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.
Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.
Terrain is expensive. Especially when multiplied by 250. The tournament terrain aside from Adepticon is mostly reasonable. Galas' pic has almost no cover for infantry and all LOS blocking.
On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.
That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.
On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.
That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.
Well, maybe I should say a plurality, but the point is the same. Every garage game has it's own unique setup, so they all each just create a '1' in their own column. Tournaments create hundreds and when you add similar tournaments together they make thousands.
Plus, tournaments all over have been selling out at breakneck speed and in record numbers since 8th launched. People who play in tournaments (note not exclusively, just people who do) might very well be the majority.
auticus wrote: I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.
Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.
Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.
This is LVO:
This is Adepticon:
Nova dictates big LOS blockers:
Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.
In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.
I think everyone agrees with that. But the fact is, you can't complaint about the prevalence of shooting alpha strike based in tables that obviously lack the amount of terrain the game should have. We could blame GW for this, because they don't have any indication in the amount of terrain that we should use.
On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.
But you can even see that Adepticon has much less terrain than LVO, or even NOVA. So even those "Biggest tournaments" have a very big difference in the amount of terrain, even if all of them have less terrain than most LGS, etc... theres not a standard of terrain, and thats a problem. This is a game where terrain is so important to the outcome of a battle, GW should say whats the expected amount of terrain, the one they use to properly balance the game.
Well, I'd say Adepticon is a bit of an odd-duck out, but LVO and NOVA are pretty similar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 16:43:04
auticus wrote: I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.
Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.
I've definitely noticed how hard it is to make a gunline work on a terrain heavy board. A lot of times the problem I see is that a good terrain heavy board is designed to be a city, and the mat or something with a square road grid that make the movement lanes board length firing lanes. Mat makers really need to get to using diagonal roads, which set up blocking terrain a lot better. Players also need to stop making buildings with windows. It essentially ruins the terrain. I have yet to play a game that doesn't need the terrain designed for its particular quirks, but for some reason 40k tables never seem to have terrain that's built for the game's rules. 8th Edition in particular really seems to want an area of rubble around every piece, which is something I've only gotten to properly play on once.
I've definitely noticed how hard it is to make a gunline work on a terrain heavy board. A lot of times the problem I see is that a good terrain heavy board is designed to be a city, and the mat or something with a square road grid that make the movement lanes board length firing lanes. Mat makers really need to get to using diagonal roads, which set up blocking terrain a lot better. Players also need to stop making buildings with windows. It essentially ruins the terrain. I have yet to play a game that doesn't need the terrain designed for its particular quirks, but for some reason 40k tables never seem to have terrain that's built for the game's rules. 8th Edition in particular really seems to want an area of rubble around every piece, which is something I've only gotten to properly play on once.
Sure, but this is really mainly GW's fault. Most of the terrain they actually sell doesn't really work well with the rules of their game. The terrain is full of holes and they don't have bases.
Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.
Terrain is expensive. Especially when multiplied by 250. The tournament terrain aside from Adepticon is mostly reasonable. Galas' pic has almost no cover for infantry and all LOS blocking.
Well, if a unit was touching a building or on top of one it counted as terrain, but yeah, that specific table was mostly LOS blocking terrain. We have other tables where the terrain and buildings is on top of a "base", so it has rubble, etc... for cover around the LOS blocking piece.
But theres no better cover that being out of vision of your opponent
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 17:12:24
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Words without clear definition aren't useless. "Fun", "annoying", "jerk", "awesome", "well-painted". Likewise, "spam" can be a useful label without an entirely definable meaning.
Fair enough.
I consider spam to be a unit used in large redundancy, which can be 4 or above. The example of the main unit I spam is Tarantula Sentry Guns as the minimum squads of 1 to meet FA requirements, and I use 5. All in one squad or two they wouldn't be, but as I'm using the unit entry 5x, it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Nah, points will never fix spam, it won't happen because the points cost required to do that makes the unit in question unplayable.
Yes it can. It's up to GW to not be lazy about it.
Points on their own can never be enough to fix spam. You need some other mechanism in place, whether that is limits on units, limits on slots, or increasing points costs for multiples of the same unit, or make every unit synergistic and depend on other units to function. Points are literally incapable of fixing spam. Lets say their is an ideal world where every unit is balanced to every other unit perfectly by points (super unrealistic), that environment may not encourage spam but it hardly prevents it and as such skew lists will appear, and will dominate some games and get dominated in others dependent on what else is being run. The only way to prevent a unit from being spammed is to make it not worth taking, if it is worth its points someone will spam it. Now in a perfect balanced game that may not be a huge issue because not everyone will take it people might spam different things so the meta is not dominated by one style of list, but spam would still exist. Given that the game will never see perfect balance (it is near impossible as it stands) some units will always be better than others, with no restrictions those units will get spammed. The only way to stop those units from being spammed is to increase their points to the point that they are no longer good for their points, at which point no one takes them, instead they take whatever has become the better option in the absence of the option removed from the meta. Restriction allows for the inevitability that some units will be better than others, while making it impossible to spam those units beyond a certain point. Put simply one flyrant is pretty balanced at it's current point cost due to its relative lack of durability when on its own. Throw in 6 more and suddenly it is a problem because handling that many is problematic. That is true for almost any unit.
Bharring wrote: The current OP is "Gunline" or "AM or maybe Eldar".
Past OP, at different parts, has been:
-ScatterBikes. Everything else dies.
-SM ObSecSpam. Nothing can clear
-Gladius. So much free.
-Necron Decurion.
-DAVU
In the past, the OP has been one or maybe two things that were currently "the best in the game". Now, it's a class of things of whcih there are a few examples.
It should be more balanced, but it does feel a lot better than it was.
Only if you view it from the most absolutely simplistic point of view possible.
Guard/Tau pure gunlines will be strong - but so will the things that naturally counter them, like fast assault lists featuring stuff like the new dark eldar wyches (which can still pull off a really easy charge turn 1, have vehicles that are highly points efficient when getting shot by lascannons, and have an actual answer to screens in 8th due to the fact that once you're in combat with them, you stay there until the wyches shred through you), genestealer cult, Stygies and Raven Guard -1 to hit lists to abuse the BS4+. That, in turn, will lead the gunlines to diversify with allied troops like custodes bikers, blood angels, maybe some stygies Ironstriders, which allows them to counter the fast assault lists and gives them a fast assault element in the mirror matchup vs a pure gunline. Suddenly, they become...not a pure gunline anymore. See how that works?
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Bharring wrote: I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)
Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?
I stand by points and I don't see how it can be viewed differently.
Certainly the idea that 5 units of 1 Tarantula is spam but 1 unit of 5 Tarantulas isn't makes no sense to me.
The problem is spam is that it creates gimmicky skewed lists - which are typically point and click to play and not much to play against (as you either have an answer or you don't - with good ones, you don't.)
If you had a rock/paper/scissors balance system its going all paper. Theoretically you are going to get stomped on by lists with more scissors - but you are going to stomp on lists with a lot of rock.
But 40k doesn't really have a rock/paper/scissors balancing system. It has over and under costed units measured by what they can do for their points cost.
And the aim of the game is to take as many undercosted units as possible.
The major in game skill in 40k is getting the right units into the right units. In a game with two TAC lists this can be skilful.
I think a lot of people - including GW - want this to be valued.
With a skew it often isn't. If I break out 7 hive tyrants, 4 trygons etc and your army just can't cope - and many armies can't - then it isn't good play on my part.
Or say you could go the other way and just take 400~ guardsmen to sit on objectives, confident a lot of armies can't handle that many guardsmen in 5 turns.
It isn't really a game at that point - its just list building. The critique can be levelled at pox walker farm (which is dead now too). Its fun for the Johnny's of list building to think up - but it doesn't result (IMO anyway) in fun interactive games where both players are making meaningful choices.
=====
On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.
Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.
Terrain is expensive.
I watched Ireland's Warmachine community of about 20ish serious player host the WTC a few years back and only a handful actual took part in the organisation.
If a bunch of drunken Irishmen can organise enough terrain, tables, chess clocks, game mats, objective markers and streaming equipment for 175 tables then I have to wonder why its so difficult for an outfit with far more resources and manpower.
It's also a lie since tutorials for making cheap terrain are abundant. Not every table needs to look like it lept from a GW spread and be adorned with Official GW Terrain.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 17:48:53
greyknight12 wrote: The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike
Turn 1 deep strike countered everything
Now you'll have to build better to counter gunlines by using mobility to effectively redeploy quickly, and gunlines will need to mitigate that by diversifying their list away from being a pure gunline. I mean, that'll be what is likely to happen in the long term.
In the short term, people will flail against gunline armies and complain about it nonstop until smarter, more capable, more thoughtful players in the tournament scene come up with the right tools and lists to counter it.
On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.
That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.
Prove to us what terrain most people do play on then?
Bharring wrote: Lets say War Warlkers were the OP spammed option pre-FAQ. They were fine if you have 3 of them, but OP if you had 4+.
If I build a list with 3 War Walker squads and 3 Wasp squads (basically the same thing with slight variances in rules), is that spam?
Pretend Dev Marines are OP (*PRETEND*).
If I build a list with 3 SMDev squads, 3 Long Fang squads, 3 BADev squads, and 3 DADev squads, is that spam?
I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)
Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?
The SM, DA, and BA would be spam to me (as they're all the same besides Chapter Tactics and Blood Angels having Heavy Flamers I believe), but Long Fangs are completely different so Long Fangs wouldn't be part of the spam. With the current FAQ, they bypass it on a technicality. So the question is how okay are people with that?
Bharring wrote: I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)
Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?
I stand by points and I don't see how it can be viewed differently.
Certainly the idea that 5 units of 1 Tarantula is spam but 1 unit of 5 Tarantulas isn't makes no sense to me.
The problem is spam is that it creates gimmicky skewed lists - which are typically point and click to play and not much to play against (as you either have an answer or you don't - with good ones, you don't.)
If you had a rock/paper/scissors balance system its going all paper. Theoretically you are going to get stomped on by lists with more scissors - but you are going to stomp on lists with a lot of rock.
But 40k doesn't really have a rock/paper/scissors balancing system. It has over and under costed units measured by what they can do for their points cost.
And the aim of the game is to take as many undercosted units as possible.
The major in game skill in 40k is getting the right units into the right units. In a game with two TAC lists this can be skilful.
I think a lot of people - including GW - want this to be valued.
With a skew it often isn't. If I break out 7 hive tyrants, 4 trygons etc and your army just can't cope - and many armies can't - then it isn't good play on my part.
Or say you could go the other way and just take 400~ guardsmen to sit on objectives, confident a lot of armies can't handle that many guardsmen in 5 turns.
It isn't really a game at that point - its just list building. The critique can be levelled at pox walker farm (which is dead now too). Its fun for the Johnny's of list building to think up - but it doesn't result (IMO anyway) in fun interactive games where both players are making meaningful choices.
=====
On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.
It can't be by points though.
3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).
Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.
The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 17:51:38
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
greyknight12 wrote: The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike
Turn 1 deep strike countered everything
Now you'll have to build better to counter gunlines by using mobility to effectively redeploy quickly, and gunlines will need to mitigate that by diversifying their list away from being a pure gunline. I mean, that'll be what is likely to happen in the long term.
In the short term, people will flail against gunline armies and complain about it nonstop until smarter, more capable, more thoughtful players in the tournament scene come up with the right tools and lists to counter it.
This is exactly what will happen and funny enough exactly what the current ITC and LVO champion said in his article. The immediate reaction will be lots of uncreative people who copy tournament champs lists having no clue what to do, playing exactly like they did before and getting slaughtered by gunlines like Guard and Tau. In a couple months, these people will all settle down because they will start taking what top tournament players take and catching up to the new meta. Then the next FAQ/Chapter Approved will drop and we will get to see Dakka meltdown again. Rinse and repeat 2 times a year from now on.
How about we, rather than try and come up with some cookie cutter definition of the term, acknowledge that context is a thing and that the definition of spam can vary from army to army and from role slot to role slo?. I play IG, if i took 6 infantry squads i wouldn't regard it as spam, if however i took 6 HWT's/leman russes/basilisks i would consider that to very much be edging into if not already in spam territory.
the context of the army being played, the role the unit sits in, and how much they cost all matter, i doubt you'll really find a one size fits for all definition of spam, GW's rule of 3 feels right for manticores for example but pretty bad for HWT's.
GW should publish a guideline for how much terrain there should be. Because by in large the terrain on these tables is pitiful.
And seriously. If you can't run a tournament with even a modicum of LOS blocking terrain, that's on you, no one is forcing you to organize a for-profit event.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.
Still, he seems to think that marines are basically fethed. On that, he is probably right...
SM/DA- Well, the only success these guys seemed to be having on the highest levels of competition seemed to be spamming fliers, and now that’s gone. I’m not sure if these have a place as more than just an ally unfortunately.
Considering how many marine players there are, this is exactly not an ideal state of affairs...
Thats the thing. In any wargame, the terrain should be variable.
Some tables its ok to have little terrain.
Some tables should have a lot.
Some tables have a moderate amount.
Not every game should be played on the same degree of terrain IMO.
However iif you are buildiing for unforseen terrain where you COULD end up on heavy terrain table you'd definitely be discouraged from showing up with a skew gunline.
Same if terrain was used iin conjunction with scatter on deep strike. People would have to take that into consideratiion.
Now its a no brainer. Why would you never do it? Before there was no reason to not show up wiith a turn 1 deep striike tabling of your opponent or gunline.
I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.
It depends on the rest of one's list. Lawrence from TTT played Eldar in a tournament with a farseer, 3x Hemlocks, and 5x Wave Serpents in order to spam Mortal Wounds. He won the event while playing no dark reapers of shining spears...
It was at an invitational that was not overly competitive. It was a good win, though. He took the same list to LVO and went 4-2.
3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).
Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.
The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).
Well this is why I think Knights are a bad idea. You can't really have a balanced list when you are a small number of vehicles.
This means its very easy to get bad games - where from the lists you know what the result is going to be. (Currently also knights kind of suck.)
But 30 scouts are not having any impact on the game. If you take them its about 15% of your list. Which means you have 85% of your list in other things.
Same with 80 cultists - its a tool, but not the whole list.
Now if you turned up with 100 scouts or 200 cultists it would be different.
The more skewed your list is (typically via spam) the more you place list building over in game decision making. I don't think this is good for the game.
3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).
Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.
The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).
Well this is why I think Knights are a bad idea. You can't really have a balanced list when you are a small number of vehicles.
This means its very easy to get bad games - where from the lists you know what the result is going to be. (Currently also knights kind of suck.)
But 30 scouts are not having any impact on the game. If you take them its about 15% of your list. Which means you have 85% of your list in other things.
Same with 80 cultists - its a tool, but not the whole list.
Now if you turned up with 100 scouts or 200 cultists it would be different.
The more skewed your list is (typically via spam) the more you place list building over in game decision making. I don't think this is good for the game.
What about just 100 Cultists instead? That's only 400 points, or 20% of a list, yet still a considerable number of models.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.
20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/19 18:54:49
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Marmatag wrote: GW should publish a guideline for how much terrain there should be.
How much is not the problem, but how it looks like
GW's own terrain was designed for a different set of rules, it does not work with the current game
so even if your table is full with GW ruins it won't change much
the game needs more terrain, but it also needs advanced terrain rules that are appropriate for a shooting heavy game
it is not only that we miss the 3" vertical combat range (in addition to 1" horizontal) or that every model and the game would need to have a base (a Rhino can attack models in the first floor a Trygon can not) but stuff like "ground floor (3" high) is always blocking LOS no matter if True Line of Sight is block or not (use this for any kind of buildings or wood)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Crimson Devil wrote: I don't think GW designs terrain with rules in mind at all. The box size probably has a bigger affect on the terrain piece than the rules do.
I think GW design(ed) terrain to look good first and to be practical for the game second.
Remember a lot of it like the Administratum Ruins was sculpted when Kirby was insisting they they were a miniatures company, not a game company. The more recent stuff works far better for its intended purpose.
Galas wrote: How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.
20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.
It actually is, because some people wanted hard limits because of "spam".
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Galas wrote: How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.
20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.
It actually is, because some people wanted hard limits because of "spam".
They want hard limits because of skews - not spam in and of itself.
Its bizarre to claim 6 units of 5 Marines is the same issue as 6 Flyrants.
Or 5-6 Plagueburst Crawlers.
Etc.
They are not the same.
If you have 500 points of A, 500 points of B, 500 points of C and 500 points of D then for me at least that almost certainly isn't a spam list - even if it means you have 120 cultists or 50 naked tactical marines or whatever.
