Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Traditio wrote:
If we've made that rules agreement and you then fail to account for the points increase in your list, I can subsequently accuse you of cheating.

And if your opponent doesn't take the 100 points per Riptide point deduction you accuse them of being a TFG and refuse to play. It isn't a "personal handicap" when it's backed up with threats of being shunned from the community if you don't obey.

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."

So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?

Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

If you'd actually read the post you just quoted you would have seen that I said this already.

This is pure speculation.

Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this overcosted?

I don't have enough experience with the demon codex to give an answer I'm confident in, and I know better than to get into a debate over exact point values with you.

It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

Sorry, but "I think this might be unfair" is not a very credible argument when you also think a bunch of other things are unfair. Your personal definition of "unfair" seems to be "any list I can't consistently beat with my tactical spam army".

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No. "Riptides cost 100 points more" and "if you take a Riptide you must take 100 fewer points" are functionally identical rules. You might pretend that you aren't making model-specific house rules, but you are making a whole bunch of house rules about what is a legal list.

They're not the same thing.

Saying "Riptides cost 100 points more" presupposes a public agreement with respect to that rules change.

If we've made that rules agreement and you then fail to account for the points increase in your list, I can subsequently accuse you of cheating.

No such agreement is necessary in order to impose a personal 100 point handicap. You simply take 100 fewer points, whether or not you specifically call your opponent's attention to it.

It works out the same way, but the latter isn't really a rule change. The riptide's points cost remain formally the same. You just have less of other things.

Why would you not tell your opponent?

And why would you not try to come to such a public agreement? If they need balancing, why not open it up to a community forum?

Traditio wrote:

Lol what? Are you honestly trying to argue that playing 40k competitively is equivalent to ruining someone else's furniture?

I'm just saying: we censor/exclude/penalize people all the time based on their having a different conception of having fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Once when I played a cooperative game with a friend of mine, my conception of fun was committing suicide by jumping into the lava over and over again.

My friend decided to play a different [one player] game after that. Do I fault him for it? No, not really.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

Traditio wrote:

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."

So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?

Why not?

Traditio wrote:

And I strongly suspect that demons have been balanced with the assumption that you will use at least some amount of summoning. For example, perhaps all demon psykers are "overcosted" by X% to account for getting Y points worth of extra models through summoning.

This is pure speculation.

Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this overcosted?

Why do you think this is pure speculation? These codeces are all play-tested and balanced to a point, so regardless of how well they're actually balanced, it means that his statement is not pure speculation.

Traditio wrote:

Now, summoning has been the core of some lists that aren't much fun to play against, but a blanket ban on summoning is massive overkill.

It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

Is it at least apparently unfair? Or is it simple a case of you don't like summoning because you don't employ it and/or subjectively think it should be removed from the game? I suspect it's the later.

Peregrine wrote:And if your opponent doesn't take the 100 points per Riptide point deduction you accuse them of being a TFG and refuse to play.

But not a cheater. Note the distinction.

It isn't a "personal handicap" when it's backed up with threats of being shunned from the community if you don't obey.

It depends on the context. If it's an unwritten, but commonly understood, rule at your FLGS, then yes, for all intents and purposes, it's a house rule.

But this isn't what I'm recommending. I'm saying that regardless of your local meta, 40k players could achieve greater balance and fun by personally adopting the NO SHENANIGANS mentality and act accordingly when constructing their own armies.

Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

Sorry, but "I think this might be unfair" is not a very credible argument when you also think a bunch of other things are unfair.

You payed 1850 points but end up with much more than that. That's at least prima facie unfair.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Because the 1850 points of models are balanced around having X points worth of models available to summon.

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

IllumiNini wrote:The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

Lol no.

We're talking about GW.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:The fact that summoning exists in 40K and GW have at least attempted to balance summoning is proof enough.

Lol no.

We're talking about GW.

So now you want to attack GW? They may not have balanced it very well, but I think I can speak for many people on this forum when I say that summoning is not as wildly unbalanced as you seem to think it is.


And I'm sorry, but this thread is getting wildly out of hand because you can't seem to understand that everything you've proposed is highly subjective and generally considered to be poor changes that either don't address any issue, don't fix an issue properly, or are down-right ridiculous.

IllumiNini wrote:Why would you not tell your opponent?

Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.

My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."

I fail to see why you find this problematic.

Why not?

The points system is there for a reason. Just saying.

Traditio wrote:
But not a cheater. Note the distinction.

Do you honestly think that this is a compelling argument?

But this isn't what I'm recommending. I'm saying that regardless of your local meta, 40k players could achieve greater balance and fun by personally adopting the NO SHENANIGANS mentality and act accordingly when constructing their own armies.

No, that's not what you're saying. You aren't just saying "this is a fun way to play the game", you're saying "play this way or I will refuse to play against you and call you a WAAC TFG".

Again, this is pure speculation on your part.

You have no concrete way of proving this.

And you have no way of proving that it doesn't work this way. Your opinions on the subject are just as speculative as mine.

You payed 1850 points but end up with much more than that. That's at least prima facie unfair.

No it isn't. Why do you keep ignoring the likely possibility that 1850 points of demons includes, by design, X points worth of summoned units? For example, let's say GW makes a summoning psyker cost 50 points more than a psyker would in another army, to reflect the fact that the psyker will summon 100 points worth of additional models (getting them at a 50% discount to reflect the lesser value of summoned units relative to "real" units).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

Why shouldn't you have to have a discussion with your opponent when you want to change the rules of the game?

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

IOW:

"I AM SELF-EVIDENTLY RIGHT MY WAY OF HAVING FUN IS MORALLY SUPERIOR AND YOU ARE SELF-EVIDENTLY WRONG BECAUSE I SAID SO".

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Why would you not tell your opponent?

Shouldn't have to.

And I really don't feel like having that discussion.

At any rate, "This game is primarily a spectacle, and only secondarily a competitive game; I shouldn't rely on shenanigans to shut down my opponent's army" should be the mentality of all 40k players. This shouldn't even require a discussion.

Who says it's mainly spectacle based? People play it for different reasons - each is valid. Sometimes, they're not mutually exclusive. TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

And of course, you revert to the "if you don't agree with my premise, you're abnormal from what I think people should be". Stay classy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it? Are you kidding? By what possible logic could there be nothing inherently wrong with that?

And what sort of example is that?

It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.

My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."

I fail to see why you find this problematic.

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)
How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

And I won't even comment on my thoughts on your idea of fun being to sabotage the game, and simultaneously decry other people's fun.

Why not?

The points system is there for a reason. Just saying.

Which you want to change.

Psykers factor in their cost of Summoning for unreliability, and the fact it's not guaranteed.
You're imposing "optional" point values for no reason and with no mathematical logic.
Yet you only seem happy to give buffs out for marines.

Also, I'll just go back a few points - you said that guard were okay because they had several lists and some were
Normandy in Space, despite several being ones you'd cry foul at.
So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

Tradio you are a beautiful and unique snowflake. Never change.

Traditio has proposed his 'rules'.

He isn't going to change his mind. Let them fall to the bottom of the page.

I like to win... I also like to play, therefore I enjoy both of those categories.

The most fantastic games I've played recently were:

Against a demon summoning opponent, in the game I directed a seer star being led by my named Autarch into a swarm of daemons, Daemon princes and a Greater Unclean One. As the council began to fall, the Prince brought it's sword down onto the Autarch, by all rights killing her outright but the Phoenix gem she carried exploded wounding the prince and gave her enough time to thrust the Shard of Anaris into the monster, killing it and everything around it due to instability

Against 3 Imperial Knights in a 1250 point game against mostly Scatterlaser jetbikes for the league championship, playing positional chess against the behemoths was quite frankly a ton of fun for both of us, including the Wraithknights vs Imperial knights game we had for fun after.

With your rules I wouldn't get these games, you also suggest I shouldn't play this game at all because of my outlook on the game. You abuse my choice army, my choice of psykic powers and my opponents and that without handicapping myself I am That F$*king Guy. To say that I disagree with you is an understatement. But, I understand your view point.

There are many ways to enjoy this game Traditio, casually, narratively and yes even competitively, and when somebody goes into a game wanting one thing and is playing against a player wanting another, this happens. The way to fix this however is not pointless restrictions, TFG labelling, invalidating armies or whatever… speak to your opponent beforehand… ‘how do you want to play?’

@Torus:

I'm not gonna lie: You speak some solid truths!

On a side note: Are you sure you're not the voice of sensibility on this forum? If not, it sounds like you should be

I don't even know what the poll is asking.

40K is not headed in a nerf direction.

Tac marines have always been trash.

Traditio wrote:


NO SHENANIGANS!

But shenanigans are what makes things fun, special and interesting! To me, at least. I'll admit to being a powergamer, but I still want real fun, for both players. As such, I limit things in casual games myself. It's possible to powergame and not have a WAAC mentality, unless I'm straddling some weird line in my own head. I feel like all you're trying to do is force TFG to play checkers with you, but TFG won't play checkers with you, and anyone who isn't TFG is being punished by your rules because you refuse to adapt.

It's more fun to me if we both can bring units that do something different than each other, that interact in different ways with different situations. To me, your proposed house rules actually make this about as complicated as checkers, because every unit would have roughly the same capability. I'd rather play chess because the units in that would be much more varied (which is nothing against chess, as I enjoy it thoroughly, I just mean there's no point to 40k at that point). The setting has giant robots, killer monsters, supersoldiers, and regular soldiers. The setting itself seems to be what you have an issue with, and yes, it's constantly changing as they release more big bads. That change seems to be another problem for you.

Traditio wrote:

You call it tactics. I call it shenanigans.

You're not related to Zapp Brannigan at all are you?

Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide? TAC implies you have either a plan or unit(s) to deal with anything, even if it takes a few turns. It doesn't mean you can deal with everything... as long as there are no to very few vehicles, GMCs/MCs, or flyers, and pretty much only infantry to fight.

(Inb4 you ignore me for playing tau since early 5th.)

There's nothing measly about one Riptide, as they can withstand entire lists that lack D weapons firing at them. Even grav is an uphill battle, with it having a 3++/5+++.

That being said, a single Riptide can be cornered and assaulted. Five of them cannot be handled.

Martel732 wrote:
There's nothing measly about one Riptide, as they can withstand entire lists that lack D weapons firing at them. Even grav is an uphill battle, with it having a 3++/5+++.

That being said, a single Riptide can be cornered and assaulted. Five of them cannot be handled.

You are coming at it from the perspective of blood angels however right? SM with drop pod grav/grav bikes can very easily deal with them (regular marines obviously), psychic powers like shriek, or anything that hurts their LD. And assault obviously tears them apart due to the riptide's poor I and A.

(And the riptide has a decent chance to hurt itself when trying to get the 3++, but how to deal with a riptide is not really relevant)

Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Sure, but assuming we live outside of that world, riptide's CAN be dealt with, they're not unkillable. Hard sure (the stimm injector could use a points increase, as could the IA), but far better than a wraithknight/stormsurge/supremacy armor suit.

(Also assuming grav bikes are getting the first turn, otherwise yeah, they're not gonna get much done once the riptide gets the 3++)

 Wolfblade wrote:
Sure, but assuming we live outside of that world, riptide's CAN be dealt with, they're not unkillable. Hard sure (the stimm injector could use a points increase, as could the IA), but far better than a wraithknight/stormsurge/supremacy armor suit.

(Also assuming grav bikes are getting the first turn, otherwise yeah, they're not gonna get much done once the riptide gets the 3++)

Or the bikes don't die in transit.

There reaches a certain point in unit durability where it becomes so inefficient to kill them that they functionally are immortal. The Riptide certainly qualifies. You have to cough up for grav cents, a pskyer, and a drop pod to even have a chance.

Martel732 wrote:
Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Well theres always Posion, or Lascannons, or Grav Guns (these do actually work really went, Grav Cents in a Pod are nsty) Plasma works well as my Skitarii will attest to.

Riptides without Stimms arent all that awful, Stimmtides are actually incredibly annoying and if 3 of them show up you have a right to complain, much like if someone fields an Adamtium Lance. These things are not unbeatable, but they are very annoying to deal with for certain armies. Now with that being said i know a guy who has a Tau army and he has no intention of having more than 1 Riptide because, in his own words, "Why would i need more than one?"

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

No, they're fine.

Traditio wrote:

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

A bloodthirster is a 250 point model. An 11 man squad of pink horrors is 99 points.
I don't care what your justifications are. No summons. You want a bloodthirster? Then you pay for a bloodthirster.
Or, at the very least, you plan on using summoning powers? Then you take a hit to the number of points you can use. If you plan on sacrificing a unit of pink horrors for a bloodthirster, you only get 1700 points to play with in an 1850 points game.

What you fail to realise is that the points cost of a unit is not the only 'currency' that is spent. He does pay for the bloodthirster, both in terms of the summoning unit, and the unreliability of the summoning ritual.

You need to stop thinking soley in terms of 'points' as the objective measure of in-game currency. The cost of a unit is frankly a lot more complicated.

Traditio wrote:

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

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.
No thanks.

L2p. Your attitude is childish.

Traditio wrote:
Once when I played a cooperative video game with a friend of mine, my conception of fun was committing suicide by jumping into the lava over and over again.
[

Traditio wrote:
It's an example that actually happened. We were playing some game which involved setting up traps, turrets, etc. and then killing waves of enemies. Split screen. At some point, I just started committed suicide by jumping in lava.
My friend, at that point, basically said: "Welp, so much for this game. I'm going to play so and so now. No controller for you."
.

so you ruined your friends game? Gee that's nice.

Not surprised that you take your selfish, self centred and immature attitude elsewhere.

Traditio wrote:

Because summoning allows you to get units at a discount, but at the cost of reliability. If you pay full price and take them in your army list you get to do whatever you want with them. If you summon them you end up paying fewer points, but you don't get them immediately. You might fail the psychic test, your opponent might deny it, your psyker might get killed before you can summon them, etc

This isn't a good argument. "I may or may not get the extra points worth of models."
So what? You already have 1850 points of models. Why should you even have the possibility of getting extra?
[

Because the points cost is not the only currency. That 1850pts is costed the way it is because it can bring other stuff into play, as well as the hurdles that it has to jump through in order to do this. You don't pay for individual bolt shells that you fire, or las cannon shots. Those summoned daemons are just 'ammunition' in precisely the same way.

Traditio wrote:
This is pure speculation.

And your arguments are myopic and utterly fail (or are unwilling to see) the bigger picture.

Traditio wrote:
Also, let's test this. A bloodthirster of insensate rage costs 275 points without upgrades. Do you consider this over costed?

300 odd points? For a thing that needs to get into melee? Looks fine. My stuff can either kill it fine, or kill the thing that tries to summon it. There is a work around. Therefore fine. Or apply grey knight to face.

Traditio wrote:
It's at least apparently unfair. It's that simple.

No it's not 'apparently' anything. It's nowhere near 'unfair'. What's 'simple', or rather simplistic is your blinkered vision and grasp of the game.

The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Don't forget the Librarius Conclave is epic at casting powers...a formation native to his preferred book.

Better yet, I propose a blanket ban as a counter to Traditio's:

BAN SPACE MARINES

Seeing as they're one of the top codices in the game and that STUFF is supposed to HAPPEN (whatever that means), it must clearly follow that marines should be banned because an army of free transports and super librarians casting super duper powers all the time backed up by gravturions that melt everything, is clearly and obviously not fun or fair or an army where STUFF HAPPENS.

BAN MARINES. Marine players are obviously WAAC TFGs who only power game and abuse all the rules, so its easier to ban the whole book.

Problem solved.

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Even funnier, Tzeentch Daemons can't psychically shoot worth a damn due to how 7th ed's core rules has bent the army over a barrel, but summoning a single unit of 'Nettes or Dogs to prevent my Horrors from getting their faces effortlessly kicked in by even basic Tacticools is game-breaking and a complete TFG tactic?!

Guess Tzeentch isn't allowed to have any fun according to certain players.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
The hilarious thing he doesnt seem to understand is that anyone with a psyker can do summoning. Its just that Daemons are better at it.

Don't forget the Librarius Conclave is epic at casting powers...a formation native to his preferred book.

Better yet, I propose a blanket ban as a counter to Traditio's:

BAN SPACE MARINES

Seeing as they're one of the top codices in the game and that STUFF is supposed to HAPPEN (whatever that means), it must clearly follow that marines should be banned because an army of free transports and super librarians casting super duper powers all the time backed up by gravturions that melt everything, is clearly and obviously not fun or fair or an army where STUFF HAPPENS.

BAN MARINES. Marine players are obviously WAAC TFGs who only power game and abuse all the rules, so its easier to ban the whole book.

Problem solved.

My Orks can get behind this

Experiment 626 wrote:
Even funnier, Tzeentch Daemons can't psychically shoot worth a damn due to how 7th ed's core rules has bent the army over a barrel, but summoning a single unit of 'Nettes or Dogs to prevent my Horrors from getting their faces effortlessly kicked in by even basic Tacticools is game-breaking and a complete TFG tactic?!

Guess Tzeentch isn't allowed to have any fun according to certain players.

My biggest complaint with 7th, my Tzeentch Mind Bullets suck now (i mean they werent great in 6th either but...) and so we almost need to summon stuff to actually DO THINGS

 Grimmor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grav bikes are actually relatively ineffective vs Riptides. BA have grav bikes, but the regular grav gun does not generate enough wounds to be a true threat. Even grav cannons don't have the best math with cover/FNP or 3++/FNP in play.

Assault against the Riptide is not an assured victory because of the 2+ armor and smash. WS is a crap stat, as is I for MCs. Riptide has an okay amount of attacks. It's actually very hard to beat a Riptide in CC and force a morale check.

Even with psychic shriek, there's still FNP and 5 W.

My real goal is to tarpit, with no expectation of ever killing a single Riptide against Tau. I consider them immortal.

With the style of play Traditio advocates, a single Riptide is a problem for sure.

Well theres always Posion, or Lascannons, or Grav Guns (these do actually work really went, Grav Cents in a Pod are nsty) Plasma works well as my Skitarii will attest to.

Riptides without Stimms arent all that awful, Stimmtides are actually incredibly annoying and if 3 of them show up you have a right to complain, much like if someone fields an Adamtium Lance. These things are not unbeatable, but they are very annoying to deal with for certain armies. Now with that being said i know a guy who has a Tau army and he has no intention of having more than 1 Riptide because, in his own words, "Why would i need more than one?"

I've faced 5 stimtides with BA before. Why would they bother with anything else?

To OP,

Not sure if this has already been said, but I'll say it anyway:
1. You concluded that Normandy in Space was the ONLY fun way to play, if your fun doesn't come from winning. One, what was the point of the poll if you have already decided this, and two, it's purely subjective. Some people like playing against a giant thing (whether it is OP is another thing) and this is only because of who they are.

2. Leading on from my last sentence (sort of), I don't find fun in only winning, I do very much like the "spectacle" as you called it, but I like the idea/look of superheavies and fliers. Not because they are Op, but I think they make sense, and they look cool and add to the game. Using the Normandy comparison, wouldn't it more fun if you had squadrons of planes battling overhead, some sacrificing attacking the other fliers to attack ground troops, and being assaulted by other fliers. It makes it more of a spectacle. It's a new dimension, and superheavies follow this. Are you saying, if they were both balanced, you would rather have a game without them, even if you claiming to like the game for the "spectacle". And they can be balanced without completely removing them.

Wolfblade wrote:Also, taking a quick look at what you consider "plenty" of AT, itso really quite low, especially if you're firing snap shots with those multi meltas.

The core of my army is:

A chaplain
A captain with power fist
2 devastator squads (each of whom have 4 missile launchers, which can glance landraiders on 6s)
2 assault squads (each of which has melta bombs)
6 tactical squads (which has 3 plasma cannons, which can damage AV 13 and lower, a plasma gun with melta bomb (I'm considering switching this out for a lascannon), and 2 multimeltas with meltabombs)

If that's not enough anti-tank to deal with your list, then your list needs to change, not mine.

Honestly, you need to adapt your tactics, not focus on one list and demand that EVERY ONE ELSE conform to your wants. If you demand that I change how I play, why can't I demand you at least bring a decent lost so I don't need to completely gut my army and fill it with shield drone squads/kroot/vespids/hammerheads?

I don't demand that you change your list. See the OP. I'd simply refuse to play you in the first place. No Tau Need Apply.

Also, how is your list "TAC" if you can't deal with one measly riptide?

You mean, the jump monstrous creature with the 72 inch range gun, 2+ armor save and a ridiculous invuln?

I stand by my initial claim: No Tau Need Apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Who says it's mainly spectacle based?

Are your models painted?

TS's Land Raider list makes perfect sense on Tallarn, with the irradiated winds picking up and scouring the paint from the mighty engines of war. You might not like this, but Normandy in Space is not the only way to play the game. Vietnam in Space, or Charge of the Light Brigade in Space are also things. You're not always right.

My point had nothing to do with fluff. It has everything to do with STUFF HAPPENS or not.

I fail to see the difference between you handicapping the game for your friend and this. We're trying (and mostly succeeding) to have an entertaining game, and you're ruining it by enforcing illegal hard caps and stopping people from doing as they want (FSE Crisis suits)

There's nothing "illegal" about it. There's nothing in the rulebook which says that you have to run 8 landraiders in a 2000 points game.

How are we then not justified to kick you out in the same way?

You most certainly are. If there is a game group which derives its fun primarily from being powergaming WAAC TFGs, then by all means, they can and should exclude people who aren't like that.

And people like me can and should exclude powergamers.

It runs both ways.

That said, I once again wish to point out:

As of 6th edition, 40k is dying. Seriously consider that point.

So, if Guard and SM can have multiple lists, why can't Tau? Are they too broken beyond belief to be played? As a regular oponent of a Tau player, I disagree. And I still maintain my point - L2P against Riptides.

It has nothing to do with being OP or not OP. Tau are inherently unfun to play against. They're a one trick pony that rely entirely on shenanigans.

No thanks.