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.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:By "leave things at home" you mean "your army", right?

lol. While I agree that Nids really struggle against GK, it's by no means an auto-lose.

Anything that's Grey Knights related.

Why do all the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad Sergeants shoot lasguns and bolters in their artwork and stories, but I can't take either in my farkin' Imperial Guard army?!?

TheRobotLol wrote:...Draigo...

...Goddam Draigo...

Yes?

Why do Dark Eldar not have a slave unit? Like 3 points a piece for some terrible guy that you can take 50 of or something.

Kaldor wrote:

Surtur wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:So..... if the whole army is full of instant-death sticks.... the other guy should.... go screw himself? Do you really not understand why this situation irritates people?

They could maybe leave their big, expensive, non-eternal-warrior at home?

I mean, if you're planning on facing GreY Knights, who excel at killing expensive multi-wound models, why would you take expensive, multi-wound models?

So not only are suggesting I tailor my list, but also that I leave 75% of the nid codex, nobs, anything with FNP, haemunculi armies, ogryn, every single HQ without EW which is every non-character and most characters, ect because of Grey Knights...

I'm suggesting that tailoring your list is natural and preferable to TAC lists (tournaments aside) and you should definately leave certain things at home when playing against Grey Knights. Just as you should leave other things at home against other armies.

I consider tailoring very rude towards your opponent and degrading towards yourself. It says, "I cannot beat you without an extra edge over you and I will only play with this extra edge," and "I do not trust my own acumen to play competently." That is how I view it, you may see it as a more natural way to play, but I would disagree.

Luke_Prowler wrote:People want eternal warrior on units with toughness higher than 5

Maybe you guys should stop jumping in front of Grey Knight squads

Maybe GKs should feth off

Tbh I tried to stop jumping in front of Grey Knight squads but they followed me home after last week's match. They were waiting for me in the closet - oh the horrors of purifiers dug into old jacket pockets. Nowhere is safe, I tell you, nowhere.

KplKeegan wrote:Why do all the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad Sergeants shoot lasguns and bolters in their artwork and stories, but I can't take either in my farkin' Imperial Guard army?!?

This. x100

It's absolutley my least favorite thing in the entire codex.

Surtur wrote:I consider tailoring very rude towards your opponent and degrading towards yourself. It says, "I cannot beat you without an extra edge over you and I will only play with this extra edge," and "I do not trust my own acumen to play competently." That is how I view it, you may see it as a more natural way to play, but I would disagree.

Whatever blows your hair back dude. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Personally I think the convention of only having a single TAC list that you never change is really harmful for the hobby. It relegates entire chunks of every codex to the scrapheap because they are only viable choices against certain types of enemies, leaves players with stagnant, and therefore dull lists, is the root cause of 'netlists' and causes people to cry about certain armies because their TAC list isn't as effective.

However, there is a thread on here already: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/438382.page

TheAngrySquig wrote:

If he holds on, wont that wolf have a situation with its neck being outside of its body?

We've got no references for riding Wolves, but it's certainly possible to ride a horse without using your hands. Your legs give it most of its movement cues anyway. Staying on the thing during a fight is another situation entirely though, but again - he's riding a giant wolf. Certain degrees of 'magic did it' come into play with this one.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:So..... if the whole army is full of instant-death sticks.... the other guy should.... go screw himself? Do you really not understand why this situation irritates people?

They could maybe leave their big, expensive, non-eternal-warrior at home?

I mean, if you're planning on facing GreY Knights, who excel at killing expensive multi-wound models, why would you take expensive, multi-wound models?

You and your other friend "Draigo" on this forum are some of the reason why a lot of people don't like GK's and the people who play them; seriously.

whoops I'm playing GK's in a tournament, lemme whip out my other list
good thing I can tailor my list at the last second
good thing I can foresee who I am going to be playing when I am looking for a pick up game


Seriously dude, not cool.
-Vladsimpaler

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:So..... if the whole army is full of instant-death sticks.... the other guy should.... go screw himself? Do you really not understand why this situation irritates people?

They could maybe leave their big, expensive, non-eternal-warrior at home?

I mean, if you're planning on facing GreY Knights, who excel at killing expensive multi-wound models, why would you take expensive, multi-wound models?

Well you have to plan on facing everybody, don't you? It's bad games design to have guys who are awesome against some armies and useless against others. Like Mephiston. GW screwed the pooch. It's as simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chesh wrote:There's a simple explanation for why Dante doesn't have eternal warrior:

He's been around so long he's already used up all of his extra lives.

Mephiston doesn't have it because, as a psyker, he can hood the enemy's force weapon activation. He's also T6 and pretty damn near invulnerable as is.

With a blood angels psychich hood he has to beat the opposing roll. Since almost all psykers are ld 10 the hood only works 1/3 of the time. Against just one force weapon his toughness gives him a good chance of living through it, but against a squad full of them he's toast. It only takes one 6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:

Surtur wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:So..... if the whole army is full of instant-death sticks.... the other guy should.... go screw himself? Do you really not understand why this situation irritates people?

They could maybe leave their big, expensive, non-eternal-warrior at home?

I mean, if you're planning on facing GreY Knights, who excel at killing expensive multi-wound models, why would you take expensive, multi-wound models?

So not only are suggesting I tailor my list, but also that I leave 75% of the nid codex, nobs, anything with FNP, haemunculi armies, ogryn, every single HQ without EW which is every non-character and most characters, ect because of Grey Knights...

I'm suggesting that tailoring your list is natural and preferable to TAC lists (tournaments aside) and you should definately leave certain things at home when playing against Grey Knights. Just as you should leave other things at home against other armies.

Yeah this isn't exactly a revalation. We all know that we have to leave mephiston and typhus and guys like that at home. The point isn't that we need to adjust our tactics. We've already done that. The point is that GW shouldn't print unplayable crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheAngrySquig wrote:Why do Dark Eldar not have a slave unit? Like 3 points a piece for some terrible guy that you can take 50 of or something.

This is an awesome idea. I'm for it.

DE have slave models up for sale. Just not a playable unit



http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440170a&prodId=prod1110275&rootCatGameStyle=

For slaves of Commorragh....Those women sure do have rock hard abs...

GreatGunz wrote:

Chesh wrote:There's a simple explanation for why Dante doesn't have eternal warrior:

He's been around so long he's already used up all of his extra lives.

Mephiston doesn't have it because, as a psyker, he can hood the enemy's force weapon activation. He's also T6 and pretty damn near invulnerable as is.

With a blood angels psychich hood he has to beat the opposing roll. Since almost all psykers are ld 10 the hood only works 1/3 of the time. Against just one force weapon his toughness gives him a good chance of living through it, but against a squad full of them he's toast. It only takes one 6.

The point is that Mephiston is vulnerable to instant death, which is exactly what activated force weapons do to a multi-wound model. And I could be wrong, but aren't GK leadership values the same as normal marines? Which means that Mephiston's LD10 has a pretty good advantage over the normal GK LD8. Against another librarian, or a force weapon equipped GK HQ with LD10, it's just a d6 dice-off.

Also, I agree. It sucks that one marine that costs about 1/10th of what Mephiston costs can instakill him pretty much at will.

GreatGunz wrote:Well you have to plan on facing everybody, don't you?

No, you don't. It's a horrible player convention that you have to make a single list and stick to it no matter what. People should mix up their armies constantly, and build their forces with regards to the enemy they expect to face. Of course everyone is free to play how they want, but placing artificial restrictions on your army by building only a single 'take-all-comers' list lessens the relative value of certain units.

It's bad games design to have guys who are awesome against some armies and useless against others. Like Mephiston. GW screwed the pooch. It's as simple as that.

No, it's good games design. It's bad player convention to seek a single list that can take all comers.

In theory, any army should perform equally well against any other army. Unfortunately, 40k is too complicated and bloated to even begin to be possible to balance. Not to mention power creep/power seep issues, what with some codexes taking years to put out. I'm beginning to seriously doubt whether or not Eldar and Tau will even get a 5th edition codex, since it seems as though 6th edition is already right around the corner, for instance.

It seems like GW is rather childish and unprofessional when it comes to updating their material - every codex that comes out seems to be trying to "outdo" the previously released codex. Right now, it's the GK that are ridiculous - before them, IG was THE list to play (leafblowers). So this too shall pass - the next 'dex released for 5th edition will blow GKs out of the water, and they'll join the long list of players that sit there thinking "but I USED to be good!"

As far as the "all comers" list fallacy. What with the rules bloat (seriously, if the rules were clear and had less exceptions, games would go SO MUCH FASTER, since people wouldn't have to argue/look up special rules so often), it's pretty much impossible to have any army list that's truly capable of taking on "all comers". So people take the options with the highest chance of being able to defeat "all comers" - which, sadly, tends not to work unless the player has an excellent grasp of tabletop tactics and a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In which case, they probably would've won with ANY units and it didn't really matter what they took or what they called it.

Chesh wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

Chesh wrote:There's a simple explanation for why Dante doesn't have eternal warrior:

He's been around so long he's already used up all of his extra lives.

Mephiston doesn't have it because, as a psyker, he can hood the enemy's force weapon activation. He's also T6 and pretty damn near invulnerable as is.

With a blood angels psychich hood he has to beat the opposing roll. Since almost all psykers are ld 10 the hood only works 1/3 of the time. Against just one force weapon his toughness gives him a good chance of living through it, but against a squad full of them he's toast. It only takes one 6.

The point is that Mephiston is vulnerable to instant death, which is exactly what activated force weapons do to a multi-wound model. And I could be wrong, but aren't GK leadership values the same as normal marines? Which means that Mephiston's LD10 has a pretty good advantage over the normal GK LD8. Against another librarian, or a force weapon equipped GK HQ with LD10, it's just a d6 dice-off.

Also, I agree. It sucks that one marine that costs about 1/10th of what Mephiston costs can instakill him pretty much at will.

GK are leadership 9 with their sergeant, so that makes mephiston's odds of shutting it down a little better. Since blood angels have to beat the other psyker with their hood roll the advantage will normally go to the guy whose casting the power. I was never that hot on mephiston to begin with so it doesn't upset me too much that he was invalidated so fast. It's just bad writing in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:Well you have to plan on facing everybody, don't you?

No, you don't. It's a horrible player convention that you have to make a single list and stick to it no matter what. People should mix up their armies constantly, and build their forces with regards to the enemy they expect to face. Of course everyone is free to play how they want, but placing artificial restrictions on your army by building only a single 'take-all-comers' list lessens the relative value of certain units.

It seems to me that you're the one advocating a restriction. If you don't plan on facing everyone, you plan on not facing some people. You basically say "if I fight armies a b and c I'm solid, but against x y and z I'm screwed." What's the point of that? Keep your money and go play rock paper scissors.

It's bad games design to have guys who are awesome against some armies and useless against others. Like Mephiston. GW screwed the pooch. It's as simple as that.

No, it's good games design. It's bad player convention to seek a single list that can take all comers.

As a bunch of other people have pointed out to you, it's rude to tailor your list. Which is what you're advocating without actually using the word. I don't have foreknowledge of who I'm playing against as a general rule, nor do I have the luxury of transporting my entire force to the store when I play. That doesn't make me a bad player. It just means that I'm polite and realistic.

GreatGunz wrote: As a bunch of other people have pointed out to you, it's rude to tailor your list. Which is what you're advocating without actually using the word.

It's not rude at all, and I think you'll find most people are ok with it. It's sensible, it's the way GW staff write their lists for battle reports, it's more in line with the bakground of the game, and it gives better balance to all the codexes.

It's only a player convention to NOT tailor your lists, and it's a stupid one at that.

If you're going to tailor your lists to hard counter mine, then I have a simple solution for that problem.

I just won't play you anymore. I think you'll find that most people feel the same way.

Player conventions are much harder to defy than GW rules. The main rule in ANY game is "have fun" - and if you break that rule, then you'll be shunned and not welcome to play the game. Any GW rule in any codex, or even the BRB can be overwritten by a house rule, but "player conventions" are absolute and unbreakable.

At least, not more than once or twice, anyway.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote: As a bunch of other people have pointed out to you, it's rude to tailor your list. Which is what you're advocating without actually using the word.

It's not rude at all, and I think you'll find most people are ok with it. It's sensible, it's the way GW staff write their lists for battle reports, it's more in line with the bakground of the game, and it gives better balance to all the codexes.

It's only a player convention to NOT tailor your lists, and it's a stupid one at that.

Plenty of people on this thread think it's rude. I guess we're stupid for following that stupid convention. Yes?

Chesh wrote:If you're going to tailor your lists to hard counter mine...

Of course, thats a dick move. But soft tailoring should be encouraged.

GreatGunz wrote:Plenty of people on this thread think it's rude

While plenty of people on the actual list tailoring thread I linked to earlier think it's fine.

The only time tailoring your list crosses the line is when you look at the opponents list, and deliberately construct a hard counter for it.

Like I said before, you can do whatever blows your hair back. But to complain that a unit is poor because its efficacy is limited by a portion of commonly faced enemies is a false dilemma. YOU have created that problem by deliberately taking that unit, when you knew before-hand that it would not be a good choice.

Tournaments and random pick-up games present other problems, of course, but with a little imagination it's easy to overcome. Sideboard tournaments are still quite popular, and a similar convention can be applied to pick-up games.

When I arrange a game for the weekend and I know I am going to face Orks, then I am going to choose units useful for fighting Orks. I expect my opponent to do the same and find that in no way rude, but in fact think constructing lists based on a rough idea of what kind of force you are going to face is actually part of the fun in this game.

It really seems to me that it is an idea from the tournament scene to always bring all-comers lists and not tailor to your opponent.

But as for fluff justifications that just don't make sense... well, one thing would be deep striking Land Raiders.

Oh, they drop them via Thunderhawk Transporter directly into the action? Check the chapter organisation list in C:BA: they have a grand total of 3 (three) Thunderhawk Transporters. I guess those are always all attached to that one single task force that is actually fighting while the rest just hang around on Baal.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:Plenty of people on this thread think it's rude

While plenty of people on the actual list tailoring thread I linked to earlier think it's fine.

The only time tailoring your list crosses the line is when you look at the opponents list, and deliberately construct a hard counter for it.

Like I said before, you can do whatever blows your hair back. But to complain that a unit is poor because its efficacy is limited by a portion of commonly faced enemies is a false dilemma. YOU have created that problem by deliberately taking that unit, when you knew before-hand that it would not be a good choice.

Tournaments and random pick-up games present other problems, of course, but with a little imagination it's easy to overcome. Sideboard tournaments are still quite popular, and a similar convention can be applied to pick-up games.

Hey check it out. I already responded to all these points.

GreatGunz wrote:I don't have foreknowledge of who I'm playing against as a general rule, nor do I have the luxury of transporting my entire force to the store when I play. That doesn't make me a bad player. It just means that I'm polite and realistic.

GreatGunz wrote:Yeah this isn't exactly a revalation. We all know that we have to leave mephiston and typhus and guys like that at home. The point isn't that we need to adjust our tactics. We've already done that. The point is that GW shouldn't print unplayable crap.

It's almost like we aren't even having the same conversation.

GreatGunz wrote: It's almost like we aren't even having the same conversation.

I think the point where we disagree is that you believe a unit loses value if it is only effective against certain armies AND you believe this because you should not swap out units depending on what you're facing.

I disagree, because units SHOULD be swapped out depending on what youre facing. When you say a unit is 'unplayable crap' because it needs to be left at home against certain armies, you've created a false dilemma. You're upset because of a limitation you've placed on yourself, not because of anything out of your control.

Essentially, YOU are the problem.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote: As a bunch of other people have pointed out to you, it's rude to tailor your list. Which is what you're advocating without actually using the word.

It's not rude at all, and I think you'll find most people are ok with it. It's sensible, it's the way GW staff write their lists for battle reports, it's more in line with the bakground of the game, and it gives better balance to all the codexes.

It's only a player convention to NOT tailor your lists, and it's a stupid one at that.

If battle reports were tailored lists, then they are by far the worst tailoring I've ever seen done.

The idea is that you shouldn't stomp all over your opponent because you took the tools you needed to destroy his army, but you will get your butt handed to you by anything else. That if you played a 1500 point game against one army, you can set up and immediately play against another and still fare well. This doesn't mean as you said before, that you have one unchanging list. I have a huge collection and I'm always trying different styles to get the most well rounded results out of it. I have yet to strike that balance that will let me fight horde armies then go toe to toe with space marines right after.

I fail to see how tailoring balances anything. If anything, it stresses rock paper scissors and codex imbalances. A well rounded grey knight army will do solid against daemons, but a tailored one will destroy them without hope. Knowing you're fighting a draigowing you know to spam S8+ and Ap 1 or 2. Fighting orks you know to spam templates and blasts and anti light tank and to bring high AV vehicles as they have trouble dealing with them. These are the sorts of ramifications that come from list tailoring.

Kaldor wrote:Essentially, YOU are the problem.

There's no call for that, man.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote: It's almost like we aren't even having the same conversation.

I think the point where we disagree is that you believe a unit loses value if it is only effective against certain armies AND you believe this because you should not swap out units depending on what you're facing.

You think that because you aren't reading.

GreatGunz wrote:I don't have foreknowledge of who I'm playing against as a general rule, nor do I have the luxury of transporting my entire force to the store when I play. That doesn't make me a bad player. It just means that I'm polite and realistic.

Kaldor wrote:Essentially, YOU are the problem.

sigh....

GreatGunz wrote:I don't have foreknowledge of who I'm playing against as a general rule, nor do I have the luxury of transporting my entire force to the store when I play. That doesn't make me a bad player. It just means that I'm polite and realistic.

If you don't know who you are playing you obviously can't tailor (at most if you know your meta you can do somethings) but if you know who you are going up against it is only natural to take the units that will work best, there is no "honor" in the fact that if you and your enemy know each others army bringing things that you just won't use.

I think it goes without saying that if you go for a pick-up game at a gaming store or attend a tournament, that is a different matter then in an arranged game. If you go to a store, most people can be assumed to bring only the models for one single list, maybe for two lists with different points values at most.

Quickly changing your list on the spot when you know what you will face will be shoddy (my handwriting is certainly unreadable to many others, especially when I am in a hurry) and the options will be very limited based on what models you brought.
And it would certainly annoy me to have an opponent at the store do a quick handwritten armylist that's tailored to fight me when all I have brought is my all-comers list.

So in those circumstances I agree, tailoring on the spot would be not really sportsmanlike and may be considered rude. Tailoring for an arranged game where both parties involved know who and what they are facing is absolutely fine, because both players can do it and nobody is disadvantaged. Also, it adds another dimension to the game.

I would even venture as far as to say that if you do design a new army list for an arranged game where you know what codex your opponent will be using, it will be almost impossible to not at least subconsciously tailor the list.