complaint was an all boyz army versus a knight, so why are we now talking about new players?
My specific point was playing a Knights list in a casual match is degenerate.
Not sure why you feel like me bringing up Ork Boyz being bad against Super Heavies eclipses every other discussion that's taken place here.
Why can't Timmy play Imperial Knights? Or Leman Russ spam? Or Fliers?
Sure, but if you had taken half a moment to read my posts (Which you were complaining I didn't fyi) You'd see that I'm arguing about the burden of knowledge.
A dude picking FOTM lists would generally have a better idea of the game than a casual guy, thus it's on them to talk about it.
You mean like if a person brings a horde list against Imperial Knights and wins on objectives?
Yet again you bring up me talking about Orks being weak. Are you by any chance upset about that? Chill lmao
- snip -
So you think casual game means one dimensional boring ork boy only spam list that hard counters other armies even better than your army gets countered by knights...
Lol. Guess your meta is full of armies only boy spam hard counters and you enjoy roflstomping them. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCC!!!!
No, it was a single example of fluffbunny just like I used the tactical marine list earlier.
How hard is to accept that you talk about stuff before hand if you're bringing gamer stuff.
Eonfuzz wrote: Because a fluffy greenie ork tide isn't a flavour of the month WAAC build.
Nor are Imperial Knights or Leman Russ heavy lists so...
My specific point was playing a Knights list in a casual match is degenerate.
Not sure why you feel like me bringing up Ork Boyz being bad against Super Heavies eclipses every other discussion that's taken place here.
Which is why you only brought up a unit of boyz... I guess you may have also mentioned Space Marines but that build wouldn't have issues with Knights so....
Sure, but if you had taken half a moment to read my posts (Which you were complaining I didn't fyi) You'd see that I'm arguing about the burden of knowledge.
A dude picking FOTM lists would generally have a better idea of the game than a casual guy, thus it's on them to talk about it.
it's a question about having the tools to atleast be able to deal with each others army.
F.e. i also would never subject a knight pure player to my 200 man renegade guard build for the simple fact that it is more or less a forgone conclusion due to objectives.
Basically to get an interesting list i'd avoid skew lists of anykind and superheavies are skew par excellence.
DarkHound wrote: What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
When I'm playing Guard, I bring my Shadowsword starting at around 1500 points, if I can expect it to survive and perform well in the matchup [IE, if I know there will be tanks for it to shoot and it won't just die. Even at 2000 points losing 500 points in a pass a heavy blow]. Fewer points and it's too much of my army in one asset, which is crippling to me when I lose it. Even at 1500 I feel it's questionable. The Shadowsword is a good counter to other super heavies, so I also bring it if my enemy has fancy toys they like, since it's excellent for sniping their fancy shinies and making them sad.
A cheaper superheavy would definitely be an asset at lower point levels. Bring one only when you have more assets to compensate for it's loss so it's less integral and less crippling if/when it is destroyed, and you can protect it better since you have assets to suppress their equipment that's trying to destroy it. At really low points, it's too easily countered to actually win the game even if they don't destroy it, and while it seems that it would face fewer counters, most super heavies are far more destructive than they are resilient so they can destroy it more easily than they can other assets at it's cost point, especially as you get bigger, and they pay heavily for that firepower, so the more of your army is super-heavy the more fragile it is in the end and the more power you'll lose when it goes down.
- snip -
So you think casual game means one dimensional boring ork boy only spam list that hard counters other armies even better than your army gets countered by knights...
Lol. Guess your meta is full of armies only boy spam hard counters and you enjoy roflstomping them. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCC!!!!
No, it was a single example of fluffbunny just like I used the tactical marine list earlier.
How hard is to accept that you talk about stuff before hand if you're bringing gamer stuff.
Not hard.
An army made up of only Tactical Marines isn't a fluffy list though, just a terrible one. A fluffy SM list would be the very definition of combined arms with a variety of Tactical, Assault and Devastator units backed up with some Primaris and a vehicle or two. Similarly your "fluffy" green tide isn't so much a fluffy list as just a bad one, and if it's nothing but Boyz it's just as much a skew list as the Knight list is. If an army can't deal with a single Knight, either by killing it or ignoring it and playing objectives, it's not the Knight player's fault.
I'll agree that all-Knight lists are not a great experience in casual play, but the same goes for any skew list IMO. The reason Knights tend to get singled out is because pure Knights have no option but to be a skew list whereas other armies always have an option to bring non-skew forces. The big problem with your attitude here is you seem to insist that only one of the skew lists needs to change because of some internal definition of fluffy or casual that may not apply to everyone else. Why is it up to the Knight player to change his list and not the Ork player who may well have an equally skewed list?
H.B.M.C. wrote: They aren't fun to play against when nothing you have can put a dent in them and they delete 1-2 units a turn.
Well you could say that about loads of things, it's not like lords of war are that different. Like anything, there are reasonable amounts and there are OP amounts/combos. A Baneblade isn't really any worse than equal points of Russes.
I would say that a single LoW is something people should be prepared to play against, so doesn't really need any special consideration. If I want to bring a Knight or Shadowsword to a 1.5k+ game I think that is reasonable. Of course, there are limits to what is "reasonable". I think that having a baneblade at 500 is a bit odd, so you should expect some people not to be too eager.
They represent a scale that I do not enjoy or want to play at, it’s why I did not play apoc in the first place.
Pushing them into 40k sucked and I think has pushed a lot of the model line out of the game thematically and with the way rules are designed now.
Like with most things, being mindful of others is key and hopefully compromise can be found.
People can play in more than group as well Asking what kinda of game people are interested in is good, working out what needs to be discussed is the hard part.
Apple fox wrote: Like with most things, being mindful of others is key and hopefully compromise can be found.
People can play in more than group as well Asking what kinda of game people are interested in is good, working out what needs to be discussed is the hard part.
Exactly. Sure, if you want to play blind pickup games you have to expect to see things you don't like so much. However, a bit of a pre-game discussion can improve things vastly for both players. There can be people who take advantage of this, of course. Someone who when you say "are you ok with a baneblade?" says sure, then just so happens to pull out their lascannon list.
It's all about respect and good sportsmanship really.
Trickstick wrote: Well you could say that about loads of things, it's not like lords of war are that different. Like anything, there are reasonable amounts and there are OP amounts/combos. A Baneblade isn't really any worse than equal points of Russes.
I had a Castellan remove a third of my army before I even got a second turn. And it killed the allied Stormsurge to boot.
maybe let your opponent know what you are playing, what 'strategy' you are going to bring to the table. For instance, I have 2 Stormsurges, 2 Tigersharks, lots of infantry, a lot of drones, and a slew of other options, each of which can allow me to skew my lists in several directions. When my opponent finds out I play Tau, the only thing that (she\he\they) can assume is that I am not bringing psykers.
The rest of you?
Remember, Strategy then Tactics.
Strategy: what you bring to the field.
Tactics: what you do on the field.
Personally, I don't like when an ork player brings psykers. Why? Ballistic Skill. Smite, which isn't a shooting attack allows my opponent to bypass their frankly abysmal ballistic skill, and reliably put wounds on models that I thought were safely bubble wrapped.
I'm gonna weigh in as a Chaos Knights Player. It's a perfectly legal army to play. So as far as I'm concerned if you don't want to play me you're being the bad guy. There is so many ways I've lost, even when I should have won. Because the opponent was a good player or I messed up. That being said, I won't play my knights against new players unkess they want to. Because I don't expect new players to understand the interctions or how to beat them.
I told all my opponents that there is a chance of meeting my LoW if they face me unless they ask me not to bring him. New players are an exception from this, as their collections usually lack the means to kill LoW models.
Sometimes I am asked to not bring a LoW for single games for any reason, I respect those wishes. Usually this is because people are running a fluff list, want to try something that most likely can't handle them('zerker army), want to play specific missions which would be unhinged by such a model being present or simply don't want to play a game that's centered around killing a LoW.
When using a LoW, I will not warn or tell my opponent in advance. If you tell someone you are bringing Mortarion, they will tailor their army to kill Mortarion, even if just subconsciously.. If you then don't bring you LoW, they'll be annoyed. If I tell them that I won't be bringing Mortarion and bring him anyways, they'll be more than that. So the only answer people ever get is "Maybe". That way they know to plan for killing him, but also for him not showing up. Obviously, this only works if you don't play him every time The positive side effect is that some of them will finally bring enough anti-tank to handle DG daemon engines instead of getting steamrolled by them all the time.
This way I can ensure that my opponent is having fun, while I'm still having fun playing my LoW from time to time. Win-Win.
If you have any LoW models then I expect you to use at least one in any game of any value. LoW are awesome, I use my ork Stompa almost every game. Everyone loves him(?)!
"No one minds when I field the worst LoW in the game!"
Personally, I wouldn't want to play against a LoW in any game that's less than 1500 pts. It's a bit difficult to field enough anti-armour at that level, unless you're skewing towards it. Otherwise? S'all good, playa.
Not Online!!! wrote: it's a question about having the tools to atleast be able to deal with each others army.
F.e. i also would never subject a knight pure player to my 200 man renegade guard build for the simple fact that it is more or less a forgone conclusion due to objectives.
Basically to get an interesting list i'd avoid skew lists of anykind and superheavies are skew par excellence.
This. If you're not giving your opponent a heads up in advance, skew lists in general are going to lead to a bad time. Something like a knight can require more anti-tank than a 1,000 or 1,500 point TAC list is likely to bring. Personally, I feel that Lords of War and flyers are especially frustrating forms of skew because they tend to have above-average durability. If I'm getting stat checked by a horde, there's at least some satsifaction in watching the pile of enemy bodies grow.
Some additional random thoughts:
* Lists with something like a knight can be more okay if the rest of your list is pretty subpar.
* Even if an all knight list is prone to losing against more well-rounded lists, the win isn't necessarily a fun experience. "Little stuff versus superheavies" is a very different game from 40k without Lords of War. Not everyone enjoys tossing corpses onto an objective while being unable to efficiently damage the enemy.
There is no etiquette for using them. Most of them suck, in fact, so you'd be bringing your list down using them. Some people just think they're overpowered with no math to back them up and get scared of anything bigger than a Rhino.
Not Online!!! wrote: it's a question about having the tools to atleast be able to deal with each others army.
F.e. i also would never subject a knight pure player to my 200 man renegade guard build for the simple fact that it is more or less a forgone conclusion due to objectives.
Basically to get an interesting list i'd avoid skew lists of anykind and superheavies are skew par excellence.
This. If you're not giving your opponent a heads up in advance, skew lists in general are going to lead to a bad time. Something like a knight can require more anti-tank than a 1,000 or 1,500 point TAC list is likely to bring. Personally, I feel that Lords of War and flyers are especially frustrating forms of skew because they tend to have above-average durability. If I'm getting stat checked by a horde, there's at least some satsifaction in watching the pile of enemy bodies grow.
Some additional random thoughts:
* Lists with something like a knight can be more okay if the rest of your list is pretty subpar.
* Even if an all knight list is prone to losing against more well-rounded lists, the win isn't necessarily a fun experience. "Little stuff versus superheavies" is a very different game from 40k without Lords of War. Not everyone enjoys tossing corpses onto an objective while being unable to efficiently damage the enemy.
Little stuff usually just wins on resilience, though. My experience with SH units in smaller games is that they're just a serious liability, since they're more destructive than they are survivable but can't really engage a whole lot of targets meaningfully simultaneously. A Shadowsword zaps one thing really dead, and a Knight can only shoot at 1 or 2 targets meaningfully too. Meanwhile, both basically have the defensive properties of a pair of Leman Russes, which present two targets, and can "eat" excess damage when they die [and can be cheaper too]. SH units' firepower advantage doesn't really make them the different in small games if they don't have enough support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There is no etiquette for using them. Most of them suck, in fact, so you'd be bringing your list down using them. Some people just think they're overpowered with no math to back them up and get scared of anything bigger than a Rhino.
This, basically.
I do like my shadowsword since it adds meaningful capability to my army and is cool, but I wouldn't take it at small games. It's high offensive single-target output compared to it's cost means that I can on-the-spot remove-from-existence any non-character unit that my enemy has staked their hopes on, reliably, efficiently, and without question. It's comparative fragility isn't as much of a problem when I also have lots of Leman Russes and Guardsmen that provide a general level of resilience to my force as a whole and can pick up the slack once it dies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There is no etiquette for using them. Most of them suck, in fact, so you'd be bringing your list down using them. Some people just think they're overpowered with no math to back them up and get scared of anything bigger than a Rhino.
This, basically.
I do like my shadowsword since it adds meaningful capability to my army and is cool, but I wouldn't take it at small games. It's high offensive single-target output compared to it's cost means that I can on-the-spot remove-from-existence any non-character unit that my enemy has staked their hopes on, reliably, efficiently, and without question. It's comparative fragility isn't as much of a problem when I also have lots of Leman Russes and Guardsmen that provide a general level of resilience to my force as a whole and can pick up the slack once it dies.
Yeah, I love my fellblade but it's points cost makes it basically useless in games below 2500. People tend to freak out when I put it on the table, then they realize it eats up half my armies points .
Of course if they brought their own LOW that freak out is a little more warranted......
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There is no etiquette for using them. Most of them suck, in fact, so you'd be bringing your list down using them. Some people just think they're overpowered with no math to back them up and get scared of anything bigger than a Rhino.
This, basically.
I do like my shadowsword since it adds meaningful capability to my army and is cool, but I wouldn't take it at small games. It's high offensive single-target output compared to it's cost means that I can on-the-spot remove-from-existence any non-character unit that my enemy has staked their hopes on, reliably, efficiently, and without question. It's comparative fragility isn't as much of a problem when I also have lots of Leman Russes and Guardsmen that provide a general level of resilience to my force as a whole and can pick up the slack once it dies.
Yeah, I love my fellblade but it's points cost makes it basically useless in games below 2500. People tend to freak out when I put it on the table, then they realize it eats up half my armies points .
Of course if they brought their own LOW that freak out is a little more warranted......
Fellblades are cool.
I don't think they're really LoW killers, though. They average less wounds downrange versus Titanics than the half-it's cost Shadowsword, but can spit that damage across a bunch of targets, so it seems to me that it should generally be seeking to bully lesser tanks than punch up it's weight. Those 6 damage shells are pretty nice for knocking down regular-sized tanks.
My friend has this poor Spartan Assault Tank. He brings it to every game, but it hasn't fired a shot against me since he's never won the turn and I cook it on first go. It doesn't really do well even against other people though. 8 Lascannons is a lot of lascannons, but 20 T8 wounds for 500 points isn't hard to eliminate even without a the giant destroyer laser.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There is no etiquette for using them. Most of them suck, in fact, so you'd be bringing your list down using them. Some people just think they're overpowered with no math to back them up and get scared of anything bigger than a Rhino.
This, basically.
I do like my shadowsword since it adds meaningful capability to my army and is cool, but I wouldn't take it at small games. It's high offensive single-target output compared to it's cost means that I can on-the-spot remove-from-existence any non-character unit that my enemy has staked their hopes on, reliably, efficiently, and without question. It's comparative fragility isn't as much of a problem when I also have lots of Leman Russes and Guardsmen that provide a general level of resilience to my force as a whole and can pick up the slack once it dies.
Yeah, I love my fellblade but it's points cost makes it basically useless in games below 2500. People tend to freak out when I put it on the table, then they realize it eats up half my armies points .
Of course if they brought their own LOW that freak out is a little more warranted......
Fellblades are cool.
I don't think they're really LoW killers, though. They average less wounds downrange versus Titanics than the half-it's cost Shadowsword, but can spit that damage across a bunch of targets, so it seems to me that it should generally be seeking to bully lesser tanks than punch up it's weight. Those 6 damage shells are pretty nice for knocking down regular-sized tanks.
My friend has this poor Spartan Assault Tank. He brings it to every game, but it hasn't fired a shot against me since he's never won the turn and I cook it on first go. It doesn't really do well even against other people though. 8 Lascannons is a lot of lascannons, but 20 T8 wounds for 500 points isn't hard to eliminate even without a the giant destroyer laser.
Eh, it does fine with a chaos lord for rerolls of 1s to hit plus two dark apostles for +1 to hit and -1 to be hit respectively. But yeah, in the current meta it's been mostly the Executioner of Executioners lately.
Smirrors wrote: Not all Lords of war are equal. I think most people should be able to tell whether a LoW will make the game fun and interesting, or cagey and boring.
If you are bring LoW I think its just as fair as letting someone know and if they want to, they can tailor their army a little towards it.
If you enjoy the power of high damage and toughness, why not share some of that joy with your opponent.
I love it when people think the only LOW is a pre-nerf castellan or a shadowsword exclusively facing vehicles. Even if they don't tailor their lists it can still be a fun game. The dirty secret of most LOW is that they really aren't all that tough or have that much firepower for their points (Paladins, Errants, and Preceptors especially come to mind).
Smirrors wrote: Not all Lords of war are equal. I think most people should be able to tell whether a LoW will make the game fun and interesting, or cagey and boring.
If you are bring LoW I think its just as fair as letting someone know and if they want to, they can tailor their army a little towards it.
If you enjoy the power of high damage and toughness, why not share some of that joy with your opponent.
I love it when people think the only LOW is a pre-nerf castellan or a shadowsword exclusively facing vehicles. Even if they don't tailor their lists it can still be a fun game. The dirty secret of most LOW is that they really aren't all that tough or have that much firepower for their points (Paladins, Errants, and Preceptors especially come to mind).
Also the suggestion that LOWs are special and we should allow people to tailor their list to oppose it is silly. The problem, if it is a problem, is skew lists, not lords of war. a bane blade isn't going to make a mediocre Imperial guard list suddenly unbeatable. A Imperial Knight army might be a problem for a list without a lot of heavy weapons, but that same could be said about an Imperial Guard armor list (without the baneblade ) or a Custodes list etc.
as Eipi noted, most lords of war aren't really all THAT great
But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
I’m still stuck in the mindset that special characters, forge world and lords of war should only be fielded with your opponents permission. I know that’s not how it is any more, but it’s my default reaction and I’d like to see it be the norm again.
That being said, in a competitive game, anything goes within the house rules set by the TO. For casual games I tend to discuss the outline of the game briefly with my opponent before the game - how many points, are the armies super competitive/optimised or not, what factions will we bring for the battle. At this time I’d expect my opponent to mention if they are planning on bringing lords of war.
I wouldn’t turn down a game with lords of war or anything, but I’d appreciate the heads up beforehand. For casual games I play my guys WYSIWYG, and I model them based on what I think looks good. Knowing what faction my opponent is, or if they’re bringing LoW would likely have me take another look at my army list and maybe change the load out of a couple of units.
Nobody likes a super one-sided game in my experience.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones. They were also really popular because they were aggressively over-capable for their cost before the SM2.0 codex, getting a bunch of buffs didn't bring them into line.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
well I remember when boards were being flooded with castellans. and it did matter that all of them were armed with same relic and all were ravellans. the fact that other castellans existed in theory matters little.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones. They were also really popular because they were aggressively over-capable for their cost before the SM2.0 codex, getting a bunch of buffs didn't bring them into line.
Everybody had it?
*Checks csm codex. Checks Vigilus Ablaze. Checks Faith and Fury.*
Hellforged Leviathan is in Imperial Armour: Forces of Chaos.
On topic, the old mindset of all this stuff needs your opponents permission is flawed. It came from a time when things were aggressively strong(see CSM 3.5) and only a select few people had LoW(they weren't called LoW back then if I remember correctly). Now, just about everyone has access to a LoW or even owns one. There's no reason to deny a game because of your opponents list choice.
chimeara wrote: Hellforged Leviathan is in Imperial Armour: Forces of Chaos.
On topic, the old mindset of all this stuff needs your opponents permission is flawed. It came from a time when things were aggressively strong(see CSM 3.5) and only a select few people had LoW(they weren't called LoW back then if I remember correctly). Now, just about everyone has access to a LoW or even owns one. There's no reason to deny a game because of your opponents list choice.
Strategems are in Imperial Armour: Forces of Chaos? Damn, that page must have fallen out of mine.
Back on topic, people can refuse a game for any reason they want, though in the current meta I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with a LOW. They're hardly the rarity they used to be.
On topic, the old mindset of all this stuff needs your opponents permission is flawed. It came from a time when things were aggressively strong(see CSM 3.5) and only a select few people had LoW(they weren't called LoW back then if I remember correctly). Now, just about everyone has access to a LoW or even owns one. There's no reason to deny a game because of your opponents list choice.
*cries in no LoW (without souping)* I agree, but I also agree with the sensible points guidelines others have said. Avoid non mini-knights @<1000 points, 1 @1001-1500 and whatever you like at higher games. This is more about creating interesting games though...
Lammia wrote: *cries in no LoW (without souping)* I agree, but I also agree with the sensible points guidelines others have said. Avoid non mini-knights @<1000 points, 1 @1001-1500 and whatever you like at higher games. This is more about creating interesting games though...
This doesn't have to do anything with LoWs though. I can fit three gorkanauts into 1000 points, which will be just as little fun to face as a knight or two.
Skew has always been a thing, especially at lower points. It happens in IRL battles too, when it does play for some objective that isn't a win and find fun in that.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Why were Death Guard Leviathans a problem?
If that were the case everyone would've been doing it. It's only Iron Hands, period.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Why were Death Guard Leviathans a problem?
If that were the case everyone would've been doing it. It's only Iron Hands, period.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Why were Death Guard Leviathans a problem?
If that were the case everyone would've been doing it. It's only Iron Hands, period.
Part of the problem seems to be a lot of people seeming to see old school spam of horde or codex units as a bit unkond but acceptable.
Yet when it comes to LoW or flyers they have a very different view that you need to warn you opponents etc.
As a pure knights list player they aren't realy that great and any halfway competitive list/player will have no issue killing one or two and out scoring you every game.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Why were Death Guard Leviathans a problem?
If that were the case everyone would've been doing it. It's only Iron Hands, period.
That's what I was implying....
You're implying Levis themselves are a problem without Iron Hands.
Karol wrote: But this also means that the non that great arent run. It is like FW, people say its models aren't that great either. Up until the boards get flooded with leviathan dreadnoughts. Then, all of the sudden, FW is a problem.
The boards were flooded with Iron Hands leviathans. Other flavors weren't a problem.
On topic, LOW are only really good when you have force multipliers to apply to them. A baneblade isn't that scary, but a baneblade with Vengeance for Cadia on it is fething nasty.
Leviathans were a problem, Iron Hands or not. Everybody had the half damage stratagem. Iron Hands just made them aggressively irritating 'cause shield drones.
Why were Death Guard Leviathans a problem?
If that were the case everyone would've been doing it. It's only Iron Hands, period.
That's what I was implying....
You're implying Levis themselves are a problem without Iron Hands.
Nope. I was asking why Death Guard Leviathans were be a problem, implying that non-Iron Hand Levis (in this case Death Guard), let alone the inferior Hellforged versions werent in the same ballpark as the IH. I object to all Leviathans being lazily branded broken, just because the IH had a ridiculous interaction with them.
Ice_can wrote: Part of the problem seems to be a lot of people seeming to see old school spam of horde or codex units as a bit unkond but acceptable.
Yet when it comes to LoW or flyers they have a very different view that you need to warn you opponents etc.
I don't think hordes are a good comparison, tbh.
Whilst technically still a skew list, the main difference is that when you shoot/assault horde armies, you're still removing swathes of models. So, even if you ultimately lose, you still feel like you're doing stuff and having a significant impact on the battlefield. Plus, whist anti-tank weapons might be overkill, they can still at least help thin out the horde.
Contrast that with Knight armies - where a lot of the match is going to be shooting at them with minimal impact (because your weapons are bouncing off their toughness/armour/invulnerable saves), and quite possibly being unable to touch them in assault (as their overwatch can vaporise entire units).
To be clear, I'm not saying that Knight armies are necessarily too powerful, just that they tend to be one of the least fun army-types to play against.
Ice_can wrote: Part of the problem seems to be a lot of people seeming to see old school spam of horde or codex units as a bit unkond but acceptable.
Yet when it comes to LoW or flyers they have a very different view that you need to warn you opponents etc.
I don't think hordes are a good comparison, tbh.
Whilst technically still a skew list, the main difference is that when you shoot/assault horde armies, you're still removing swathes of models. So, even if you ultimately lose, you still feel like you're doing stuff and having a significant impact on the battlefield. Plus, whist anti-tank weapons might be overkill, they can still at least help thin out the horde.
Contrast that with Knight armies - where a lot of the match is going to be shooting at them with minimal impact (because your weapons are bouncing off their toughness/armour/invulnerable saves), and quite possibly being unable to touch them in assault (as their overwatch can vaporise entire units).
To be clear, I'm not saying that Knight armies are necessarily too powerful, just that they tend to be one of the least fun army-types to play against.
Only the Valiant's Overwatch is something to be scared of, for a decent assault unit.
A lucky shot from a Knight CAN kill a character, but against a charging blob, they might pick off two or three.
Ice_can wrote: Part of the problem seems to be a lot of people seeming to see old school spam of horde or codex units as a bit unkond but acceptable.
Yet when it comes to LoW or flyers they have a very different view that you need to warn you opponents etc.
I don't think hordes are a good comparison, tbh.
Whilst technically still a skew list, the main difference is that when you shoot/assault horde armies, you're still removing swathes of models. So, even if you ultimately lose, you still feel like you're doing stuff and having a significant impact on the battlefield. Plus, whist anti-tank weapons might be overkill, they can still at least help thin out the horde.
Contrast that with Knight armies - where a lot of the match is going to be shooting at them with minimal impact (because your weapons are bouncing off their toughness/armour/invulnerable saves), and quite possibly being unable to touch them in assault (as their overwatch can vaporise entire units).
To be clear, I'm not saying that Knight armies are necessarily too powerful, just that they tend to be one of the least fun army-types to play against.
That's a mentality problem, people equate fun with removing your opponents models, I've had won some of my closest games having only killed 3 units and lost half my army.
With proper objectives instead of just kill the most stuff IMHO the most unfun list to play against is hordes of minus to hit or blanket non inteactive armies.
JNAProductions wrote: Only the Valiant's Overwatch is something to be scared of, for a decent assault unit.
A lucky shot from a Knight CAN kill a character, but against a charging blob, they might pick off two or three.
That has absolutely not been my experience. I've had units famed for their durability entirely obliterated by a Knight's overwatch.
Anecdotes do not make for evidence.
And, outside the Valiant (who has 3d6 S7 AP-2 D2 auto-hits at more than 12") what Knight has scary enough Overwatch to be a real threat?
Even a Castellan only has 3d6+4d3+4 shots, for about four hits on average. Those hits will, usually, HURT, but they can't kill more than models than they have hits.
Edit: I'll give you this-charging a CHARACTER in is probably a bad idea, since those shots can be doing 3d3 damage apiece (if the Volcano Lance hits) or 2d6b3 (if charging an Errant or Crusader with a Thermal). But a blob will be fine.
And with that comment you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
Tell me, then, what Knight (again, aside from the Valiant and its superflamer) have scary enough Overwatch to kill, say, a blob of Orks? They're not even that durable, but a Castellan has a not quite 2% chance of rolling enough SHOTS to kill a squad of 30. And then they have to hit on a 6+ and wound on 2+ or 3+.
And yes, I know that there's a strat (I think it's House-locked, though) to have an additional Knight Overwatch, rather than just the one charged.
My personal opinion: if you are looking for a pick up game, you should probably have a take all comers type of list.
It’s the person bringing skew (e.g. a “first company” terminator list or whatever, or a full knight army, or like pure grots and boys) that should be asking permission, and not the guy who brings a bane blade with his guard brigade, or a guy that brings a single knight. I hesitated on including full knight army as skew, but this is strictly pickup games and not competitive or tourney play I’m talking about.
What I’m getting at is that lords of war on their own really present zero issues to people who bring balanced lists.
I think the whole "permission" thing is the wrong way to think about it. It is not up to the other person to get permission. It is up to both players to have an idea of the kind of game they want. Mostly, this comes down to a general level of pick up game etiquette. However, it is still not a permission thing for this. It is a refusal thing.
You can refuse to not play a game for any reason. If you have a problem facing certain lists, then maybe find out what you are facing before getting your models out. Of course, I think it would be good form to have a list to present before this, as I find tailoring to be very unsportmanlike.
that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?
Karol wrote: that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?
That's not a pickup game though, it's a pre-arranged game. So if there are any dealbreakers for you, they should be discussed when arranging the game.
Karol wrote: that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?
That's not a pickup game though, it's a pre-arranged game. So if there are any dealbreakers for you, they should be discussed when arranging the game.
So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.
Canadian 5th wrote: So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.
I guess there are 4 options.
1: Play the game as it stands, accepting any imbalance.
2: Allow some proxying.
3: Don't play.
4: Change the scenario to suit the forces, so that it can still be a fun game. For example, maybe the armoured force is a convoy that your infantry can ambush. Maybe it is a last stand, where you know you are doomed but the objetive is to last as long as you can, or escape. Not everything has to be the same scenarios evey time. Some of my most memorable games have been random things we thought up on the spot.
As always, discussion and compromise will be the best approach.
Canadian 5th wrote: So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.
I guess there are 4 options.
1: Play the game as it stands, accepting any imbalance.
2: Allow some proxying.
3: Don't play.
4: Change the scenario to suit the forces, so that it can still be a fun game. For example, maybe the armoured force is a convoy that your infantry can ambush. Maybe it is a last stand, where you know you are doomed but the objetive is to last as long as you can, or escape. Not everything has to be the same scenarios evey time. Some of my most memorable games have been random things we thought up on the spot.
As always, discussion and compromise will be the best approach.
In 3 of the 4 scenarios, you presented a game was played, two of them don't change the list. It seems like LoWs and armored companies aren't difficult to accommodate and thus should be accepted at any table.
Karol wrote: that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?
That's not a pickup game though, it's a pre-arranged game. So if there are any dealbreakers for you, they should be discussed when arranging the game.
So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.
You either:
A: Pack up your models and go home with your tail between your legs.
B: Play the fething game and have fun. You can't win every game, and it's only a game. Your models will still work after the match, you won't have to burn them in a fething viking funeral. Learn to take an arse kicking. It's something you should be able to do both in 40k and real life. And who knows, you may win.
Canadian 5th wrote: In 3 of the 4 scenarios, you presented a game was played, two of them don't change the list. It seems like LoWs and armored companies aren't difficult to accommodate and thus should be accepted at any table.
I agree, although there are limits. Depends what both players are expecting from a game. For example, say one guy brought a conscript list for a narrative penal legion vs tyranid game, and had the opponent cancel last minute. The random pick up player brought a tournament practice list based on a fellblade or something. There is going to have to be some sort of accomodation made or it is going to be a boring game.
Canadian 5th wrote: In 3 of the 4 scenarios, you presented a game was played, two of them don't change the list. It seems like LoWs and armored companies aren't difficult to accommodate and thus should be accepted at any table.
I agree, although there are limits. Depends what both players are expecting from a game. For example, say one guy brought a conscript list for a narrative penal legion vs tyranid game, and had the opponent cancel last minute. The random pick up player brought a tournament practice list based on a fellblade or something. There is going to have to be some sort of accomodation made or it is going to be a boring game.
That's life. It's nice if your opponent is a good sport and willing to play ball but if not, why not make your own narrative based on the standard game? Maybe your conscripts were given bad intel, or marched to the wrong sector, dropped out of the warp and found out the tyranids were repelled and chaos reigns, or were sent out to die on purpose by a vengeful commander. Make your own fun.
Canadian 5th wrote: That's life. It's nice if your opponent is a good sport and willing to play ball but if not, why not make your own narrative based on the standard game? Maybe your conscripts were given bad intel, or marched to the wrong sector, dropped out of the warp and found out the tyranids were repelled and chaos reigns, or were sent out to die on purpose by a vengeful commander. Make your own fun.
Sure that is always an option. Something I have done before. Like when a game is going badly and you make up your own objective to give you something to aim for: "if I can kill their Warlord then I at least win something", for example.
Trickstick wrote: Sure that is always an option. Something I have done before. Like when a game is going badly and you make up your own objective to give you something to aim for: "if I can kill their Warlord then I at least win something", for example.
That's the way to be! It sounds like you'd be a fun opponent.
For the rest of the thread, when you get a mismatch of lists and you can't work out an ad-hoc custom scenario with your opponent make your own story that fits and try to have fun with that. Then rather than playing against that fething guy, you can say your force was sent out to die or performing a heroic but doomed delaying action and suddenly the game becomes more than just models and lists.
Blndmage wrote: What about 500 point games where someone brings a LoW?
The problem really is about bringing 500 points of highly durable models, not about bringing LoW. Calgar+Tigurius protected by a vitrix honor guard are just as bad, if not worse than Gulliman at 500 points.
The slot has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's just the lingering "Apocalypse only" mentality of veterans.
Blndmage wrote: What about 500 point games where someone brings a LoW?
The problem really is about bringing 500 points of highly durable models, not about bringing LoW. Calgar+Tigurius protected by a vitrix honor guard are just as bad, if not worse than Gulliman at 500 points.
The slot has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's just the lingering "Apocalypse only" mentality of veterans.
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Apple fox wrote: Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.
Apple fox wrote: Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.
Yes, I know. Seems you missed mine.
Expanded a bit.
Good game design would lessen all those issues, but it also side steps one of the reasons units of one size are seen as issues. Why others are not, size of scale itself can be a major issue. Both for player conception of the battlefield and the way the flow of the game plays.
I could see these units in 40k as a great thing, but right now I just find them annoying.
Karol wrote: that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?
That's not a pickup game though, it's a pre-arranged game. So if there are any dealbreakers for you, they should be discussed when arranging the game.
So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.
Depends upon who it is, not what they brought. There's several players I simply won't play with. If it's not one of those people, then we'll have a game.
As for the match up? I'm not worried about it. If I was, then I wouldn't have brought the army I did with me.
Apple fox wrote: Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.
That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.
That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.
You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.
Apple fox wrote: Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.
That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.
In 5th it was pretty much akin to putting three castellans on the board. If you dig deep enough you'll probably find a 20+ page thread here on dakka about how tripple land raiders ruined the game.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
I would not say "liked" as much as "not disliked". I got no problem playing with a complete stranger, if we seem to be after the same kind of game and they are not acting annoying.
On the other hand I happily decline a game against a friend if he wants to play his all Knight list. The odds of me winning could be a perfectly balanced 50/50 chance, I would still do it because playing against such a list is no fun for me.
Idk, maybe it's my tough Meta (lots of tourny prep gamers) but my Knight army is a liability I stubbornly stick to due to my investments. Most times I'm out of the game by turn 3.
I do use a Castellan though, instead of the typical Crusader Warden rush list.
I personally don't mind facing Lords of War, because I tend to bring an unreasonable amount of firepower. Yesterday, with my Drukhari, I took down my opponent's 1,170-point, 30-Wound Ta'unar battlesuit on turn 2 after dealing with all of its shield drones. However, I realize not everyone fares as well; the previous guy who faced said Ta'unar, a Death Guard player, had to ignore the damn thing entirely and focus on playing the objectives (and still lost, albeit narrowly). I think it's good form to at least provide advance warning that you're bringing a LoW.
I don't use them. Not because I think they're broken, but because I think it's more effective to spread your firepower across your entire army.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
Absolutely. It's my free time. If I dislike you, why would I waste my time playing a game with you? So I'll just politely decline the offer to play.
Like I said, there's several people I simply will not play with.
Time/proper list/proper points? As long as I don't dislike you, those can be negotiated.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
Outside of a tournament setting? Absolutely. As people have stated, this is casual hobby time - a way to relax and spend time doing something you enjoy. No fething way am I spending that time with someone who's an asshat, or I don't enjoy being around. They're not entitled to my free time.
Apple fox wrote: Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.
Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.
That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.
I mean, unless you play in a very strange place where nobody is there to interact with other human beings....yeah?
If everyone hates your guts they probably won't play against you.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.
That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.
You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.
So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?
This is just getting unreasonable now. it's political correctness gone mad!
So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?
In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.
The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.
So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?
In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.
The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.
Sir, if i may, what about a skeleton watch, does it allways need to be a pocket watch?
So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?
In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.
The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.
And the third day everyone goes completely naked except for a dice bag cinched around their business, I know, I know. Spare me your tournament etiquette lesson, Anne Landers, we're talking about CASUAL gaming here.
Karol wrote: So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?
Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.
That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.
You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.
So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?
This is just getting unreasonable now. it's political correctness gone mad!
I'll have you know my nudist community has a very active 40k community.
Melissia wrote: That's probably because they can enforce rules by throwing sharp minis at peopel who break them, and no one has any clothes to protect them..
capital punishment in that group is chaos dread socking.
And with that comment you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
Tell me, then, what Knight (again, aside from the Valiant and its superflamer) have scary enough Overwatch to kill, say, a blob of Orks? They're not even that durable, but a Castellan has a not quite 2% chance of rolling enough SHOTS to kill a squad of 30. And then they have to hit on a 6+ and wound on 2+ or 3+.
And yes, I know that there's a strat (I think it's House-locked, though) to have an additional Knight Overwatch, rather than just the one charged.
There is a tau super flamer that overwatches pretty nastily, and from more than 8 inches. By the time you have a chance to declare an assault your boyz might be pretty whittled down.
And with that comment you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
Tell me, then, what Knight (again, aside from the Valiant and its superflamer) have scary enough Overwatch to kill, say, a blob of Orks? They're not even that durable, but a Castellan has a not quite 2% chance of rolling enough SHOTS to kill a squad of 30. And then they have to hit on a 6+ and wound on 2+ or 3+.
And yes, I know that there's a strat (I think it's House-locked, though) to have an additional Knight Overwatch, rather than just the one charged.
There is a tau super flamer that overwatches pretty nastily, and from more than 8 inches. By the time you have a chance to declare an assault your boyz might be pretty whittled down.
Is that on a LOW? Not seeing it in their options on battlescribe.
chimeara wrote: For the Yvahra I believe you can make it's flamer 14". But yeah, it's fast attack. Tau only have the Taunar Supremacy Armour and Stormsurge for LoW.
Is it from a strat or wargear? Just looking at the profile both normal and reactor are 8".
chimeara wrote: For the Yvahra I believe you can make it's flamer 14". But yeah, it's fast attack. Tau only have the Taunar Supremacy Armour and Stormsurge for LoW.
Is it from a strat or wargear? Just looking at the profile both normal and reactor are 8".
There is a Sept trait that adds 6" to all heavy weapons.
Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
a_typical_hero wrote: Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
Is that something people don't do?
Some do some don't, generally i started doing it since as stated one of my armies is based upon AL movement shenanigans. The other one is a CSM horde army, which is rather straight forward but still pretty mean.
Also if i dust off my R&H ( rarely these days) i actually have less to explain then i do for my other armies.
Which is kinda sad considering that one is an actual fringe faction.
a_typical_hero wrote: Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
Is that something people don't do?
from my experience, people that give out that kind of information usually do it as a huge infodump super quickly so my brain doesn't actually register what they said.
I'll ask my opponents questions during the game like "can this unit get better overwatch" "can anything deepstrike at less than 9"" and stuff like that to make sure theres no "gotcha!" moments.
When i play i tell my opponents if they would take an action that i could react to in a negative way for them (falling back from hawyire skyweavers for example).
I mean part of the problem with 8th edition right now is that sometimes I forget stuff.
Does the Forbidden Gem have to meet or beat the enemy's leadership? I've used the relic like five times and I think it's beat rather than meet but I'd have to check.
What's the range on the Warptime power? I think it's 3" and an 8 to cast, but hell if I know for sure without looking.
The Vostroyan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of yourself, while the Valhallan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of others, if I remember correctly. feth, those could be backwards, IDK.
EDIT: As for etiquette for using LOW, I always warn my opponents before bringing the biggo tanks, if I can. Sometimes I end up playing an unexpected PUG. I still try to warn my opponent but by then it can be too late for either of us to change what models we brought. (This can happen when my previous scheduled opponent cancels, typically).
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Vostroyan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of yourself, while the Valhallan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of others, if I remember correctly. feth, those could be backwards, IDK.
That is at least easy to remember. Just think of Chenkov. He would totally order his men to fire on units locked in combat, and not care about hitting his men. Very Valhallan.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean part of the problem with 8th edition right now is that sometimes I forget stuff.
Does the Forbidden Gem have to meet or beat the enemy's leadership? I've used the relic like five times and I think it's beat rather than meet but I'd have to check.
What's the range on the Warptime power? I think it's 3" and an 8 to cast, but hell if I know for sure without looking.
The Vostroyan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of yourself, while the Valhallan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of others, if I remember correctly. feth, those could be backwards, IDK.
Off topic but - This.
I've played a few small 40k and Kill Team games and I haven't got anywhere near even trying to use ALL the rules and I KNOW there is plenty I forget in game.
Seems a lot more complex than it used to be.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Vostroyan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of yourself, while the Valhallan unique order lets you shoot enemies within 1" of others, if I remember correctly. feth, those could be backwards, IDK.
That is at least easy to remember. Just think of Chenkov. He would totally order his men to fire on units locked in combat, and not care about hitting his men. Very Valhallan.
Well, yes, but it's also very Tsarist Russia (i.e. Vostroyan) to shoot your own men by accident when hitting the enemy. Just like the 2nd Pacific Squadron and poor old Aurora who got shot up by her own battleships at least once. I think they were jealous of a ship that was actually seaworthy.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, yes, but it's also very Tsarist Russia (i.e. Vostroyan) to shoot your own men by accident when hitting the enemy. Just like the 2nd Pacific Squadron and poor old Aurora who got shot up by her own battleships at least once. I think they were jealous of a ship that was actually seaworthy.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, yes, but it's also very Tsarist Russia (i.e. Vostroyan) to shoot your own men by accident when hitting the enemy. Just like the 2nd Pacific Squadron and poor old Aurora who got shot up by her own battleships at least once. I think they were jealous of a ship that was actually seaworthy.
When 8th first came out I brought Magnus the Red to a 1000 point friendly team tournament. Everyone got all over me saying that this was unfair or that this would take all of the fun away. Magnus ended up doing terribly and this woke everybody up to how 8th edition would be.
I think superheavies can be brought at any point size now. This wasn't the case back in the 7th. If someone brought a Knight in a 1000 point game that would piss a lot of people off.
Something else: I remember back in 7th at a GW store there was this guy who had a beautifully painted Imperial Knight household and would bring a Knight army for 2000 point games. This guy was hated. Everybody thought this guy was being a total power gamer, no one wanted to play against him. Nowadays, if you bring a knight army no one should care all that much. Anything can hurt anything and if you are smart you should have a balance of anti-tank and anti-infantry in your list. The reason I say should is that a lot of people carried this stupid bias over from 7th edition and still think running Imperial Knights is a cheese/powergamer thing. Just talk with them and they should soon realize that this makes no sense considering everything can kill everything and that these models cost 400+ points.
I see two other people are familiar with the voyage of the 2nd Pacific Squadron courtesy of Drachinifel.
Murrax9 wrote: When 8th first came out I brought Magnus the Red to a 1000 point friendly team tournament. Everyone got all over me saying that this was unfair or that this would take all of the fun away. Magnus ended up doing terribly and this woke everybody up to how 8th edition would be.
I think superheavies can be brought at any point size now. This wasn't the case back in the 7th. If someone brought a Knight in a 1000 point game that would piss a lot of people off.
Something else: I remember back in 7th at a GW store there was this guy who had a beautifully painted Imperial Knight household and would bring a Knight army for 2000 point games. This guy was hated. Everybody thought this guy was being a total power gamer, no one wanted to play against him. Nowadays, if you bring a knight army no one should care all that much. Anything can hurt anything and if you are smart you should have a balance of anti-tank and anti-infantry in your list. The reason I say should is that a lot of people carried this stupid bias over from 7th edition and still think running Imperial Knights is a cheese/powergamer thing. Just talk with them and they should soon realize that this makes no sense considering everything can kill everything and that these models cost 400+ points.
You should have had enough antitank in your list crica 7th too. That principle hasn't changed.
Super Heavy units were definitely more survivable point-for-point in 7th, though I would say they kill stuff deader faster now.
a_typical_hero wrote: Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
Is that something people don't do?
When i play i tell my opponents if they would take an action that i could react to in a negative way for them (falling back from hawyire skyweavers for example).
Yeah, I take no joy in punishing an opponent with a rule they didn't know about.
If I have a unit or strat that can react to a deep strike, a unit that can prevent fall back, a stratagem that lets me unload a massive alpha strike, or something like that, i'll tell my opponent like the turn beforehand or while they're considering what to do.
In a recent game of mine I found out that in PA they gave Alpha Legion the ability to tell a unit that they can't deep strike more than 12" from enemy models. I was playing as GSC, had a bunch of units in deep strike, and I started with my big alpha strike unit and he used the stratagem. I said I'd use "plan generations in the making" to block it, but he said I needed a unit from the subfaction on the battlefield first. To which I said if I'd known about that stratagem, I'd have put down one of my cheaper units first, just to get them on the battlefield, and the only reason we were in this situation is because it was some new rule from a new book I didn't own. But he wanted his "Gotcha' moment, and that moment basically won the game for him, and turned the game from something casual and friendly into something that felt needlessly rules-lawyery. Like, great, you went out and bought a 40$ book for extra rules for your guys, didn't tell me about them, and used them to screw me over in a way that would have been very easy for me to avoid had you told me about the rule. Still would have cost me a bunch of CP and a once-per-game ability, but I would have been able to keep participating in the game.
a_typical_hero wrote: Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
Is that something people don't do?
Well, as everything I use is WYS there's no reason to cover that. I'm not going to bother trying to decide what might be uncommon etc to someone else. If you've got questions you'll ask. I will point out the "invisible things" - warlord traits, etc.
a_typical_hero wrote: Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.
Is that something people don't do?
Well, as everything I use is WYS there's no reason to cover that. I'm not going to bother trying to decide what might be uncommon etc to someone else. If you've got questions you'll ask. I will point out the "invisible things" - warlord traits, etc.
I just read off everything in my list, naming anything the unit has that isn't it's base loadout.
i can punish people for not having a proper, well rounded list by spamming generic vehicles more than i can by bringing my Squiggoth, Killtank, or Knight randomly (depending on the army im using).
The main issue these behemoths were unkillable before was only BIG guns could really do anything at all, and on top of that only the REALLY BIG guns had a decent chance at it. Pick off those guns and nothing can hurt the LoW anymore.
Thats gone. Yes those big guns help for sure, but if a Knight is sitting on 1-3 wounds after the last "reliable" gun goes down, its still going to die while previously it would just start dancing around and not give a damn about who it approached.
LoW's dont phase me in 8th, they draw attention more because OMG BIG MODEL than they do on being overpowered. We have a knight player in the area that usually gives his opponents an extra 1/4th of the game points because its all knights. Without even changing my general list i tabled the guy w/o those extra points. Completely opened his mind how weak LoWs are now.
Generally if you are not outfitted to deal with 3-6 vehicles, which you SHOULD BE, LoW will be an issue. If you are outfitted, you probably dont care. I've only had 1 game where i felt i couldnt hurt a LoW and that a joke "Trukkboyz" list for old time's sake...
I used to be of the mindset that you had to clear it before bringing it before. Since 8th happened i stopped thinking that way because theres no real point. Sure, if youre facing a known new guy maybe dont bring the ultra-powerful stuff so he has a chance to learn the game but thats about it as far as limitations go.
(Not to mention i actually dont like bringing LoW's purely for the CP cut, for orks at least. Less CP hurts me more than having big bertha helps)
I'd say a warning beforehand is in order but is just because of how I prefer 40k personally, not because they are necessarily OP. I like TAC vs TAC lists and any kind of skew list goes against that. But again that is just my personal preference, YMMV.
the_scotsman wrote: In a recent game of mine I found out that in PA they gave Alpha Legion the ability to tell a unit that they can't deep strike more than 12" from enemy models. I was playing as GSC, had a bunch of units in deep strike, and I started with my big alpha strike unit and he used the stratagem. I said I'd use "plan generations in the making" to block it, but he said I needed a unit from the subfaction on the battlefield first. To which I said if I'd known about that stratagem, I'd have put down one of my cheaper units first, just to get them on the battlefield, and the only reason we were in this situation is because it was some new rule from a new book I didn't own. But he wanted his "Gotcha' moment, and that moment basically won the game for him, and turned the game from something casual and friendly into something that felt needlessly rules-lawyery. Like, great, you went out and bought a 40$ book for extra rules for your guys, didn't tell me about them, and used them to screw me over in a way that would have been very easy for me to avoid had you told me about the rule. Still would have cost me a bunch of CP and a once-per-game ability, but I would have been able to keep participating in the game.
You got punished for not knowing your own rule, not because you didn't know his rule. You should have put down the cheap unit first regardless so you'd have your rule active just in case something came up.
It's not on your opponent to play your army for you and forewarn you of ever bad play you're about to make.
Castozor wrote: I'd say a warning beforehand is in order but is just because of how I prefer 40k personally, not because they are necessarily OP. I like TAC vs TAC lists and any kind of skew list goes against that. But again that is just my personal preference, YMMV.
Lists that presents a monolithic defensive profile are not exclusive with lists that are take all comers.
A list that can take all comers can confront and defeat any presented list, and is therefore versatile in capability. It presents a diverse offensive profile, but this has limited to no bearing on the list's defensive profile.
Arguably, taking a skewed defensive profile list makes you a better take all comers list, since your diverse offensive profile ensures you can service any enemy threat that may be required and your monolithic defensive profile ensures that it is harder to service all of the threats that you present in exchange.
the_scotsman wrote: In a recent game of mine I found out that in PA they gave Alpha Legion the ability to tell a unit that they can't deep strike more than 12" from enemy models. I was playing as GSC, had a bunch of units in deep strike, and I started with my big alpha strike unit and he used the stratagem. I said I'd use "plan generations in the making" to block it, but he said I needed a unit from the subfaction on the battlefield first. To which I said if I'd known about that stratagem, I'd have put down one of my cheaper units first, just to get them on the battlefield, and the only reason we were in this situation is because it was some new rule from a new book I didn't own. But he wanted his "Gotcha' moment, and that moment basically won the game for him, and turned the game from something casual and friendly into something that felt needlessly rules-lawyery. Like, great, you went out and bought a 40$ book for extra rules for your guys, didn't tell me about them, and used them to screw me over in a way that would have been very easy for me to avoid had you told me about the rule. Still would have cost me a bunch of CP and a once-per-game ability, but I would have been able to keep participating in the game.
You got punished for not knowing your own rule, not because you didn't know his rule. You should have put down the cheap unit first regardless so you'd have your rule active just in case something came up.
It's not on your opponent to play your army for you and forewarn you of ever bad play you're about to make.
I think it's polite form to inform the opponent of your rules if they want to know. My codex and the stratagems in it are open knowledge. If they ask me "do you have a stratagem that ignores modifiers to hit", I'll be like "Yes, 'The Wolf's Eye', right here."
I try to help them when I see they're trying to execute something but aren't quite pulling it off quite right. The idea is there, they just might need a little help to make it work. IE: three pointing, if they've put three models on one of my guys but they're arranged at like 0-90-180 instead of 0-120-240, I might tell them that one of their guys needs to slide further over to one side to actually block my retreat.
On the other hand, I'm not obligated to tell them everything I'm planning, so I don't need to volunteer to them what I'm doing or can do to counter what they're doing if they don't ask me.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I think it's polite form to inform the opponent of your rules if they want to know. My codex and the stratagems in it are open knowledge. If they ask me "do you have a stratagem that ignores modifiers to hit", I'll be like "Yes, 'The Wolf's Eye', right here."
If they ask I'll happily tell them, but if they mess up and start dropping a unit they're stuck with the move they just made. Learn from your mistake and move on.
I try to help them when I see they're trying to execute something but aren't quite pulling it off quite right. The idea is there, they just might need a little help to make it work. IE: three pointing, if they've put three models on one of my guys but they're arranged at like 0-90-180 instead of 0-120-240, I might tell them that one of their guys needs to slide further over to one side to actually block my retreat.
I'd do that for an obvious new player but for anybody else, they can either read up on tactics or play the game and learn as they go.
If I am dropping an all knights list I will usually tell my opponent, sometimes they just need to tailor their list a little in a casual game so that they actually get a fair chance.
As lists aren’t secret after deployment I am more than willing to answer questions about if my army is capable of x, y, or z. Gotcha moments because my opponent has not memorized all my rules and stratagems in a friendly game aren’t really fun. If they are new to the game I will generally warn them if they are doing something that will let me gain a massive advantage or could be a tactical mistake.
the_scotsman wrote: In a recent game of mine I found out that in PA they gave Alpha Legion the ability to tell a unit that they can't deep strike more than 12" from enemy models. I was playing as GSC, had a bunch of units in deep strike, and I started with my big alpha strike unit and he used the stratagem. I said I'd use "plan generations in the making" to block it, but he said I needed a unit from the subfaction on the battlefield first. To which I said if I'd known about that stratagem, I'd have put down one of my cheaper units first, just to get them on the battlefield, and the only reason we were in this situation is because it was some new rule from a new book I didn't own. But he wanted his "Gotcha' moment, and that moment basically won the game for him, and turned the game from something casual and friendly into something that felt needlessly rules-lawyery. Like, great, you went out and bought a 40$ book for extra rules for your guys, didn't tell me about them, and used them to screw me over in a way that would have been very easy for me to avoid had you told me about the rule. Still would have cost me a bunch of CP and a once-per-game ability, but I would have been able to keep participating in the game.
You got punished for not knowing your own rule, not because you didn't know his rule. You should have put down the cheap unit first regardless so you'd have your rule active just in case something came up.
It's not on your opponent to play your army for you and forewarn you of ever bad play you're about to make.
Well, except for the fact that I know the CSM stratagems, and a week before nothing even could have come up at the end of my movement phase So no, dawg, it was his rule, the reason I knew I could have put a cheap unit down is because I always do it against space marines, admech and eldar. If you are the kind of person who enjoys games ending more one-sidedly and more quickly because you pull the "no take-backsies!" every time your opponent makes a mistake, that's your perogative, but expecting there not to be at the very least a ramp-up of how cut throat the game is going to be from that point on and expecting a lot of people to be super jazzed about playing against you again is probably a bit naive in my opinion.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
I do often wonder every time one of these "hey, uh, should you do a polite thing?" threads comes up and it gets 6 pages of outraged replies how many regular posters on dakka are regulars on here because for some reason everybody in their in-person groups had another opponent already lined up when they asked if they wanted to play again.
the_scotsman wrote: Well, except for the fact that I know the CSM stratagems,
Clearly you didn't or you wouldn't have made that mistake...
and a week before nothing even could have come up at the end of my movement phase So no, dawg, it was his rule, the reason I knew I could have put a cheap unit down is because I always do it against space marines, admech and eldar. If you are the kind of person who enjoys games ending more one-sidedly and more quickly because you pull the "no take-backsies!" every time your opponent makes a mistake, that's your perogative, but expecting there not to be at the very least a ramp-up of how cut throat the game is going to be from that point on and expecting a lot of people to be super jazzed about playing against you again is probably a bit naive in my opinion.
You made a mistake it's not on your opponent to coddle you because you didn't bother keeping up with new information. Now you know for next time or will know to just drop your cheap stuff first to be safe, which you should just make a habit anyway as there is rarely a punishment for dropping a cheap unit in before an expensive one. Would you also ask for an undo if you made a move in chess, hand fully off the piece, and your opponent informed you that it would lead to mate in two via a pair of moves you'd never seen before? Onesided games happen in any system that rewards skill and 40k happens to reward knowing all the rules and bringing a good list as well as playing correctly on the table.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
WYSIWYG is dead my friend. Read their list, and ask what each unit is as you play.
The LR thing sounds like a smart tactic and makes sense if you think of it as them using indirect fire.
I do often wonder every time one of these "hey, uh, should you do a polite thing?" threads comes up and it gets 6 pages of outraged replies how many regular posters on dakka are regulars on here because for some reason everybody in their in-person groups had another opponent already lined up when they asked if they wanted to play again.
As long as somebody plays within the rules and isn't an ass, and no not letting you take back a terrible move doesn't make somebody an ass, they should have no issues finding a game. It seems like you want a game where your opponent gives you unlimited mulligans rather than you learning and becoming a stronger player as you play.
Canadian 5th wrote: Would you also ask for an undo if you made a move in chess, hand fully off the piece, and your opponent informed you that it would lead to mate in two via a pair of moves you'd never seen before?
If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
vict0988 wrote: If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
The rules of chess state that once your hand leaves the piece your move has been made, so you'd ask to break the rules because you didn't bother learning them?
The rules are public knowledge, you don't even need to read their rulebook to find them. You could check the tactics section here, watch a YT video, check wahapedia... We know that each new PA supplement will include new stratagems, we know in advance which armies will be covered in each supplement, so read up on the new stuff or lose a few games for not knowing. It's not on anybody else to ensure that you know the rules or that you don't make a mistake.
vict0988 wrote: If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
The rules of chess state that once your hand leaves the piece your move has been made, so you'd ask to break the rules because you didn't bother learning them?
The rules are public knowledge, you don't even need to read their rulebook to find them. You could check the tactics section here, watch a YT video, check wahapedia... We know that each new PA supplement will include new stratagems, we know in advance which armies will be covered in each supplement, so read up on the new stuff or lose a few games for not knowing. It's not on anybody else to ensure that you know the rules or that you don't make a mistake.
They're not public knowledge, they're hidden away in two or three different books that you have to buy. If your opponent hasn't spent their money on codexes/supplements for armies they don't play and as such as failed to do their hobby homework then you can either let them read the whole thing, warn them of the few things that might cause gotcha moments, or actively seek to gotcha your opponents. It is 100% reasonable to expect people to read the rules for chess before the game, and if you tri-point someone because they stringed out a unit without considering that, no take-backsies. There is no WP or mistake made just because you cannot afford to buy 20 books.
vict0988 wrote: They're not public knowledge, they're hidden away in two or three different books that you have to buy. If your opponent hasn't spent their money on codexes/supplements for armies they don't play and as such as failed to do their hobby homework then you can either let them read the whole thing, warn them of the few things that might cause gotcha moments, or actively seek to gotcha your opponents. It is 100% reasonable to expect people to read the rules for chess before the game, and if you tri-point someone because they stringed out a unit without considering that, no take-backsies. There is no WP or mistake made just because you cannot afford to buy 20 books.
They are public knowledge because you can 100% of the time find a youtube video, post on this very forum, or Goonhammer article explaining the new rules. This is without going to a grey-area site like Wahapedia which lists all the rules of the game for free.
Frankly, there is no excuse to not know the rules a week after they've launched because they will be covered online.
the_scotsman wrote: In a recent game of mine I found out that in PA they gave Alpha Legion the ability to tell a unit that they can't deep strike more than 12" from enemy models. I was playing as GSC, had a bunch of units in deep strike, and I started with my big alpha strike unit and he used the stratagem. I said I'd use "plan generations in the making" to block it, but he said I needed a unit from the subfaction on the battlefield first. To which I said if I'd known about that stratagem, I'd have put down one of my cheaper units first, just to get them on the battlefield, and the only reason we were in this situation is because it was some new rule from a new book I didn't own. But he wanted his "Gotcha' moment, and that moment basically won the game for him, and turned the game from something casual and friendly into something that felt needlessly rules-lawyery. Like, great, you went out and bought a 40$ book for extra rules for your guys, didn't tell me about them, and used them to screw me over in a way that would have been very easy for me to avoid had you told me about the rule. Still would have cost me a bunch of CP and a once-per-game ability, but I would have been able to keep participating in the game.
You got punished for not knowing your own rule, not because you didn't know his rule. You should have put down the cheap unit first regardless so you'd have your rule active just in case something came up.
It's not on your opponent to play your army for you and forewarn you of ever bad play you're about to make.
Well, except for the fact that I know the CSM stratagems, and a week before nothing even could have come up at the end of my movement phase So no, dawg, it was his rule, the reason I knew I could have put a cheap unit down is because I always do it against space marines, admech and eldar. If you are the kind of person who enjoys games ending more one-sidedly and more quickly because you pull the "no take-backsies!" every time your opponent makes a mistake, that's your perogative, but expecting there not to be at the very least a ramp-up of how cut throat the game is going to be from that point on and expecting a lot of people to be super jazzed about playing against you again is probably a bit naive in my opinion.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
I do often wonder every time one of these "hey, uh, should you do a polite thing?" threads comes up and it gets 6 pages of outraged replies how many regular posters on dakka are regulars on here because for some reason everybody in their in-person groups had another opponent already lined up when they asked if they wanted to play again.
I just think it's funny - all your crying about Alpha Legion surprising you. Afterall, that's pretty much "in character" for them.
Canadian 5th wrote: Frankly, there is no excuse to not know the rules a week after they've launched because they will be covered online.
For anyone who is treating this hobby as a hobby - not something they're 100% laser-focused on at all times, and not something that consumes all their free time like a second job - then it is reasonable not to be aware of new things.
Going to a tournament, especially one with prizes on the line? Sure, you should probably do some research into what's new (though tournaments often have the good sense to say that new material released X days before the event won't be used), but for an allegedly "friendly" game at the LGS? No, that's an unreasonable position to take.
Frankly, in this instance the_scotsman was facing an opponent who was at least partially TFG.
ccs, I wouldn't say he's crying about it - just annoyed that it was sprung on him as a gotcha. For example, would it have killed his opponent to say "I'm going to be using the Faith & Fury material for Alpha Legion - are you familiar with it?" before the game?
vict0988 wrote: They're not public knowledge, they're hidden away in two or three different books that you have to buy. If your opponent hasn't spent their money on codexes/supplements for armies they don't play and as such as failed to do their hobby homework then you can either let them read the whole thing, warn them of the few things that might cause gotcha moments, or actively seek to gotcha your opponents. It is 100% reasonable to expect people to read the rules for chess before the game, and if you tri-point someone because they stringed out a unit without considering that, no take-backsies. There is no WP or mistake made just because you cannot afford to buy 20 books.
They are public knowledge because you can 100% of the time find a youtube video, post on this very forum, or Goonhammer article explaining the new rules. This is without going to a grey-area site like Wahapedia which lists all the rules of the game for free.
Frankly, there is no excuse to not know the rules a week after they've launched because they will be covered online.
No excuse to not have done your hobby homework that is released what 12 times a year? What about actual homework? Who said one week? How about games on the day of release? How many games do you try to get in before the one week mark to gotcha as many people as possible before they've done their hobby homework? Dozens of individualized faction Stratagems with new ones being released for at least a couple of factions every few months is too much hobby homework when you add FAQ/Errata and new missions on top. That is too big a requirement to be a casual wargamer. I'd agree that GW is basically asking for piracy with what they're releasing in their books and how they're releasing them, reading a book aloud or showing it page-by-page is the same as sharing a pdf, what YouTubers are doing is as much piracy as what wahapedia is doing. I don't like to mention wahapedia too much, it's the only thing keeping things sane for me and I don't want GW to shut it down.
Yikes, some people demand a LOT of work be done by every single person, no matter the situation, before they stop looking down on other people in the hobby as somehow inferior.
I wouldn't expect my nephew, who started playing before he hit his teenage years (and is only about thirteen right now), to be able to tell me every single freaking rule that he might face for every single freaking army in the game. I still have to remind him of his own army's rules.
Hell, I still have to reference my own codex. It's not like I necessarily get enough games every month that every statline is absolutely memorized.
How about we, you know... just stop being dicks to each other?
Gotcha moments always felt cheap to me. Doesn't matter if it is me or my opponent having it. I don't see any benefit for the mutual enjoyment of the game if such things happen.
Same logic applies if someone forgot to advance with a unit and already cast a spell (and similar situations). Of course they can still advance. As long as I don't feel there is some kind of scheme behind it, why should I say no? In my last game three different Tyranid units charged my lone character model armed with a plasma pistol at the same time. He wanted to move his big Trygon(?) first instead of the Gaunts and I reminded him of the pistol being there, so he should charge with the disposable unit first in case I would hit. Losing the Trygon in that moment would have felt very bitter for him, I am sure.
ccs, I wouldn't say he's crying about it - just annoyed that it was sprung on him as a gotcha. For example, would it have killed his opponent to say "I'm going to be using the Faith & Fury material for Alpha Legion - are you familiar with it?" before the game?
Pff. He's bitching about it on-line to any random person who reads his post. He's definitely crying about it.
a_typical_hero wrote: Gotcha moments always felt cheap to me. Doesn't matter if it is me or my opponent having it. I don't see any benefit for the mutual enjoyment of the game if such things happen.
Same logic applies if someone forgot to advance with a unit and already cast a spell (and similar situations). Of course they can still advance. As long as I don't feel there is some kind of scheme behind it, why should I say no? In my last game three different Tyranid units charged my lone character model armed with a plasma pistol at the same time. He wanted to move his big Trygon(?) first instead of the Gaunts and I reminded him of the pistol being there, so he should charge with the disposable unit first in case I would hit. Losing the Trygon in that moment would have felt very bitter for him, I am sure.
This. Gotcha moments in a game where there is (almost) no hidden information have nothing to do with skill.
Dysartes wrote: For anyone who is treating this hobby as a hobby - not something they're 100% laser-focused on at all times, and not something that consumes all their free time like a second job - then it is reasonable not to be aware of new things.
Going to a tournament, especially one with prizes on the line? Sure, you should probably do some research into what's new (though tournaments often have the good sense to say that new material released X days before the event won't be used), but for an allegedly "friendly" game at the LGS? No, that's an unreasonable position to take.
Frankly, in this instance the_scotsman was facing an opponent who was at least partially TFG.
ccs, I wouldn't say he's crying about it - just annoyed that it was sprung on him as a gotcha. For example, would it have killed his opponent to say "I'm going to be using the Faith & Fury material for Alpha Legion - are you familiar with it?" before the game?
Is there a time frame wherein people should be expected to know these rules? Is it longer than one week, shorter, indefinite? Would this excuse extend to a recreational sports league where a rule change was made in the offseason and somebody comes to the game wearing illegal equipment or takes a penalty because of a change?
Also, tournaments postpone introducing major rules changes for army list/painting reasons not due to a gotcha moment where one player doesn't know a rule.
Scotsman could equally have asked his opponent if the new book had anything he should worry about in it or even asked if there was a rule that would change how he would want to deep strike before attempting to place a unit. The responsibility runs both ways but the expectation is that both players know the rules of the game they're playing.
vict0988 wrote: No excuse to not have done your hobby homework that is released what 12 times a year? What about actual homework? Who said one week? How about games on the day of release? How many games do you try to get in before the one week mark to gotcha as many people as possible before they've done their hobby homework?
I assume that if you have the time to game you have the time to invest in knowing the rules of the game. I play games that release impactful patches and new characters every few weeks, I'm expected to read and understand those patch notes before I play as otherwise, I'll drag my team down. This means at least having a baseline understanding of the rules the day the patch drops if not a few days before.
Also, it was scotsman who said it was about a week after release so I'm arguing based on that. The day of I and many other people at the shop would probably be talking about the new rule and how to try using it; this would make any complaints of not knowing the rule pretty invalid.
Dozens of individualized faction Stratagems with new ones being released for at least a couple of factions every few months is too much hobby homework when you add FAQ/Errata and new missions on top. That is too big a requirement to be a casual wargamer. I'd agree that GW is basically asking for piracy with what they're releasing in their books and how they're releasing them, reading a book aloud or showing it page-by-page is the same as sharing a pdf, what YouTubers are doing is as much piracy as what wahapedia is doing. I don't like to mention wahapedia too much, it's the only thing keeping things sane for me and I don't want GW to shut it down.
Look at the bi-weekly patch notes for a game like League of Legends, or the major patch notes for a game like Escape from Tarkov. These are as much or more work to read and understand as any GW update and you'll lose/have less fun for not having done your homework so why should it be different on the tabletop?
a_typical_hero wrote: Gotcha moments always felt cheap to me. Doesn't matter if it is me or my opponent having it. I don't see any benefit for the mutual enjoyment of the game if such things happen.
Same logic applies if someone forgot to advance with a unit and already cast a spell (and similar situations). Of course they can still advance. As long as I don't feel there is some kind of scheme behind it, why should I say no? In my last game three different Tyranid units charged my lone character model armed with a plasma pistol at the same time. He wanted to move his big Trygon(?) first instead of the Gaunts and I reminded him of the pistol being there, so he should charge with the disposable unit first in case I would hit. Losing the Trygon in that moment would have felt very bitter for him, I am sure.
You should let your opponents make mistakes and eat the consequences. They won't learn or grow as a player if they always get a redo and might even have a seriously bad time against somebody who doesn't play that way if they get used to being handled with kid gloves.
Jidmah wrote: This. Gotcha moments in a game where there is (almost) no hidden information have nothing to do with skill.
So I guess a doctor who didn't read half of his textbooks is just as skilled as one who knows his inside and out then?
It depends on the situation, of course. A high stakes tournament game is different to a friendly pickup game. Ideally this should be something you discuss before a game, so you are on the same page. Better for both players if they expect the same things from a game.
Dysartes wrote: For anyone who is treating this hobby as a hobby - not something they're 100% laser-focused on at all times, and not something that consumes all their free time like a second job - then it is reasonable not to be aware of new things.
Going to a tournament, especially one with prizes on the line? Sure, you should probably do some research into what's new (though tournaments often have the good sense to say that new material released X days before the event won't be used), but for an allegedly "friendly" game at the LGS? No, that's an unreasonable position to take.
Frankly, in this instance the_scotsman was facing an opponent who was at least partially TFG.
ccs, I wouldn't say he's crying about it - just annoyed that it was sprung on him as a gotcha. For example, would it have killed his opponent to say "I'm going to be using the Faith & Fury material for Alpha Legion - are you familiar with it?" before the game?
Is there a time frame wherein people should be expected to know these rules? Is it longer than one week, shorter, indefinite? Would this excuse extend to a recreational sports league where a rule change was made in the offseason and somebody comes to the game wearing illegal equipment or takes a penalty because of a change?
In the Yugioh card-game there is a concept of a ruleshark, not someone that merely enforces the rules, but lets their opponent cheat long enough that the game state cannot be easily fixed and they get awarded a win when they could have stopped their opponent immediately upon seeing an illegal action happen and played the game out. If you are trying to gotcha your opponent with rules they don't know about in a casual game you're not following a high level of sportsmanship. I'd say this is indefinite, if you're playing casually you should never try to get an advantage from hiding knowledge your opponent could have had by doing better homework in terms of reading what's written by GW not studying tactics and combos. I've gotten gotcha'd by lots of people, I am pretty sure I've been hit by every one in the game at this point because I read new rules when I'm interested in the faction and what it can do, not as hobby homework. I don't ask people to tell me everything and I don't get mad when something new is revealed, it's just a minor negative experience, like the dice favouring one player too much over the other or any of the bazillion other small things that makes 40k less amazing.
vict0988 wrote: No excuse to not have done your hobby homework that is released what 12 times a year? What about actual homework? Who said one week? How about games on the day of release? How many games do you try to get in before the one week mark to gotcha as many people as possible before they've done their hobby homework?
I assume that if you have the time to game you have the time to invest in knowing the rules of the game. I play games that release impactful patches and new characters every few weeks, I'm expected to read and understand those patch notes before I play as otherwise, I'll drag my team down. This means at least having a baseline understanding of the rules the day the patch drops if not a few days before.
Dozens of individualized faction Stratagems with new ones being released for at least a couple of factions every few months is too much hobby homework when you add FAQ/Errata and new missions on top. That is too big a requirement to be a casual wargamer. I'd agree that GW is basically asking for piracy with what they're releasing in their books and how they're releasing them, reading a book aloud or showing it page-by-page is the same as sharing a pdf, what YouTubers are doing is as much piracy as what wahapedia is doing. I don't like to mention wahapedia too much, it's the only thing keeping things sane for me and I don't want GW to shut it down.
Look at the bi-weekly patch notes for a game like League of Legends, or the major patch notes for a game like Escape from Tarkov. These are as much or more work to read and understand as any GW update and you'll lose/have less fun for not having done your homework so why should it be different on the tabletop?
In casual play? I might check if my characters have been buffed in LOL, but sometimes I'll play a champion I haven't picked up in months or years, I won't know what that champion's last three updates did to them, I might not even check the optimal build-path for them and instead go with how I want to play that champion. Nobody would disagree if you specified competitive for both of these, if you're playing a champion you're bad at in ranked or if you show up to a tournament without any knowledge of your opponent's Stratagems you should expect to get crushed.
Also, it was scotsman who said it was about a week after release so I'm arguing based on that. The day of I and many other people at the shop would probably be talking about the new rule and how to try using it; this would make any complaints of not knowing the rule pretty invalid.
How can anyone get a gotcha in if everyone knows the rules? There clearly isn't a problem at your shop if everyone has agreed to chat before you play games and everyone knows every new Stratagem that has come out. What about if someone doesn't hang around the club and talk shop as much as the regulars? Do they deserve to get crushed for not being part of the in-group?
a_typical_hero wrote: Gotcha moments always felt cheap to me. Doesn't matter if it is me or my opponent having it. I don't see any benefit for the mutual enjoyment of the game if such things happen.
Same logic applies if someone forgot to advance with a unit and already cast a spell (and similar situations). Of course they can still advance. As long as I don't feel there is some kind of scheme behind it, why should I say no? In my last game three different Tyranid units charged my lone character model armed with a plasma pistol at the same time. He wanted to move his big Trygon(?) first instead of the Gaunts and I reminded him of the pistol being there, so he should charge with the disposable unit first in case I would hit. Losing the Trygon in that moment would have felt very bitter for him, I am sure.
You should let your opponents make mistakes and eat the consequences. They won't learn or grow as a player if they always get a redo and might even have a seriously bad time against somebody who doesn't play that way if they get used to being handled with kid gloves.
That should be left up to the players at the table and in casual games it's generally way more fun to play casually. When I got into being strict with myself I had a good chunk of games that were way less fun because I forgot stuff and didn't let myself go back, then in some of those games I also didn't let my opponent go back and the games had a negative vibe. I think the key is agreeing with your opponent on what kind of vibe you want in your game, a competitive vibe can be super fun, especially if both players know what they're doing with their faction and against the faction they are playing against.
Jidmah wrote: This. Gotcha moments in a game where there is (almost) no hidden information have nothing to do with skill.
So I guess a doctor who didn't read half of his textbooks is just as skilled as one who knows his inside and out then?
There is hidden information in healthcare, lots of it. Try chess. Having a gotcha moment in chess based on a new rule is BS, which is also why chess doesn't have bi-monthly rules changes for 1-4 factions. Chess is all about tactics you didn't see coming, not hidden information because you failed to buy the white move expansion pack that lets towers hop over pawns and kill the enemy queen.
Jidmah wrote: This. Gotcha moments in a game where there is (almost) no hidden information have nothing to do with skill.
So I guess a doctor who didn't read half of his textbooks is just as skilled as one who knows his inside and out then?
You seem to be under the impression that reading textbooks is all there is to becoming a doctor.
And no, reading textbooks does not improve skill outside or RPGs.
Nonsense, roleplaying is an innate skill, roll-playing is learned by reading. Very different skillsets. Though even roll-playing is helped more by knowing statistics than reading the rulebook thoroughly.
Canadian 5th wrote: Would you also ask for an undo if you made a move in chess, hand fully off the piece, and your opponent informed you that it would lead to mate in two via a pair of moves you'd never seen before?
If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that, the moment we get leaks or rules confirmation, some of us here get straight to work on what's broken, what's garbage, or what's gimmicky. In the current age of technology you should have a reasonable assumption of what an opponent's army can do. I won't let them take back mistakes and I certainly won't take back mine simply because that kind of coddling doesn't let you grow. We aren't five years old and trying to figure out the rules for a game.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
The LR thing sounds like a smart tactic and makes sense if you think of it as them using indirect fire.
pretty sure you're not allowed to change how your models are modeled mid-fight
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
The LR thing sounds like a smart tactic and makes sense if you think of it as them using indirect fire.
pretty sure you're not allowed to change how your models are modeled mid-fight
Nah, there's no rule against it.
Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
The LR thing sounds like a smart tactic and makes sense if you think of it as them using indirect fire.
pretty sure you're not allowed to change how your models are modeled mid-fight
Nah, there's no rule against it.
Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
40k is a permissible ruleset, if the rules don't allow it, they disallow it. You can move your barrels and arms whenever you move your model, but no part of your model can move more than than allowed.
Canadian 5th wrote: Would you also ask for an undo if you made a move in chess, hand fully off the piece, and your opponent informed you that it would lead to mate in two via a pair of moves you'd never seen before?
If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that, the moment we get leaks or rules confirmation, some of us here get straight to work on what's broken, what's garbage, or what's gimmicky. In the current age of technology you should have a reasonable assumption of what an opponent's army can do. I won't let them take back mistakes and I certainly won't take back mine simply because that kind of coddling doesn't let you grow. We aren't five years old and trying to figure out the rules for a game.
Who are "we" and "us"? Is that semi or fully competitive players with 1000+ posts on a 40k forum or is it John the 15-year old that started three weeks ago and is borrowing models so he can play or is it Ib who plays once a month but mainly paints and just wants to chill and have a game? Who wants to grow? Is that something you know from the kind of game you usually play or is it a good excuse for winning through a gotcha? The best option IMO is taking note of everything that might create a gotcha moment and let your opponent know before the game, in competitive games people are expected to know what to ask or to suffer the consequences. I got gotcha'd by Raven Guard and Ultramarines Stratagems they got because I was in a casual phase and not keeping up with the rules, I wasn't trying to grow, all the growth I got from those games could have been done before the game started by going over the 1-3 Stratagems that might create a gotcha. You're essentially just wasting my time if I'm trying to learn. If I'm trying to have fun you're certainly not helping me by winning with a move I didn't think possible and leaving me feeling cheated out of the chance I would have had if you had introduced your best new Stratagems. The Raven Guard game was within a week of release I believe, Ultramarines was way after. I just played an ITC game, where I play that to me signals people are playing rather competitively (although I try to kick things down a notch so people don't get mad when I roll hot), I brought my Stratagem cards and arrayed them from gotcha to trash so my opponent could look through at their leisure. In past games I have sometimes given my opponent time to read the most important ones and that is something I'll go back to for casual games. Don't mistake me for being holier than thou, I have played my fair share of games where I didn't, just a couple of games ago I basically cheated by explaining my relic wrong.
With regards to the "I didn't know this rule" thing:
When I new book comes out, I read up online to know what people are talking about it, and I ask my friends who buy it to take a look at it before we start our game.
It's not my responsibility to tell you what I'm going to do, that would be telling you my strategy. I can let you take a look at a new book I bought so you can read the rules for yourself, and if you ask me "hey, do you have a way to do X?" I can't like lie to you [the rules are open knowledge since you could buy that book yourself]. I expect my opponent to come into the game with a baseline level of being appraised of hobby developments, and I think it's entire fair to place the onus of doing so on them. We're not going to play the game of "can I take that back?" every time something happens that'd bad for you.
the_scotsman wrote: Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
the_scotsman wrote: Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
I was saying maybe read? I know the rule exists in chess. it does not exist in Beerrhammer Pretzel-thousand Clownfiesta Edition, the game where 3 years later assault type weapons still don't fething work RAW. Attempting to rules-lawyer when someone has officially "made" a move and cannot take it back is pure idiocy because there is NO SUCH RULE in 40k. It's all up to that whole pesky "this game is also a social interaction between two human beings playing a game" thing. Sadly, there is no rule in the book for this that makes you Technically Correct, The Best Kind of Correct.
Is a move official when I take my hand off the models in the unit that's deep striking? is it official when I pick the unit up from the side of the board? Is it official when I say I'm going to deep strike that unit? The only rule on the books is "talk to your opponent and don't be a dick" so how can we know when you're allowed to scream "I'm using my super-special new rule from this book I just purchased!"?
it's a real travesty, and someone really ought to write GW to clear up this whole debacle. The game would be FAR better if we just knew when we could laugh in our opponent's face and scream no takesies-backsies.
the_scotsman wrote: Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
I was saying maybe read? I know the rule exists in chess. it does not exist in Beerrhammer Pretzel-thousand Clownfiesta Edition, the game where 3 years later assault type weapons still don't fething work RAW. Attempting to rules-lawyer when someone has officially "made" a move and cannot take it back is pure idiocy because there is NO SUCH RULE in 40k. It's all up to that whole pesky "this game is also a social interaction between two human beings playing a game" thing. Sadly, there is no rule in the book for this that makes you Technically Correct, The Best Kind of Correct.
Is a move official when I take my hand off the models in the unit that's deep striking? is it official when I pick the unit up from the side of the board? Is it official when I say I'm going to deep strike that unit? The only rule on the books is "talk to your opponent and don't be a dick" so how can we know when you're allowed to scream "I'm using my super-special new rule from this book I just purchased!"?
it's a real travesty, and someone really ought to write GW to clear up this whole debacle. The game would be FAR better if we just knew when we could laugh in our opponent's face and scream no takesies-backsies.
Not my job to figure out my opponent's strategy for them.
There's also no rule against you deliberately doing things to confuse your opponent with your models, like having a fully painted up catachan army but deploying them on the table as 3 different non-catachan regiments, or against deploying your leman russes behind a building and tilting their gun barrels up to draw LOS on your shooting phase and then pushing them back down after they shoot.
The LR thing sounds like a smart tactic and makes sense if you think of it as them using indirect fire.
pretty sure you're not allowed to change how your models are modeled mid-fight
Nah, there's no rule against it.
Just like there's no rule like the one in chess he cited earlier stating when an action is "official" and cannot be taken back. Rules lawyers just gonna rules lawyer. I do find the breakdown of people who come down in favor and against hard rules lawyering and the people who do and do not actually go in person and play the game to be fairly predictable.
40k is a permissible ruleset, if the rules don't allow it, they disallow it. You can move your barrels and arms whenever you move your model, but no part of your model can move more than than allowed.
Canadian 5th wrote: Would you also ask for an undo if you made a move in chess, hand fully off the piece, and your opponent informed you that it would lead to mate in two via a pair of moves you'd never seen before?
If a new move or rule was added to chess then yeah. That's the problem with constantly adding new gotcha rules. GW should have kept it to Relics and WL traits and specialist detachments instead of just adding always available stratagems, if it's a relic/WL trait/specialist detachment your opponent has to announce it and you can ask what those do. Do you really want your opponent to have to read your supplement just before the game starts or would you rather warn them of incoming new rules? I guess you just want to crush your opponent for not doing their hobby homework, kind of lame.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that, the moment we get leaks or rules confirmation, some of us here get straight to work on what's broken, what's garbage, or what's gimmicky. In the current age of technology you should have a reasonable assumption of what an opponent's army can do. I won't let them take back mistakes and I certainly won't take back mine simply because that kind of coddling doesn't let you grow. We aren't five years old and trying to figure out the rules for a game.
Who are "we" and "us"? Is that semi or fully competitive players with 1000+ posts on a 40k forum or is it John the 15-year old that started three weeks ago and is borrowing models so he can play or is it Ib who plays once a month but mainly paints and just wants to chill and have a game? Who wants to grow? Is that something you know from the kind of game you usually play or is it a good excuse for winning through a gotcha? The best option IMO is taking note of everything that might create a gotcha moment and let your opponent know before the game, in competitive games people are expected to know what to ask or to suffer the consequences. I got gotcha'd by Raven Guard and Ultramarines Stratagems they got because I was in a casual phase and not keeping up with the rules, I wasn't trying to grow, all the growth I got from those games could have been done before the game started by going over the 1-3 Stratagems that might create a gotcha. You're essentially just wasting my time if I'm trying to learn. If I'm trying to have fun you're certainly not helping me by winning with a move I didn't think possible and leaving me feeling cheated out of the chance I would have had if you had introduced your best new Stratagems. The Raven Guard game was within a week of release I believe, Ultramarines was way after. I just played an ITC game, where I play that to me signals people are playing rather competitively (although I try to kick things down a notch so people don't get mad when I roll hot), I brought my Stratagem cards and arrayed them from gotcha to trash so my opponent could look through at their leisure. In past games I have sometimes given my opponent time to read the most important ones and that is something I'll go back to for casual games. Don't mistake me for being holier than thou, I have played my fair share of games where I didn't, just a couple of games ago I basically cheated by explaining my relic wrong.
If someone is trying to get into the game they're gonna see all the leaks for the books. There's no excuse for lack of information. You getting "gotcha'd" by Raven Guard and Ultramarines is all your own fault for being a poor player and not doing even a modicum of research, not the opponent's.
If I'm playing competitively, or against a competitive player, it's on my opponent to know what I can do.
If I'm playing friendlies, or against a new player, then I'll let them know what sorts of things my army can do and let them take things back/do things they forgot about.
In both cases, it's to make the game better for both of us.
Castozor wrote: I'd say a warning beforehand is in order but is just because of how I prefer 40k personally, not because they are necessarily OP. I like TAC vs TAC lists and any kind of skew list goes against that. But again that is just my personal preference, YMMV.
Lists that presents a monolithic defensive profile are not exclusive with lists that are take all comers.
A list that can take all comers can confront and defeat any presented list, and is therefore versatile in capability. It presents a diverse offensive profile, but this has limited to no bearing on the list's defensive profile.
Arguably, taking a skewed defensive profile list makes you a better take all comers list, since your diverse offensive profile ensures you can service any enemy threat that may be required and your monolithic defensive profile ensures that it is harder to service all of the threats that you present in exchange.
Interesting take, never thought it about that way. I'd still consider a list with (mostly) one defensive statline a bit of a skew list though.
Castozor wrote: I'd say a warning beforehand is in order but is just because of how I prefer 40k personally, not because they are necessarily OP. I like TAC vs TAC lists and any kind of skew list goes against that. But again that is just my personal preference, YMMV.
Lists that presents a monolithic defensive profile are not exclusive with lists that are take all comers.
A list that can take all comers can confront and defeat any presented list, and is therefore versatile in capability. It presents a diverse offensive profile, but this has limited to no bearing on the list's defensive profile.
Arguably, taking a skewed defensive profile list makes you a better take all comers list, since your diverse offensive profile ensures you can service any enemy threat that may be required and your monolithic defensive profile ensures that it is harder to service all of the threats that you present in exchange.
Interesting take, never thought it about that way. I'd still consider a list with (mostly) one defensive statline a bit of a skew list though.
A list with one defensive statline is the definition of a skew list.
I was saying that a "Take all Comers" list is a list that is designed to be able to adequately beat any list presented against it. It's the opposite of a tailored list, not a skew list. There's no reason a skew list isn't a take all comers list, and in fact it probably is.
With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Competitive video games are equally or even more toxic than 40k, so that's not exactly the standard we should be using.
It all comes down to what you expect from this game. If both players agree that winning is what's fun, then gotcha plays are fine. If however, you're both interested in playing a good game, regardless of outcome; gotcha moments are cheap, nasty and a detriment to your entire community of players.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Completely wrong, in online video games you get matched against people of a similar skill level, whether your skill lies in game knowledge, tactical awareness or mechanics you'll go against people and with people that will result in a 40-60% win-rate. There is no such system in casual 40k, it's entirely possible to win 80% of your games over the course of an entire year assuming you play 4 games a month and then 12 games in the 1 week after your new Stratagems release. Play 14 games of League a month and 36 after a positive update to a champion and you'll just get matched against better players if you win too much. So what now, do we stop playing against players that are better than us? Didn't you want people to get better? Well, how about informing them of any gotcha abilities or Stratagems you have so you can play on a more or less even playing field and both have a chance to get better (and more importantly have fun, remember we're talking about casual)? Doing hobby homework is not a skill and it doesn't make you better at the game outside of how much better you'd be if your opponent bothered to tell you about their top 3 gotcha Stratagems/abilities.
League of Legends also publically posts their updates and makes videos about them, 40k content creators do go through all the new content but showing every single page or reading every pts cost is piracy, should piracy be required to play casually? Do you need to watch third party content or download programs to make League work? GW doesn't cover every change and doesn't always highlight the important ones in their articles, although reading the RG article would have saved me from my opponent falling back and shooting with 6 Devastator Centurions and essentially consolidating into them and taking 25 S5 attacks to drag out 2 measly CP. The introduction of an entirely new character or a total rework of an existing one is still something you can play out, you can see how much damage you take, play safe and hope you get carried even if they are very strong without your prior knowledge. There is no feeling out a Stratagem, once it's been used it has been used. If 40k had a best-of-3 format, then fine, keep Stratagems up your sleeve or use them game 1, your opponent knows about it from then on or you didn't use it game 1/2. Instead, you just get an unfair advantage in one game, shake hands, wash hands and go home.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because it's not an online video game? I have no idea why you keep comparing the two.
What this discussion highlights is one of the major failings of GW's current design ethos. I can't think of any other tabletop wargame that has the sheer number of rules that 40k does, spread around so many different sources. Yes, it's technically all open information but it's often partially hidden behind a "paywall" in the sense you need to buy the book or a ridiculous amount of time investment to keep up with everything that's going on. Compare that to a game like Warmachine or X-Wing where I can walk up to a game against an opponent and army list I've never faced before and, within minutes, be completely informed about the capabilities of my opponent's force. I may miss certain subtleties in some interactions but in general they're all openly available and easily accessible. That means the game comes down to who plays best with the tools they have and decisions made with full information available to both players on everyone's capabilities, rather than who knows more about the various tricks they can pull off on unsuspecting players. To me, that's what wargames should be about rather than gotcha moments.
vict0988 wrote: Completely wrong, in online video games you get matched against people of a similar skill level,
Not in World of Tanks, Escape from Tarkov, Warthunder, Fallout 76... I could go on.
There is no such system in casual 40k,
Then work with your shop and/or playgroup to make one.
So what now, do we stop playing against players that are better than us? Didn't you want people to get better? Well, how about informing them of any gotcha abilities or Stratagems you have so you can play on a more or less even playing field and both have a chance to get better (and more importantly have fun, remember we're talking about casual)? Doing hobby homework is not a skill and it doesn't make you better at the game outside of how much better you'd be if your opponent bothered to tell you about their top 3 gotcha Stratagems/abilities.
Why is the burden on the skilled player to explain things that the casual player should know about? Why can't the skilled player simply answer questions as they arise and otherwise play as if their opponent knows the rules of the game?
League of Legends also publically posts their updates and makes videos about them, 40k content creators do go through all the new content but showing every single page or reading every pts cost is piracy, should piracy be required to play casually?
Points costs aren't a gotcha and between Goonhammer, Dakka, and YouTube you'll hear about the good 'gotchas' if you do any looking at all.
Do you need to watch third party content or download programs to make League work?
If you want to learn the meta it's recommended to use third party sites for builds and matchup tips for League.
GW doesn't cover every change and doesn't always highlight the important ones in their articles, although reading the RG article would have saved me from my opponent falling back and shooting with 6 Devastator Centurions and essentially consolidating into them and taking 25 S5 attacks to drag out 2 measly CP. The introduction of an entirely new character or a total rework of an existing one is still something you can play out, you can see how much damage you take, play safe and hope you get carried even if they are very strong without your prior knowledge. There is no feeling out a Stratagem, once it's been used it has been used. If 40k had a best-of-3 format, then fine, keep Stratagems up your sleeve or use them game 1, your opponent knows about it from then on or you didn't use it game 1/2. Instead, you just get an unfair advantage in one game, shake hands, wash hands and go home.
Unfair advantage? Knowing the rules is unfair now... No, it's on every player to know the rules of the game before they put models to table. If they don't, too bad for them, they should engage with the hobby more than just showing up and putting models down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: What this discussion highlights is one of the major failings of GW's current design ethos. I can't think of any other tabletop wargame that has the sheer number of rules that 40k does, spread around so many different sources. Yes, it's technically all open information but it's often partially hidden behind a "paywall" in the sense you need to buy the book or a ridiculous amount of time investment to keep up with everything that's going on. Compare that to a game like Warmachine or X-Wing where I can walk up to a game against an opponent and army list I've never faced before and, within minutes, be completely informed about the capabilities of my opponent's force. I may miss certain subtleties in some interactions but in general they're all openly available and easily accessible. That means the game comes down to who plays best with the tools they have and decisions made with full information available to both players on everyone's capabilities, rather than who knows more about the various tricks they can pull off on unsuspecting players. To me, that's what wargames should be about rather than gotcha moments.
I've just come back to the hobby after a long break and I can find all the rules I'd need to play any army for free without downloading any scanned GW material. It's not unreasonable to expect that anybody with an internet connection and 5 minutes could do the same.
Games are both about knowing the rules and actually playing them. You seem to only place value on the gameplay when both should be equally important.
I think that there is a fundemental difference in the approach to the game by several people here. In itself, that is not a bad thing. There are different styles of play and different things that players want out of the game. However, the problem lies when people think that their game format is superior to others. There is no fundemental way to play 40k. Competitive formats are not superior to narrative ones, or vice versa. Things would be much easier if we accept what others want to get out of the game.
The style I believe that Canadian 5th prefers is a perfectly valid way to play. However, if playing against a "more casual" player, both will find the experience lacking in some regard. It is up to both player to recognise this and take adequate steps to accomodate the other, or at least agree that they want different things and to find other opponents. I have seen what happens in a club when there is a competitive/casual split, and it isn't good for anyone if people let it fester into animosity.
So what now, do we stop playing against players that are better than us? Didn't you want people to get better? Well, how about informing them of any gotcha abilities or Stratagems you have so you can play on a more or less even playing field and both have a chance to get better (and more importantly have fun, remember we're talking about casual)? Doing hobby homework is not a skill and it doesn't make you better at the game outside of how much better you'd be if your opponent bothered to tell you about their top 3 gotcha Stratagems/abilities.
Why is the burden on the skilled player to explain things that the casual player should know about? Why can't the skilled player simply answer questions as they arise and otherwise play as if their opponent knows the rules of the game?
The skilled player? Who said you're skilled because you've done your hobby homework? I don't think having done hobby homework shows skill and I think I have made that very clear. No, it puts the onus on the player with the gotcha rules to explain those because if they don't then it might make the game unfair and unfun towards the person who has committed the grand crime of not keeping up with their hobby homework. I actually do my hobby homework most of the time, but I don't paint my minis, what would you rather have a player with a painted army where you have to explain your gotcha rules or a player that has a half-painted collection but knows your rules better than you do?
Do you need to watch third party content or download programs to make League work?
If you want to learn the meta it's recommended to use third party sites for builds and matchup tips for League.
If you only use meta picks and meta items you're not playing casually are you? You're purely speaking to a competitive game between competitive people, I don't think you understand the meaning of casual and I've already agreed with you given that you're only talking about competitive games. This idea of every game is a competition fits with you not believing LoW can ever be not cool to bring, just admit you're a competitive player that always plays competitively. Other types of games than competitive games exist, I can pick up a League of Legends champion that I tried once or twice a few years ago with a set of runes I think seem mostly reasonable, pick out the recommended items I think sound good or even build something wholly unique that I think might be fun and I rarely get punished for it. There is too much to know in 40k to expect newer and casual players to understand everything before the game, all it takes is another two minutes of pre-game talk or even just sending a pre-prepared word document to your opponent before the game depending on your gaming situation.
Unfair advantage? Knowing the rules is unfair now... No, it's on every player to know the rules of the game before they put models to table. If they don't, too bad for them, they should engage with the hobby more than just showing up and putting models down.
How broad should this knowledge be? Should you have memorized your codex before you do your first game, or at least by the second game? How about memorizing every ability and Stratagem in the game, is that on the first, second or third game? Many of the people I have played with have never faced Necrons before, they'll be asking me what the AP is of my Immortal guns on the third battle round, it's still zero, they have to look up their S, AP, number of shots, even what weapons their models are equipped with in the case of the SM Executioner.
I've just come back to the hobby after a long break and I can find all the rules I'd need to play any army for free without downloading any scanned GW material. It's not unreasonable to expect that anybody with an internet connection and 5 minutes could do the same.
Games are both about knowing the rules and actually playing them. You seem to only place value on the gameplay when both should be equally important.
If you type in the code for a game from scratch and perfectly recreate it and then sell that game it's still theft of intellectual property. That you think it should be expected of everyone to commit theft of intellectual property to play the game just because you do it and you think it's okay is truly outrageous (even though I happen to agree). You haven't done 5 minutes of research if you know every ability and Stratagem, that's like 10 hours of study, that's without knowing profiles.
You act like it's hard to memorize that stuff. You only need to know the important Strats. I mean, if you think you need to memorize Raven Guard rerolling all hits on Word Bearers and that somehow interfered with the fact they can fall back and shoot...that's being a REALLY bad player LOL
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You act like it's hard to memorize that stuff. You only need to know the important Strats. I mean, if you think you need to memorize Raven Guard rerolling all hits on Word Bearers and that somehow interfered with the fact they can fall back and shoot...that's being a REALLY bad player LOL
The problem is you need a baseline amount of knowledge before you can then start figuring out which strats you can ignore completely. Some are obviously pretty bad even at first glance, but where's the cut-off? I think the people in this thread that are arguing against these sort of gotcha moments are trying to say that skill should be more important than knowledge in a wargame. Memorising all the abilities and options for different enemies isn't really a skill, it's just more of a memorisation procedure. The real skill should be what you do with the information on the board tiself but 40k is terrible for that because it's so difficult to have all the info to hand, so the game becomes a memory test rather than one of skill.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You act like it's hard to memorize that stuff. You only need to know the important Strats. I mean, if you think you need to memorize Raven Guard rerolling all hits on Word Bearers and that somehow interfered with the fact they can fall back and shoot...that's being a REALLY bad player LOL
Nah you need to memorize all the abilities as well, if you think I'm going to tell you that you're -3 to hit my Alaitoc flyer before you shoot you're dead wrong buddy, gotta learn the hard way. How many guns were you putting into my flyer again? Ah yes, let me lather myself in peanut oil as I watch you walk into my gotcha, -1 to hit? Ha! You can't even hit me and I'm all lubed up by this point and I'm starting to shower in pecan nuts and it is fething amazing my dude. I'll force you to roll all your weapons hitting on 7+ as well (demz the rules) and I'll walk straight to hell to toast me and my pecan nuts in my peanut oil because I'm a gotcha devil.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year, and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
These are radically different experiences with substantially different outcomes for communities for "gotcha" moments.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
That's why I'm willing to let them read my book. Obviously, if they don't play Guard, Tau, or GSC, I don't expect them to buy The Greater Good. That said, I'm going to be using stratagems and rules from it, and I'm happy to let them look over the new rules I have at my disposal before the game starts.
I'm not under an obligation to tell them how I'm going to play the game. And the whole thing with permitting extensive take backsies whenever I do something that takes advantage of a mistake you made is just opening up a can of worms that will slow the game down and make it generally unpleasant. My take on this: once you roll the dice, you've committed to that action and it can't be taken back. With movement, when you start moving another unit, that move is committed and shouldn't be changed. I'll usually let someone go back if they forgot their psychic phase and have only shot 1 unit or maybe 2, but if you're all the way at your assault phase then you probably should have remembered first. I'm more open to it in doubles games, because the number of times the something comes up like "I wanted to put my seekers there, could you have moved your dreadknight a little to the left?" or "Wait don't shoot that! I was going to charge that with my lychguard!" is very high and I'd rather the game keep moving than stop every phase to have a team discussion.
As far as Lords of War go, I will tell you I have a Shadowsword in my list when we reveal our lists. If someone is my personal friend, I afford them the right to ask me to/not to include my Shadowsword, to/not to include my vendetta, to/not to include my Land Raider Terminus, etc.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You act like it's hard to memorize that stuff. You only need to know the important Strats. I mean, if you think you need to memorize Raven Guard rerolling all hits on Word Bearers and that somehow interfered with the fact they can fall back and shoot...that's being a REALLY bad player LOL
Nah you need to memorize all the abilities as well, if you think I'm going to tell you that you're -3 to hit my Alaitoc flyer before you shoot you're dead wrong buddy, gotta learn the hard way. How many guns were you putting into my flyer again? Ah yes, let me lather myself in peanut oil as I watch you walk into my gotcha, -1 to hit? Ha! You can't even hit me and I'm all lubed up by this point and I'm starting to shower in pecan nuts and it is fething amazing my dude. I'll force you to roll all your weapons hitting on 7+ as well (demz the rules) and I'll walk straight to hell to toast me and my pecan nuts in my peanut oil because I'm a gotcha devil.
Um okay that's fine, guess I won't shoot the flyer with something else.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year, and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
These are radically different experiences with substantially different outcomes for communities for "gotcha" moments.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year, and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
These are radically different experiences with substantially different outcomes for communities for "gotcha" moments.
Blame GW bloat then for that problem.
No, in this context I will blame those relying on the gotcha plays, as they're obviously bad at being a wargamer.
After all, if they were good they wouldn't need a crutch of hidden knowledge, would they?
I always read my opponent's book if I'm unfamiliar. I never take their word on how their strats work, either. That being said, I never use gotcha stuff. I always tell people about the most obnoxious BA strats as well as tripointing.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year, and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
These are radically different experiences with substantially different outcomes for communities for "gotcha" moments.
Blame GW bloat then for that problem.
No, in this context I will blame those relying on the gotcha plays, as they're obviously bad at being a wargamer.
After all, if they were good they wouldn't need a crutch of hidden knowledge, would they?
vict0988 wrote: The skilled player? Who said you're skilled because you've done your hobby homework? I don't think having done hobby homework shows skill and I think I have made that very clear. No, it puts the onus on the player with the gotcha rules to explain those because if they don't then it might make the game unfair and unfun towards the person who has committed the grand crime of not keeping up with their hobby homework. I actually do my hobby homework most of the time, but I don't paint my minis, what would you rather have a player with a painted army where you have to explain your gotcha rules or a player that has a half-painted collection but knows your rules better than you do?
Research is a skill as is memorization and retention of information. If it wasn't there would be a degree for librarians or archivists.
I could care less if your army is just legs on bases, with the weapon that model is using stuck on the base. I care far more about the rules and gameplay side than the hobby/modelling/crafting side of this game.
If you only use meta picks and meta items you're not playing casually are you?
If you have any intention of climbing you should use these tools. Also, do you know how awful it is to lose a game of League, even a normal game, because one of your teammates is 'just playing again after 6 months' or types 'lul, wut patch?' into team chat? You should put in a minimum of effort to not be a boat anchor to your team.
You're purely speaking to a competitive game between competitive people, I don't think you understand the meaning of casual and I've already agreed with you given that you're only talking about competitive games. This idea of every game is a competition fits with you not believing LoW can ever be not cool to bring, just admit you're a competitive player that always plays competitively. Other types of games than competitive games exist, I can pick up a League of Legends champion that I tried once or twice a few years ago with a set of runes I think seem mostly reasonable, pick out the recommended items I think sound good or even build something wholly unique that I think might be fun and I rarely get punished for it. There is too much to know in 40k to expect newer and casual players to understand everything before the game, all it takes is another two minutes of pre-game talk or even just sending a pre-prepared word document to your opponent before the game depending on your gaming situation.
So would you also expect an enemy Riven to tell you that their champion can animation cancel and weave auto attacks? How about a Lee Sin telling you about what an InSec is? Or telling you that there's a glitch at the moment where your ultimate can push people through a specific wall to safety when they should hit and get stunned? At which point is the burden of knowledge on the casual player?
How broad should this knowledge be? Should you have memorized your codex before you do your first game, or at least by the second game? How about memorizing every ability and Stratagem in the game, is that on the first, second or third game? Many of the people I have played with have never faced Necrons before, they'll be asking me what the AP is of my Immortal guns on the third battle round, it's still zero, they have to look up their S, AP, number of shots, even what weapons their models are equipped with in the case of the SM Executioner.
Memorize as much or as little as you wish just don't whine when you feel you were punished for not knowing something you should have.
If you type in the code for a game from scratch and perfectly recreate it and then sell that game it's still theft of intellectual property. That you think it should be expected of everyone to commit theft of intellectual property to play the game just because you do it and you think it's okay is truly outrageous (even though I happen to agree). You haven't done 5 minutes of research if you know every ability and Stratagem, that's like 10 hours of study, that's without knowing profiles.
I haven't stolen anything from GW and, honestly, the reviews and articles on places like Goonhammer are 100% fair use and will get you up to speed with the gotcha moments of the game. Beyond that, it gets a little more grey but accessing a site hosting pirated material isn't a crime so I'll keep using my sources for the time being.
Lastly, you don't need to 100% memorize everything, you just need enough knowledge to ask appropriate questions of your opponent and play out your turn properly. Even if the example that kicked off this tangent it could have been avoided by dropping a cheap unit first and that is 100% something that you should do when playing C:SM.
Vaktathi wrote: Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year,
Sucks to be them.
and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
I don't cry over salty casuals rage-quitting a game that, your words not mine, they already barely play.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
You can play on Vassal for free and get more games in that way.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
Then invest a little more into the game when you're away from the tabletop so you don't waste your investment. Or preschedule your games with other scrubs and casuals. If you're always getting matched with people who play opposite to your own style that's on you.
Dysartes wrote: No, in this context I will blame those relying on the gotcha plays, as they're obviously bad at being a wargamer.
After all, if they were good they wouldn't need a crutch of hidden knowledge, would they?
Those professional MtG, Poker, Hearthstone, etc. players must all be terrible for relying on hidden knowledge to win at their game of choice. IRL generals are such fething cheaters for encrypting and classifying important information and not freely giving it to their opponent.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:]
That's why I'm willing to let them read my book. Obviously, if they don't play Guard, Tau, or GSC, I don't expect them to buy The Greater Good. That said, I'm going to be using stratagems and rules from it, and I'm happy to let them look over the new rules I have at my disposal before the game starts.
I'm not under an obligation to tell them how I'm going to play the game. And the whole thing with permitting extensive take backsies whenever I do something that takes advantage of a mistake you made is just opening up a can of worms that will slow the game down and make it generally unpleasant. My take on this: once you roll the dice, you've committed to that action and it can't be taken back. With movement, when you start moving another unit, that move is committed and shouldn't be changed. I'll usually let someone go back if they forgot their psychic phase and have only shot 1 unit or maybe 2, but if you're all the way at your assault phase then you probably should have remembered first. I'm more open to it in doubles games, because the number of times the something comes up like "I wanted to put my seekers there, could you have moved your dreadknight a little to the left?" or "Wait don't shoot that! I was going to charge that with my lychguard!" is very high and I'd rather the game keep moving than stop every phase to have a team discussion.
As far as Lords of War go, I will tell you I have a Shadowsword in my list when we reveal our lists. If someone is my personal friend, I afford them the right to ask me to/not to include my Shadowsword, to/not to include my vendetta, to/not to include my Land Raider Terminus, etc.
Aye, that's really all that's necessary. One doesn't need to tell their opponent how they're going to play the army, but just make sure everyone knows what's *possible* beforehand, and if there's something that a typical TAC list might not be able to deal with, mention it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Blame GW bloat then for that problem.
It is a problem I blame GW for, 100% absolutely. However, you can't pretend like it's not an issue. There's lots of stuff out there that isn't my fault, but that I have to accept and work around anyway, and that would go really poorly for me if I pretended it wasn't my problem and just said "well blame X for making me do it!".
Sucks to run out of people to play with and to see player groups collapse too, or to gain a reputation as a TFG.
I don't cry over salty casuals rage-quitting a game that, your words not mine, they already barely play.
Protip, we're not talking about professional sports or top end E-sports, we're talking about a *hobby* that is presented by the company that makes all this stuff very explicitly as a "beer and pretzels" experience, GW and 40k are *peak* casual. If you're at the point where you're whining about "casuals" with respect to 40k, I would suggest that you've missed something
More to the point, I'm not even talking about "casual" players, I'm talking about *regular* players. Even among the competitive crowd that try to play every week, most are hard pressed to get 50 games in an entire year, and even the most hardcore will probably have trouble getting a hundred games in a year (as opposed to tens of thousands for many E-Sports games), while most regular players won't get a hundred games in over the course of an entire edition. I think at my peak, when I was attending at least one local event a month and a couple larger events a year in multiple cities and at least three different states, I think the most games I ever got in one year was about 80. Most regular players only really average one or two games every month or two.
You can play on Vassal for free and get more games in that way.
You can, but that's largely irrelevant, it doesn't play exactly like tabletop 40k, isn't what most people are in this hobby for, and isn't something 99.9% of the playerbase engages in. Without the physical experience of moving minatures, getting to play with ones toys, having a 3D battlespace, etc, 40k offers very little as a game in and of itself. 40k really is, and always has been, a pretty bad *game*, not something people generally want to play (by the tabletop rules) simply for the game itself. If they're going to play something on the computer, they'll generally play something that is actually designed to be played on such a platform and have way more fun doing it, and there's a reason that 40k video games use almost no tabletop mechanics/stats/rules.
Then invest a little more into the game when you're away from the tabletop so you don't waste your investment. Or preschedule your games with other scrubs and casuals. If you're always getting matched with people who play opposite to your own style that's on you.
As I noted above, methinks you're missing a whole lot of the point of the hobby, and are expecting a lot more of people than the producers of the game expect from them. People are into 40k for lots of reasons, quality rules and intense competition typically are not among them however. Yeah it helps to prearrange games against opponents that have similar mindsets, but that's not always possible, and winning games by "gotchas" doesn't do much for anyone.
Vaktathi wrote: Sucks to run out of people to play with and to see player groups collapse too, or to gain a reputation as a TFG.
If people are going to call you TFG for playing by the rules I'd rather not play them anyway.
Protip, we're not talking about professional sports or top end E-sports, we're talking about a *hobby* that is presented by the company that makes all this stuff very explicitly as a "beer and pretzels" experience, GW and 40k are *peak* casual. If you're at the point where you're whining about "casuals" with respect to 40k, I would suggest that you've missed something
More to the point, I'm not even talking about "casual" players, I'm talking about *regular* players. Even among the competitive crowd that try to play every week, most are hard pressed to get 50 games in an entire year, and even the most hardcore will probably have trouble getting a hundred games in a year (as opposed to tens of thousands for many E-Sports games), while most regular players won't get a hundred games in over the course of an entire edition. I think at my peak, when I was attending at least one local event a month and a couple larger events a year in multiple cities and at least three different states, I think the most games I ever got in one year was about 80. Most regular players only really average one or two games every month or two.
How is any of that preventing you from reading about rules before you bring your models out to the table? Also, it's not that hard to fit a 6x4 table into most homes from there invite people over and play whenever. You can even proxy armies neither of you owns, or set up custom scenarios to practice things like going second against that one list that always beats you.
If you want to get in games you will.
You can, but that's largely irrelevant, it doesn't play exactly like tabletop 40k, isn't what most people are in this hobby for, and isn't something 99.9% of the playerbase engages in. Without the physical experience of moving minatures, getting to play with ones toys, having a 3D battlespace, etc, 40k offers very little as a game in and of itself. 40k really is, and always has been, a pretty bad *game*, not something people generally want to play (by the tabletop rules). If they're going to play something on the computer, they'll generally play something that is actually designed to be played on such a platform and have way more fun doing it.
I'm merely saying that even a scrub can get in a quick game easily as you brought up the issue of time and cost as barriers to getting games in.
As I noted above, methinks you're missing a whole lot of the point of the hobby, and are expecting a lot more of people than the producers of the game expect from them. Winning games by "gotchas" doesn't do much for anyone.
You're winning the game because your opponent fethed up, you didn't do anything and if they couldn't be assed to ask you're not hiding anything either. It's not on me to read minds and know what somebody does or doesn't know.
Vaktathi wrote: With the breadth of content available, I think expecting the average non-competitive or new player to be familiar with everything is being more than a wee bit disingenuous. Many, if not most players have neither the resources to acquire nor the time to read every single rules source, nor spend many hours trawling internet forums and youtube videos to stay up to date on the constantly evolving meta. Few players are getting two dozen games in a year, even most "regulars" may only really get in one game a month, and expecting your average joe to memorize the meta and be familiar with every unit, ability, expansion, etc is staggeringly unrealistic.
That sort of expectation may have been more permissible back in say, 4E or 5E, where we might get 2 codex releases a year with no supplements and half the factions and armies we do now.
If you're talking a competitive game, then yes, people should know their stuff, but for new people or friendly games or pickups, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to know or even have access to everything, even if there are unofficial ways to get the information (battlescribe, PDF's, youtube, etc).
Then they lose their games. If you play online video games for fun and don't stay up to date with the game and the meta you lose, why should 40k be different?
Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year, and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
It's one thing to get curbstomped in an anonymous 20 minute match from the comfort of your bedroom in a game you spent $50 on and may get hundreds of games in, and where the game may have sophisticsted match making systems, and in most cases has substantially fewer mechanisms, factions, units, and stats to memorize than 40k.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
These are radically different experiences with substantially different outcomes for communities for "gotcha" moments.
Blame GW bloat then for that problem.
No, in this context I will blame those relying on the gotcha plays, as they're obviously bad at being a wargamer.
After all, if they were good they wouldn't need a crutch of hidden knowledge, would they?
You'd have a point if it actually WERE hidden knowledge.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:]
That's why I'm willing to let them read my book. Obviously, if they don't play Guard, Tau, or GSC, I don't expect them to buy The Greater Good. That said, I'm going to be using stratagems and rules from it, and I'm happy to let them look over the new rules I have at my disposal before the game starts.
I'm not under an obligation to tell them how I'm going to play the game. And the whole thing with permitting extensive take backsies whenever I do something that takes advantage of a mistake you made is just opening up a can of worms that will slow the game down and make it generally unpleasant. My take on this: once you roll the dice, you've committed to that action and it can't be taken back. With movement, when you start moving another unit, that move is committed and shouldn't be changed. I'll usually let someone go back if they forgot their psychic phase and have only shot 1 unit or maybe 2, but if you're all the way at your assault phase then you probably should have remembered first. I'm more open to it in doubles games, because the number of times the something comes up like "I wanted to put my seekers there, could you have moved your dreadknight a little to the left?" or "Wait don't shoot that! I was going to charge that with my lychguard!" is very high and I'd rather the game keep moving than stop every phase to have a team discussion.
As far as Lords of War go, I will tell you I have a Shadowsword in my list when we reveal our lists. If someone is my personal friend, I afford them the right to ask me to/not to include my Shadowsword, to/not to include my vendetta, to/not to include my Land Raider Terminus, etc.
Aye, that's really all that's necessary. One doesn't need to tell their opponent how they're going to play the army, but just make sure everyone knows what's *possible* beforehand, and if there's something that a typical TAC list might not be able to deal with, mention it.
I think you're going further than I consider neccessary.
I will let them read my book and answer questions if they ask, but if they don't ask I'm going to assume they already know. I will also definitely not tell strangers in a pick up game what's in my list before their list is finalized, there's no reason I should tell them to be ready to counter something that I'm bringing if they're not giving me the equal option to learn about one of their list aspects and allow me to counter it. Also, if they're about to make a strategic mistake, I won't tell them until well, after I've take advantage of it. That's a them problem if they're making strategic mistakes, I've made available all the material they need to know so it's not something they couldn't have known.
I've also often made list choices with the express purpose of making my take all comers list able to well, Take all Comers. I've no reason to explain those measures so they can make a tailored list to oppose my TAC list.
I will help them out if they're trying to execute on something but aren't pulling it off, and I can clearly see the intent, such as three pointing or arranging consolidates to tag more units. If they're trying to do something, and don't succeed because they weren't careful enough, they'll feel frustrated because they thought they had me 3-pointed when they didn't, and the thought and intent was there, so I might as well help them do the thing they want to do.
Vaktathi wrote: Sucks to run out of people to play with and to see player groups collapse too, or to gain a reputation as a TFG.
If people are going to call you TFG for playing by the rules I'd rather not play them anyway.
There's lot of ways to play by the rules. Lots of TFG's play entirely within the rules. It's about trying to maintain a pleasant experience for both players. These aren't mutually exclusive.
How is any of that preventing you from reading about rules before you bring your models out to the table?
Because if people aren't getting huge numbers of games in then, they probably aren't investing a couple thousand dollars in rules sources or spending many hours independently researching the rules and meta to know everything the game might throw at them. They'll absolutely have responsibility to know their own stuff, and the *basics* of most common opponents, but beyond that, at least in my own experience playing this game for many years and editions, most people tend to get substantially fuzzier beyond that, particularly the last couple editions as the content level has exploded.
Also, it's not that hard to fit a 6x4 table into most homes from there invite people over and play whenever. You can even proxy armies neither of you owns, or set up custom scenarios to practice things like going second against that one list that always beats you.
Yeah most people can get (or reuse) a table. Buying and storing a good amount of terrain, and having a home situation that's conducive to having people over to play regularly, is a different matter, and if they can only make it down to the game store once a month, they probably don't have time for a bunch of scrim games either.
If you want to get in games you will.
People have jobs, kids, other interests and responsibilites, etc that means they get an afternoon a month to devote to playing 40k and a couple hours every other week to work on building and painting something. 40k shouldn't have to be treated as a 2nd job for the average player. People like us that are posting on forums like this, that get in fair numbers of games and are plugged into the web communities and stay abreast of the meta are a tiny fraction of the playerbase, and a big part of why GW has always felt it can get away with rules treated mostly as afterthoughts.
You're winning the game because your opponent fethed up, you didn't do anything and if they couldn't be assed to ask you're not hiding anything either. It's not on me to read minds and know what somebody does or doesn't know.
How hard is it to say "hey, I'm playing X army, using stuff from sources Y and Z, and units A/B/C look similar but do different things, are you familiar with all these and do you need to read over any of those before we start?" If they say they don't need to, then you've done your part, if they aren't familiar with the stuff, let 'em read over the rules before starting. That's basically how I start every game, and is really all I'm advocating.
However, if they don't know, and you're just expecting everyone to know everything without asking, that's going to result in poor play experiences and is not just the fault of the other player, the game simply is not in a state where the expectation that everyone knows everything is reasonable.
If people are going to call you TFG for playing by the rules I'd rather not play them anyway..
You do realise that what you're essentially saying here is 'I would rather the hobby didn't exist than make the experience a pleasant one for my opponent'...?
Gaming is a social experience. There's a place for a competitive attitude, and for playing things tight to your chest - and that's when your opponent is ok with that style of play. For most 40K players, though, the game is much less serious business than that, and treating it as if people deserve to be curbstomped if they don't put in as much study time as you personally feel is warranted is not going to end well.
Canadian 5th wrote:I could care less if your army is just legs on bases, with the weapon that model is using stuck on the base. I care far more about the rules and gameplay side than the hobby/modelling/crafting side of this game.
Canadian 5th wrote:I haven't stolen anything from GW and, honestly, the reviews and articles on places like Goonhammer are 100% fair use and will get you up to speed with the gotcha moments of the game. Beyond that, it gets a little more grey but accessing a site hosting pirated material isn't a crime so I'll keep using my sources for the time being.
Canadian 5th wrote:Then invest a little more into the game when you're away from the tabletop so you don't waste your investment. Or preschedule your games with other scrubs and casuals. If you're always getting matched with people who play opposite to your own style that's on you.
Vaktathi wrote: There's lot of ways to play by the rules. Lots of TFG's play entirely within the rules. It's about trying to maintain a pleasant experience for both players. These aren't mutually exclusive.
I'll be pleasant, make small talk, joke about dice luck, etc. but I'll also enforce the rules and tell people that they should have asked before making a move if they were worried about something unexpected happening. I'm not going to yell at anybody for being a noob in person just as I'm not typing in all caps here.
Because if people aren't getting huge numbers of games in then, they probably aren't investing a couple thousand dollars in rules sources or spending many hours independently researching the rules and meta to know everything the game might throw at them. They'll absolutely have responsibility to know their own stuff, and the *basics* of most common opponents, but beyond that, at least in my own experience playing this game for many years and editions, most people tend to get substantially fuzzier beyond that, particularly the last couple editions as the content level has exploded.
I would consider strategems, army wide special rules, and the like basic knowledge in 8th edition.
Yeah most people can get (or reuse) a table. Buying and storing a good amount of terrain, and having a home situation that's conducive to having people over to play regularly, is a different matter, and if they can only make it down to the game store once a month, they probably don't have time for a bunch of scrim games either.
Then they should put in the effort to set up a casual narrative game that they'll enjoy before going to the shop to ensure that their only game that month will be enjoyable.
People have jobs, kids, other interests and responsibilites, etc that means they get an afternoon a month to devote to playing 40k and a couple hours every other week to work on building and painting something. 40k shouldn't have to be treated as a 2nd job for the average player. People like us that are posting on forums like this, that get in fair numbers of games and are plugged into the web communities and stay abreast of the meta are a tiny fraction of the playerbase, and a big part of why GW has always felt it can get away with rules treated mostly as afterthoughts.
I still don't think it's unreasonable to either expect a casual player to set up a game on social media beforehand or do some research if they just want to come in for a PUG.
How hard is it to say "hey, I'm playing X army, using stuff from sources Y and Z, and units A/B/C look similar but do different things, are you familiar with all these and do you need to read over any of those before we start?" If they say they don't need to, then you've done your part, if they aren't familiar with the stuff, let 'em read over the rules before starting. That's basically how I start every game, and is really all I'm advocating.
I'll go over my list, any relics that I'm buying, and explain any pregame CP I'm spending. I don't think it's needed or expected that I also start covering rules which might not even come into play before we even deploy our models.
However, if they don't know, and you're just expecting everyone to know everything without asking, that's going to result in poor play experiences and is not just the fault of the other player, the game simply is not in a state where the expectation that everyone knows everything is reasonable.
We disagree on this point.
insaniak wrote: You do realise that what you're essentially saying here is 'I would rather the hobby didn't exist than make the experience a pleasant one for my opponent'...?
I'll be playing with either my weekend MtG/D&D/Boardgame group and ignoring the rest of the 40k world or playing the more competitive crowd at the LGS. If it gets down the list to playing a PUG I'm going to play the way I normally do and given that I expect this to be a rarity I won't much care if the once every 2 months, doesn't really know the game casual thinks I'm TFG for not allowing a do-over for a publicly available rule.
Canadian 5th wrote:I could care less if your army is just legs on bases, with the weapon that model is using stuck on the base. I care far more about the rules and gameplay side than the hobby/modelling/crafting side of this game.
Canadian 5th wrote:I haven't stolen anything from GW and, honestly, the reviews and articles on places like Goonhammer are 100% fair use and will get you up to speed with the gotcha moments of the game. Beyond that, it gets a little more grey but accessing a site hosting pirated material isn't a crime so I'll keep using my sources for the time being.
Canadian 5th wrote:Then invest a little more into the game when you're away from the tabletop so you don't waste your investment. Or preschedule your games with other scrubs and casuals. If you're always getting matched with people who play opposite to your own style that's on you.
Uh huh
*roll to disbelieve*
Dude, I got my start with 40k back in 3e playing floor wars on a roughly 6x4 rug and when we wanted to play with models or factions we didn't own we proxied using what we had or resorted to cardboard-hammer. I don't have access to that playgroup these days as we've all moved to new cities and drifted apart but given my start, you can play your plastic grey army against mine anytime. If it's just legs on bases we'll swap in the closest model in terms of size for LoS, measure, and move on.
As far as piracy, I don't consider a tool like army builder or a site like wahapedia to be such and between those two sources you can build any list you like. Do you consider printed on paper proxies of MtG cards played at a kitchen table to be theft? I ask because in the case of MtG if you have the right group you can literally play any deck you like for the cost of ink, a few sheets of paper, some sleeves, and a few hundred bulk lands likely had for under $25. Every card and its rules are also 100% free online on WotC's own website, perhaps GW should consider going that route with their rules as well.
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
Everything I said WAS reasonable. We live in the age of technology where information is stupid easy to come across. Not knowing what a new release is bringing is purely the fault of the ignorant at this point.
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
It's not tone, they're saying different things and play the game differently to each other.
Canadian 5th wrote: As far as piracy, I don't consider a tool like army builder or a site like wahapedia to be such and between those two sources you can build any list you like. Do you consider printed on paper proxies of MtG cards played at a kitchen table to be theft? I ask because in the case of MtG if you have the right group you can literally play any deck you like for the cost of ink, a few sheets of paper, some sleeves, and a few hundred bulk lands likely had for under $25. Every card and its rules are also 100% free online on WotC's own website, perhaps GW should consider going that route with their rules as well.
Accessing content that should be purchased, via a route that means you are not paying the content producer? You may not like to think of it as piracy, but it is.
In the case of the MtG example, as you've noted WotC do give you access to images of all the cards in the game - as well as errata'd card text, last I checked Gatherer - so that information and material has been made publicly available by the content owner. You still wouldn't be allowed to use such proxies in whatever-they're-calling-their-official-events-this-year (seriously, the tour names have changed far too many times over the last few years, for no discernible reason).
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
Everything I said WAS reasonable. We live in the age of technology where information is stupid easy to come across. Not knowing what a new release is bringing is purely the fault of the ignorant at this point.
The problem is there is way to much information, this is just one game in a wider hobby. And most people will have a few other things they like to do. And interests within the hobby as well. The burden is quite high if players are not willing to at least to go though some rules quick.
I play warmachine and magic, and we go though rules and such quickly. At least so players have an idea.
And it’s not uncommon in magic tournaments to hand your opponent a full deck list. With some even requiring you to have enough copy’s.
Why I think GW needs to get on top of these issues, it really sucks if players are making it worse.
If you only use meta picks and meta items you're not playing casually are you?
If you have any intention of climbing you should use these tools. Also, do you know how awful it is to lose a game of League, even a normal game, because one of your teammates is 'just playing again after 6 months' or types 'lul, wut patch?' into team chat? You should put in a minimum of effort to not be a boat anchor to your team.
If I'm silver while try-harding and playing 3 games a week then when I play around and play 1 game a week League will put me with bronze players. I don't play games that put me consistently against better players, sounds like a great way to get people to purchase microtransactions though.
You're purely speaking to a competitive game between competitive people, I don't think you understand the meaning of casual and I've already agreed with you given that you're only talking about competitive games. This idea of every game is a competition fits with you not believing LoW can ever be not cool to bring, just admit you're a competitive player that always plays competitively. Other types of games than competitive games exist, I can pick up a League of Legends champion that I tried once or twice a few years ago with a set of runes I think seem mostly reasonable, pick out the recommended items I think sound good or even build something wholly unique that I think might be fun and I rarely get punished for it. There is too much to know in 40k to expect newer and casual players to understand everything before the game, all it takes is another two minutes of pre-game talk or even just sending a pre-prepared word document to your opponent before the game depending on your gaming situation.
So would you also expect an enemy Riven to tell you that their champion can animation cancel and weave auto attacks? How about a Lee Sin telling you about what an InSec is? Or telling you that there's a glitch at the moment where your ultimate can push people through a specific wall to safety when they should hit and get stunned? At which point is the burden of knowledge on the casual player?
I'd expect my opponent to weave auto-attacks a hundred times in skirmishes and fights and expect Lee Sin to insec 2-4 times, I might get surpised and even die one time from not being familiar with my opponent's kit, but unless you've played a matchup five times since anything changed in the game then you won't know exactly how a fight is going to pan out. You can't know what exactly the maximum damage output at a given level a champion has, if a player exceeds that you'll know, at worst it's a 5 minute wait and a 50 minute game, I could be travelling for an hour on bus and wait for half an hour, spend 4 hours on a game and be sour about how I spent a CP and all the shooting my Leman Russ Demolisher into a flyer only to find out it cannot do anything because it's -3 to hit because even if I knew about the gotcha Stratagem of -1 to hit, I might not have asked what Alaitoc does or know that all aircraft are -1 to hit. Alternatively, I might know those two things and not know about the Stratagem. I also see a lot of people mention take-backs, that's not what I'm asking for, ideally you mention the first time your opponent shoots at something with a gotcha Stratagem that it has the option of using that and verify how much firepower they want to put in or you mention it when presenting your list and you say this is -1 to hit in the Shooting phase, -2 if it's >12" away and I can use a Stratagem on any of my x, y or z units that makes them -1 to hit for the rest of the phase after you've decided what weapons to shoot at it with. Perfect world: GW changes these Stratagems to be something you use at the start of the phase.
How broad should this knowledge be? Should you have memorized your codex before you do your first game, or at least by the second game? How about memorizing every ability and Stratagem in the game, is that on the first, second or third game? Many of the people I have played with have never faced Necrons before, they'll be asking me what the AP is of my Immortal guns on the third battle round, it's still zero, they have to look up their S, AP, number of shots, even what weapons their models are equipped with in the case of the SM Executioner.
Memorize as much or as little as you wish just don't whine when you feel you were punished for not knowing something you should have.
Lastly, you don't need to 100% memorize everything, you just need enough knowledge to ask appropriate questions of your opponent and play out your turn properly. Even if the example that kicked off this tangent it could have been avoided by dropping a cheap unit first and that is 100% something that you should do when playing C:SM.
So everything by your first game gotcha, instead of referring to the rules primer to newer players I will instead refer them to a PDF with everything in it and tell them to come back when they've memorized it, that's another ten hours of Total War for me. Oh but they don't need to if they just accept you're going to own their ass because they haven't done their homework, I get it you really just want easy games, very fun for newer players. I used a gotcha yesterday against a player who was on his third game, he loved it, he asked if I played any other armies that could punish him for not doing more homework.
If you type in the code for a game from scratch and perfectly recreate it and then sell that game it's still theft of intellectual property. That you think it should be expected of everyone to commit theft of intellectual property to play the game just because you do it and you think it's okay is truly outrageous (even though I happen to agree). You haven't done 5 minutes of research if you know every ability and Stratagem, that's like 10 hours of study, that's without knowing profiles.
I haven't stolen anything from GW and, honestly, the reviews and articles on places like Goonhammer are 100% fair use and will get you up to speed with the gotcha moments of the game. Beyond that, it gets a little more grey but accessing a site hosting pirated material isn't a crime so I'll keep using my sources for the time being.
Legality depends on where you live, users of popcorntime (free pirate streaming service) in Denmark have been fined I have been told. The morality is far outside of etiquette, but I think it's poor etiquette to expect people to do something illegal, you might want to do cocaine but don't bully the people that don't want to join.
Vaktathi wrote: Because as I noted above, people get in very few games a year,
Sucks to be them.
No, it just sucks to play against you and me because we're gotcha devils.
and thats a good way to keep them from getting in more and to shrink a player base.
I don't cry over salty casuals rage-quitting a game that, your words not mine, they already barely play.
Who mentioned a rage-quit? They love it don't they? They aren't there to have casual fun, they're there to get better at the game, except not really, they're really there to be loser fodder for gotcha devils.
It's quite another when that happens after setting aside half the day to play a game face to face at the FLGS across town, that you manage to get in once a month, and spent several hundred dollars to buy into.
Then invest a little more into the game when you're away from the tabletop so you don't waste your investment. Or preschedule your games with other scrubs and casuals. If you're always getting matched with people who play opposite to your own style that's on you.
Is that an admittance of playing competitive games against competitive people? Get the hell out of here, you're a regular competitive player not a true gotcha devil like me. Bwah.
"Etiquette for using Lords of War" that's what this thread is supposed to be about right? Just checking as it got de-railed about 5 pages ago by someone arguing about not knowing extra rules hidden in new books the instant they come out.
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
Yeah, honestly I don't normally care if someone else decides to be a hard-ass on a rule during a game. It just changes the tone of the game we're playing, and you'd better bet the next time you slip up I'm not letting you take it back.
The entire purpose of my first point was just to say that gaining an advantage because of something my opponent doesn't know generally feels sleazy TO ME. So I tend not to do it. For example, when I play my Harlequins, I generally want to put my Solitaire up front so he can threaten things early, and since he's a tiny single model the easiest way to do that usually is to tuck him somewhere out of LOS. Even the corner of a building with windows is generally more than enough space to hide a Solitaire where he's functionally invulnerable. But that means inevitably my opponents tend to lose track of him because out of LOS in 40k means literally out of sight, usually of my opponent who's across the table from me.
The number of times I've had to point out to an opponent moving a unit forward or deep striking a unit - hey, you know the Solitaire is right here behind this thing - is basically almost equal to the number of games I've played with Harlequins. I also make sure to announce when and where I'm deploying him, point him out specifically to my opponent. Especially back in 7th when he was freely targetable, I hid him behind a wall pretty much 100% of the time, it's just what you did with him to keep him alive.
Nobody has to do that. Just like nobody has to tell you about their brand new super-special rule. I don't even know if there's a rule specifically requiring you to tell your opponents what psychic powers you choose or anything, all these things are just done for the sake of common courtesy, because unlike a game like Infinity there isn't a system for "open and closed" information baked in.
It feels lame to me, so I don't do it, and if my opponent does it, it tends to change the tone of the game.
Damn, maybe having a country name on this forum in your username gives you some kind of brainworms. I wonder how long I've got until I too succumb to the madness.
flandarz wrote: I imagine having a friendly/casual game with Canadian to be an unpleasant affair...
The vast majority people playing hard-asses on online forums tend to be pretty tame people in real live.
I think people would be more open to Canadian and Slayer if they could modify the tone of their posts. Katherine is saying something similar and comes across as perfectly reasonable.
Everything I said WAS reasonable. We live in the age of technology where information is stupid easy to come across. Not knowing what a new release is bringing is purely the fault of the ignorant at this point.
The problem is there is way to much information, this is just one game in a wider hobby. And most people will have a few other things they like to do. And interests within the hobby as well. The burden is quite high if players are not willing to at least to go though some rules quick.
I play warmachine and magic, and we go though rules and such quickly. At least so players have an idea.
And it’s not uncommon in magic tournaments to hand your opponent a full deck list. With some even requiring you to have enough copy’s.
Why I think GW needs to get on top of these issues, it really sucks if players are making it worse.
There's only so much you NEED to memorize though. The last thing I should have memorized when facing Genestealer Cults is the silly strat that lets Autoguns be Assault 2 for example. The only reason I do remember it is someone probably thought that was a good idea and would help Neophytes LOL
Dysartes wrote: Accessing content that should be purchased, via a route that means you are not paying the content producer? You may not like to think of it as piracy, but it is.
I also wouldn't care if it was. I was also supportive of the old online bits sellers and of Chinese recasts of GW models before my hiatus from the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: If I'm silver while try-harding and playing 3 games a week then when I play around and play 1 game a week League will put me with bronze players. I don't play games that put me consistently against better players, sounds like a great way to get people to purchase microtransactions though.
3 games per week... try-harding...
I'd expect my opponent to weave auto-attacks a hundred times in skirmishes and fights and expect Lee Sin to insec 2-4 times, I might get surpised and even die one time from not being familiar with my opponent's kit, but unless you've played a matchup five times since anything changed in the game then you won't know exactly how a fight is going to pan out.
That's the same in 40k as well, only there are major balance patches every 2 weeks.
I could be travelling for an hour on bus and wait for half an hour, spend 4 hours on a game
In this case, do the job that League's client does for you and matchmake yourself a fething game. The only one to blame for you showing up and having a bad time if you don't matchmake is yourself.
So everything by your first game gotcha, instead of referring to the rules primer to newer players I will instead refer them to a PDF with everything in it and tell them to come back when they've memorized it, that's another ten hours of Total War for me. Oh but they don't need to if they just accept you're going to own their ass because they haven't done their homework, I get it you really just want easy games, very fun for newer players. I used a gotcha yesterday against a player who was on his third game, he loved it, he asked if I played any other armies that could punish him for not doing more homework.
You should probably put in at least 30-40 hours before you actually invest $1000+and dozens of hours gluing and painting into your little plastic soldiers. Otherwise, you may find that you don't like your army, your local scene, the game's balance, etc. and have wasted your money on things you'll never use.
Legality depends on where you live, users of popcorntime (free pirate streaming service) in Denmark have been fined I have been told.
Evidence? Also, lol get a VPN.
Who mentioned a rage-quit? They love it don't they? They aren't there to have casual fun, they're there to get better at the game, except not really, they're really there to be loser fodder for gotcha devils.
If they ask before making a move and communicate as the game progresses there won't be a gotcha. If they clam up and just make moves based on how they think the game works without knowing the rules they deserve what they get.
Is that an admittance of playing competitive games against competitive people? Get the hell out of here, you're a regular competitive player not a true gotcha devil like me. Bwah.
I'm not sure what your point is but keep whatever you're smoking far away from me.
Rolsheen wrote: "Etiquette for using Lords of War" that's what this thread is supposed to be about right? Just checking as it got de-railed about 5 pages ago by someone arguing about not knowing extra rules hidden in new books the instant they come out.
The matter is actually tangentially related, since the heart of the question is "am I obligated to let my opponent change their list and actions after revealing elements of my own that might disrupt their strategy or they might not have planned for?"
I believe the answer in both cases is decisively "no." The onus is on them to consider what I could field, do, or use and consider how it would affect their strategy and how they'll mitigate it's contribution to mine.
It is also the responsibility of the individual to keep themselves appraised of the rules at any given time, and to be aware of when one is not and seek to remedy that situation pre-emptively. Is is not my responsibility to teach you to play 40k or to hold your hand as you pilot your list. I assume my opponents arrive to the game at least fundamentally invested enough in winning the game to make an effort at strategy and be sufficient cognizant of any deficiencies in their knowledge of the rules to seek to remedy them as relevant before the game begins. If you know that you don't know what stratagems are an option for CSM in Faith and Fury, you should ask your opponent before the game to look at their book. If you know that the Imperial Guard has access to super heavy tanks, but don't know how bad one of them in your opponent's list will be for your army, you should ask your opponent before the game to look at their book. I think it's unfair to ask every player to buy every book, so I consider it adequate courtesy as a person being asked to hand over the book so they can look at it. On the other hand, I also consider it unfair to me to tell them that I am/am not fielding a Shadowsword just so that they can prepare a counter, or that they shouldn't drop there because I'll use my interceptor stratagem on them just so that they can not do something that will have a negative outcome for them.
DarkHound wrote: What's the consensus on the inclusion of superheavies? Both in general and in pick-up games at an LGS. At what point levels is it more acceptable to field one (or more)? Are there any that are particularly unfair? I'm especially interested in Knight Titans.
Use your own judgement. Superheavies, and Lords of War in general, are nowhere near as daunting to face as they once were with everything being able to wound everything. For my part, I don't particularly mind facing them if i'm playing a pick up game, but I play far more casually than i once did and i would prefer not to face them. I also generally don't field any of my own.
40k is a weird game that, in my experience tends to split the community into at least 2 parts (casual/competitive) due to its game balance issues, and putting a casual list up against a competitive list, or a casual player up against a competitive one can lead to one or both of you not having a good time. so talk to your prospective opponent, discuss what kind of game you both expect, and go from there.
Leviathans have a damage reduction strat and 2+ and a 4++ base. And they are cheaper than IKs. And they do more damage than IKs. They are better in every way except wound count and close combat. Oh, and better BS. How could I forget that cheese.
Martel732 wrote: Leviathans have a damage reduction strat and 2+ and a 4++ base. And they are cheaper than IKs. And they do more damage than IKs. They are better in every way except wound count and close combat. Oh, and better BS. How could I forget that cheese.
Hellforged leviathans lack the strategem and only have a 5++ against shooting. And if you can't kill one in a turn or tar pit it with chaff you aren't working hard enough.
I kind of agree with Martel though - the UM player in our group has a pair of grav bombard Leviathans he keeps save with Tigurius and repairs with tech marines. Despite them not having the "fun-gun" load-out, I'd rather play against a full knight army than against those.
Their durability combined with their damage output is just insane.
Jidmah wrote: I kind of agree with Martel though - the UM player in our group has a pair of grav bombard Leviathans he keeps save with Tigurius and repairs with tech marines. Despite them not having the "fun-gun" load-out, I'd rather play against a full knight army than against those.
Their durability combined with their damage output is just insane.
Once again, the problem isn't the leviathan, it's loyalist marines. The hellforged leviathan can only be repaired by it killing things in cc. And we know how hard it is to get something to work in cc. This is one of the things that sucks about playing csm, when we do get something nice, the fething loyalists get a better version, and everyone then wants to nerf or ban both versions.
And of course both versions are the same. Fething. Price.
Jidmah wrote: Sure, but I doubt that me fielding a DG leviathan with miasma protection would be vastly more fun to play against.
The issue isn't really the powerlevel - as you can imagine an UM with Tigurius and two Grav Leviathans isn't exactly competitive.
It's more of the frustration of not being able to do anything about those two dreads, while they just walk about and pick two unit to delete per turn.
You can tar pit them. And if things that are hard to kill bother you then what about Custodes? An army of units that all have at least 3 wounds and a 2+ backed up by at least a 5++ can be pretty frustrating, but you don't call for the army to be eliminated, you just change your strategy when facing them. I personally find games against them interesting, as it forces me to adapt.
Jidmah wrote: Sure, but I doubt that me fielding a DG leviathan with miasma protection would be vastly more fun to play against.
The issue isn't really the powerlevel - as you can imagine an UM with Tigurius and two Grav Leviathans isn't exactly competitive.
It's more of the frustration of not being able to do anything about those two dreads, while they just walk about and pick two unit to delete per turn.
And that can't be said about all of the following: TFC; obliterators, artillery regardless, riptides, commanders, possessed bomb, heck even intercessors to some degree because 30" baseline gun.
That is a non argument imo.
Jidmah wrote: I kind of agree with Martel though - the UM player in our group has a pair of grav bombard Leviathans he keeps save with Tigurius and repairs with tech marines. Despite them not having the "fun-gun" load-out, I'd rather play against a full knight army than against those.
Their durability combined with their damage output is just insane.
Once again, the problem isn't the leviathan, it's loyalist marines. The hellforged leviathan can only be repaired by it killing things in cc. And we know how hard it is to get something to work in cc. This is one of the things that sucks about playing csm, when we do get something nice, the fething loyalists get a better version, and everyone then wants to nerf or ban both versions.
And of course both versions are the same. Fething. Price.
Jidmah wrote: Sure, but I doubt that me fielding a DG leviathan with miasma protection would be vastly more fun to play against.
The issue isn't really the powerlevel - as you can imagine an UM with Tigurius and two Grav Leviathans isn't exactly competitive.
It's more of the frustration of not being able to do anything about those two dreads, while they just walk about and pick two unit to delete per turn.
You can tar pit them. And if things that are hard to kill bother you then what about Custodes? An army of units that all have at least 3 wounds and a 2+ backed up by at least a 5++ can be pretty frustrating, but you don't call for the army to be eliminated, you just change your strategy when facing them. I personally find games against them interesting, as it forces me to adapt.
You can't tarpit them any better or worse than any other unit. Which means, if you opponent screens them properly, you can't. There is also the issue of two flamers and buff characters doing heroic interventions. And since they are UM, they can just walk it off.
As for custodes? They don't actually compare at all. They kill much less for the points you spent, are slower, aren't T8, every three wounds you do reduces their damage and there is no doctrine and chapter tactics on top of what they have.
The thing with the leviathan is that it combines a ridiculous defensive profile (T8/W14/2+/4++) with a just ridiculous offensive profile (grav bombards/butcher cannons(storm cannons). Sure, it pays its price for that, but that doesn't make it more fun to face than a knight, baneblade, daemon primarch, lord of skulls or other things get that have people get their knickers up in a bunch just because they have the LoW battle role.
Oh, and before the usual "LeViaThanS ArE fINe!!!!111" crowd jumps me, I don't care. The Leviathans are not winning my UM buddy lots of games, so I highly doubt they are OP. It just sucks to play against them.
Not Online!!! wrote: And that can't be said about all of the following: TFC; obliterators, artillery regardless, riptides, commanders, possessed bomb, heck even intercessors to some degree because 30" baseline gun.
That is a non argument imo.
Drone-swamped tau might compare (I have no experience with that), everything else on that list has obvious downsides that can be used to outplay or destroy them.
For clarification, I was specifically referring to this statement of him:
Martel732 wrote: Leviathans have a damage reduction strat and 2+ and a 4++ base. And they are cheaper than IKs. And they do more damage than IKs. They are better in every way except wound count and close combat. Oh, and better BS. How could I forget that cheese.
Jidmah wrote: Sure, but I doubt that me fielding a DG leviathan with miasma protection would be vastly more fun to play against.
The issue isn't really the powerlevel - as you can imagine an UM with Tigurius and two Grav Leviathans isn't exactly competitive.
It's more of the frustration of not being able to do anything about those two dreads, while they just walk about and pick two unit to delete per turn.
You can tar pit them. And if things that are hard to kill bother you then what about Custodes? An army of units that all have at least 3 wounds and a 2+ backed up by at least a 5++ can be pretty frustrating, but you don't call for the army to be eliminated, you just change your strategy when facing them. I personally find games against them interesting, as it forces me to adapt.
You can't tarpit them any better or worse than any other unit. Which means, if you opponent screens them properly, you can't. There is also the issue of two flamers and buff characters doing heroic interventions. And since they are UM, they can just walk it off.
As for custodes? They don't actually compare at all. They kill much less for the points you spent, are slower, aren't T8, every three wounds you do reduces their damage and there is no doctrine and chapter tactics on top of what they have.
The thing with the leviathan is that it combines a ridiculous defensive profile (T8/W14/2+/4++) with a just ridiculous offensive profile (grav bombards/butcher cannons(storm cannons). Sure, it pays its price for that, but that doesn't make it more fun to face than a knight, baneblade, daemon primarch, lord of skulls or other things get that have people get their knickers up in a bunch just because they have the LoW battle role.
Oh, and before the usual "LeViaThanS ArE fINe!!!!111" crowd jumps me, I don't care. The Leviathans are not winning my UM buddy lots of games, so I highly doubt they are OP. It just sucks to play against them.
Again, you're talking about the loyalist version. And people like Martel who constantly gripe about leviathans (and everything else, in his case) also want to nerf or ban the chaos version. If the loyalist leviathan had a 5++ like the hellforged it wouldn't be so damned annoying.
Please refer to the last line of the post you quoted.
A model can be utterly unfun to play against despite not doing great in tournaments.
And yes I believe that it applies to both variants equally, because both have the same underlying problem, which is in no way related to their point costs.
Jidmah wrote: Please refer to the last line of the post you quoted.
A model can be utterly unfun to play against despite not doing great in tournaments.
And yes I believe that it applies to both variants equally, because both have the same underlying problem, which is in no way related to their point costs.
What underlying problem is that? The last time I played against a leviathan in a chaos list it had like...16 souped-up autocannon shots or something. Nothing that seemed particularly bonkers for a 250-ish point model. And lascannons were perfectly efficient against it because it had 2+5++, it just got blown up turn 2 or so.
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
Meh, i do manage to get my Decimator into melee though WARPTIME BE PRAISED.
otoh a decimator only has a 5++ and no more FNP.
feels bad man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: For FW models, <Legion> can be DG or TS.
ahhh right, forgot that bit.
but i may be forgiven (petty please i even pay absolvement) with how many rulesbooks i have to carry around for my renegades and allied CSM....
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Not Online!!! wrote: Meh, i do manage to get my Decimator into melee though WARPTIME BE PRAISED.
otoh a decimator only has a 5++ and no more FNP.
feels bad man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: For FW models, <Legion> can be DG or TS.
ahhh right, forgot that bit.
but i may be forgiven (petty please i even pay absolvement) with how many rulesbooks i have to carry around for my renegades and allied CSM....
Melee contemptors work good. They're one of the few hellforged units that actually get use out of the machine malifica rule. Works good on the fellblade as well, as "steel behemoth" means it can shoot while in cc, and if it gets bracketed it's ws gets better. (Too bad it's 923 fething points though).
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Tbf you get a similiar effect with a dakkafiend. Infact hades AC are virtually the Same as butchers without the morale mechanics but 20% cheaper.
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Tbf you get a similiar effect with a dakkafiend. Infact hades AC are virtually the Same as butchers without the morale mechanics but 20% cheaper.
But with worse shooting. Bs4 for the daemonengine vs bs2 for the fw dreads.
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Tbf you get a similiar effect with a dakkafiend. Infact hades AC are virtually the Same as butchers without the morale mechanics but 20% cheaper.
But with worse shooting. Bs4 for the daemonengine vs bs2 for the fw dreads.
Well sure, but how much cheaper is the fiend than the dread?
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Tbf you get a similiar effect with a dakkafiend. Infact hades AC are virtually the Same as butchers without the morale mechanics but 20% cheaper.
But with worse shooting. Bs4 for the daemonengine vs bs2 for the fw dreads.
Well sure, but how much cheaper is the fiend than the dread?
Which one? The contemptor is closest in stats and is 10 more, 138 with double butcher cannons vs 128 for the fiend. Leviathan with double butcher cannon array is 303, daredeo 177.
Not Online!!! wrote: But i may be forgiven (petty please i even pay absolvement) with how many rulesbooks i have to carry around for my renegades and allied CSM....
Not Online!!! wrote: But i may be forgiven (petty please i even pay absolvement) with how many rulesbooks i have to carry around for my renegades and allied CSM....
No, you have to pirate them or stop whining :^)
Beg your pardon, but what do you do if you go to tournaments`?
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
The thing is, I actually played against one recently and we might have played it wrong. Then again, rokkits are only AP-2, so...
Yeah, luckily the chaos stratagems appeared to be designed with a little more...let's say prudence...than some of the loyalist ones. For example, the helbrute shoot twice stratagem can't just be thrown on a leviathan or dereredrerddrerdrerdrererdreo.
Tbf you get a similiar effect with a dakkafiend. Infact hades AC are virtually the Same as butchers without the morale mechanics but 20% cheaper.
But with worse shooting. Bs4 for the daemonengine vs bs2 for the fw dreads.
Well sure, but how much cheaper is the fiend than the dread?
Which one? The contemptor is closest in stats and is 10 more, 138 with double butcher cannons vs 128 for the fiend. Leviathan with double butcher cannon array is 303, daredeo 177.
Ah yes, and here we are at the crux.
The dakkafiend would be vastly more dangerous if he either had better BS or the Discolord wouldn't be the only <warpsmith> with the aura. Which is also why i consider the Discolord failed. Not because he is bad, he isn't , but because his intended design is failed, namely making daemonengines viable. There are more daemonengines that are hybrids or shooting then melee and due to this most don't work. The only daemonengine i actually consider to work is the decimator which is lightly overpriced but atleast decentish enough for a casual game or two. And it has Bs3+
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
Jidmah wrote: Sure, but I doubt that me fielding a DG leviathan with miasma protection would be vastly more fun to play against.
The issue isn't really the powerlevel - as you can imagine an UM with Tigurius and two Grav Leviathans isn't exactly competitive.
It's more of the frustration of not being able to do anything about those two dreads, while they just walk about and pick two unit to delete per turn.
You can tar pit them. And if things that are hard to kill bother you then what about Custodes? An army of units that all have at least 3 wounds and a 2+ backed up by at least a 5++ can be pretty frustrating, but you don't call for the army to be eliminated, you just change your strategy when facing them. I personally find games against them interesting, as it forces me to adapt.
You can't tarpit them because nothing lives to reach them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Ah, I completely forgot that the chaos variant just has 5++ vs shooting.
I retract my statement above and agree. A leviathan that can actually be hurt by anti-tank weapons is much less of an issue than the loyalist variant.
A 5++ is still obnoxious, as it cheats every weapon that pays for more than -3.
Martel732 wrote: Havent seen one of those in a while to be honest. Only imperial.
And yet you constantly call for the banning or nerfing of both. And those imperial ones are just as easy to tar pit.
Yes. I don't like the model design. I don't like FW dreads in general. I don't think marine dreads should magically have BS 2+ because FW says so. Or have magic guns from 10K years ago that are way better than all other guns. And then not pay for the privilege. I think FW should be sent to legends. Seems appropriate.
Lol martel, all of these dreads are uncompetitve beyond the loyalist IH variant with the wonderfull new and improved GW RULES PROVIDED BY THE ALLMIGHTY PA
Jidmah wrote: Yes, yes, you were right, I was not. Friends?
We're cool. Guess you should do your "hobby homework " as some posters think everyone should. (Because apparently everyone has as much free time as them).
If you're going to have rules discussions you damned well better do your "hobby homework". Otherwise you're just making useless noise.
"Lol martel, all of these dreads are uncompetitve beyond the loyalist IH variant with the wonderfull new and improved GW RULES PROVIDED BY THE ALLMIGHTY PA"
I don't care if they are competitive or not. The BS 2+ is jarring and makes no sense. Plus marines don't need 15 dreadnought variants. FW is a logical group of units to put in legends. Fewer units to try to balance is good.
I'd say all leviathans are pretty competitive. They certainly are for BA and BA have zero shooting buffs.
You can't tarpit them because nothing lives to reach them.
This seems to mostly be a problem for you, along with dealing with guardsmen btw.
A 5++ is still obnoxious, as it cheats every weapon that pays for more than -3.
So should all 5++ invuls be removed? How many weapons pay for -4? Isn't the entire point of an invul to counteract such weapons? Do you find terminators problematic as well?
Yes. I don't like the model design. I don't like FW dreads in general. I don't think marine dreads should magically have BS 2+ because FW says so. Or have magic guns from 10K years ago that are way better than all other guns. And then not pay for the privilege.
No one is going to remove models from the game merely because you don't like their design. They have superior bs and ws because only the most venerated veterans are interred in them, and older weapons and technology being superior has always been a theme of 40k.
What I don't understand is how no more people is playing triple Lord of Skulls lists, with how cheap they are and the ammount of sinnergy they have access too...
Wait, waiwaiwaiwait, I swear to heck it was martel arguing that the 2+ 5++ statline of basic terminators was fundamentally broken in 8th because they basically never get to use the 5++?
It wasn't me. I don't talk much about terminators. I just think invulns make weaponry very difficult to cost appropriately in 8th ed. The 5++ is not as useful on terminators because all you really need is a -1 AP to kill them quickly. The same would be true for leviathan dread if -1 AP could wound them consistently. The 5++ on terminators primarily serves to make weapons like melta even more useless than they already are.
You can't tarpit them because nothing lives to reach them.
This seems to mostly be a problem for you, along with dealing with guardsmen btw.
A 5++ is still obnoxious, as it cheats every weapon that pays for more than -3.
So should all 5++ invuls be removed? How many weapons pay for -4? Isn't the entire point of an invul to counteract such weapons? Do you find terminators problematic as well?
Yes. I don't like the model design. I don't like FW dreads in general. I don't think marine dreads should magically have BS 2+ because FW says so. Or have magic guns from 10K years ago that are way better than all other guns. And then not pay for the privilege.
No one is going to remove models from the game merely because you don't like their design. They have superior bs and ws because only the most venerated veterans are interred in them, and older weapons and technology being superior has always been a theme of 40k.
Boy if he doesn't like BS2+, wait until he hears about gun Ven Dreads!
Martel732 wrote: I certainly don't like the insane number of dreads that marines get and some having 3+ BS and some having 2+ BS because magic reasons.
So how do you feel about characters (generic or named) having different BS? Some have 3+, some 2+. Presumably this is to represent some of them being more/less skilled than others.
Is this "magic reasons"?
If not, then why would differently skilled warriors interred in Dreads be "magic reasons"?
As for why there's so many variants of dreads? Simple. GW has found that those sell.
) or a Custodes list etc.
