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.

All you brought was flashlights but you're facing a wall of Land Raiders?

Keep track of every to-hit of 6 against any model which requires a roll of 6 or greater to wound / penetrate, even if you normally aren't able to wound it at all. Take these 6's and roll them to wound separately from the rest of the hits (if any). If any of these rolls get a 6 on their wound / penetrate roll also, they auto wound/ glance. Regardless of whether they have high enough strength to wound it on the to wound chart, or if they did not score high enough on their armor penetration roll.

Rerolls to hit/ wound are used as normal. Saves are taken as normal. Rending lets you roll an additional die if you get a 6. If this second die gets a six, you cause an additional wound/ glance (unless the roll is now high enough to cause a penetration), in addition to ignoring armor saves.


Flashlights vs Land Raider.

You get three 6's on your to hit. You get one 6 (6+3=9 not enough to normally do anything vs AV 14) on your armor penetration roll. The Land Raider takes one glancing hit.



Originally I was going to give a subtraction to a stat like WS or BS, or give a shaken result, but this came out instead and I like it better.

So now you have a 1/36 chance of wounding/ glancing a model that you wouldn't normally be able to. Restricted to models that you aren't normally able to wound so you do less rolling/ record keeping. Although, this lays the framework for a nifty critical hit rule...


Critical Hits- If you roll a natural 6 for to hit, natural 6 for to wound, and a one is rolled for the save, you cause an additional wound/ glance.

Likey? No likey?

Or, you know, bring a proper gun. Don't expect to win if you bring a knife to a gunfight.

Does no one follow the forum rules here?

What? He's perfectly in line. Your rule only applies if you're purposely building armies that are useless, and fighting armies with direct counters to them.

While your rules are perfectly fine if that's something both players want to do, Walrus is also perfectly justified in stating that the circumstance for your rules seems more like you're using them as a crutch, rather than fixing any actual problems or adding anything to the game.

Edit: Also, not elegant. You've added at least one more roll, a bunch of requirements, and it only works on a small subset of enemies in a small subset of games - not to mention it requires your opponent to actually agree to making his army worse on purpose.

An elegant solution would add no rolls or even remove rolls from the game, would feel natural and easy to implement, and would not result in someone getting their landraider wrecked by lasguns.

So basically, take 100 imperial guardsmen, and FRFSRF everything to dust? Yeah. No?

In all seriousness though, I dont think its a very good idea, soz :/

He's not following the rules, read them again. It's not constructive in any way and he provides no reasoning for his opinion. This is a forum not a troll shop.

It IS simple, what are you talking about? Two 6's in a row against an enemy you wound on 6 or - and you wound them. It adds NO rolls to the game, all you have to do is split off your sixes into another pile. It's a houserule, of course the opponent has to agree to it, just like everything else on this forum.

What does having a Land Raider getting wrecked by lasguns have to do with the rule being simple or not???? Just because the two of you don't like the idea of 106 lasgun shots killing an AV 14 vehicle doesn't negate the novel and fluff value of the rule. And in what way is it a 'crutch'? If it allows me to play a fluffy, non waac army with realistic tactical options? As if you can only play this game by purposefully fighting the some neckbeard's metagame at the same time. Sad dude.

This is the Rules Development forum right? Not the WAAC Rules Development?

If you don't like something, you suggest a change or ignore it, not say why it's terrible and post not the slightest iota of a helpful suggestion.

Why is your font really big?

Also, it is not very fluffy. In the fluff lasguns would do absolutely nothing vs a land raider.

SharkMolester wrote:He's not following the rules, read them again. It's not constructive in any way and he provides no reasoning for his opinion. This is a forum not a troll shop.

It IS simple, what are you talking about? Two 6's in a row against an enemy you wound on 6 or - and you wound them. It adds NO rolls to the game, all you have to do is split off your sixes into another pile. It's a houserule, of course the opponent has to agree to it, just like everything else on this forum.

What does having a Land Raider getting wrecked by lasguns have to do with the rule being simple or not???? Just because the two of you don't like the idea of 106 lasgun shots killing an AV 14 vehicle doesn't negate the novel and fluff value of the rule. And in what way is it a 'crutch'? If it allows me to play a fluffy, non waac army with realistic tactical options? As if you can only play this game by purposefully fighting the some neckbeard's metagame at the same time. Sad dude.

This is the Rules Development forum right? Not the WAAC Rules Development?

If you don't like something, you suggest a change or ignore it, not say why it's terrible and post not the slightest iota of a helpful suggestion.

First of all, AlmightyWalrus' post is constructive. He just didn't post it in a flowery way. What he meant was "this rule is useless, pointless, and unnecessary, as you should be bringing weapons to deal with any available threat your opponent may bring".

Second of all, a Land Raider should not be killed by lasguns. If you can't understand why, then you probably shouldn't be posting in here and telling people their comments are not good enough.

Thirdly, your point about WAAC, non fluffy lists is just wrong on so many levels. Bringing autocannons, lascannons, plasma, and melta does not make somebody a WAAC, neckbeard, and calling people names will not make your point any stronger.

Finally, the point of a forum is for people to post something and others' to respond. We are not bound to reply and always have to re-work an idea. Some ideas, like this one, are not worth fixing or altering as its so beyond necessary or pointless. We're telling its a bad idea, and we are fully entitled to. Its a bad idea that would allow you to field 200+ guardsmen and be able to kill anything with no thought about building a balanced list or taking the right weapons for the right situations.

So no. Just a plain and simple no.

"Take these 6's and roll them to wound separately"

Sounds like another roll to me. Rolling two different piles is the same as rolling two different times.

The issue is not that it's a house rule or that your opponent has to agree to it - it's that you've created the rule to be incredibly potent for cheap, lots-of-shots armies (like guardsmen and tyranids) and almost meaningless for every other army.

There is a reason that cheap lots of shots armies are countered by High AV, and it's the same reason that anti-vehicle weapons don't cost as much as vehicles - so that there can be some dynamic gameplay. If suddenly lots-of-shots armies can do everything, then there's no point in taking anything BUT lots-of-shots armies.

And your rule makes it so that lots-of-shots armies can do everything. I now have no reason to ever not take max guardsmen. Ever. Because I can table any opponents on turn 2 or 3, regardless of their list, through sheer weight of 6's.

And that's just not right.


Just because NO ONE BUT YOU likes the idea of lasguns killing an AV14 vehicle doesn't mean you can't propose the idea to players - it just means you'll probably run out of people willing to play against you. There is no novel or fluff value to this idea. Landraiders are fluffed as unstoppable juggernauts of war.

It's a crutch because it allows your non-fluffy, terribly balanced army to compete with armies that have had thought and experience put into them. There is nothing realistically 'tactical' about some hillbillies with peashooters taking out trained soldiers with tanks and proper recon and satellite support.

Referencing to neckbeard: The apostrophe comes after the s', denoting someones ownership. Also, this is rude, uncalled for, and a sign that you're not looking at the issues at hand, but rather assuming we're insulting you, instead of your (admittedly) crappy idea.

Regardless how simple it is, it's not elegant. We're not talking about simplicity. It introduces a mechanic to the game that does nothing for a large portion of units and models, but almost hilariously boosts the power of a small subset of cheap, intentionally crappy units.

Your last sentence is objectively wrong - If you don't like something, you pick apart your reasoning for not liking it. If any of those reasons are constructive, your post them. The constructive reasons for not liking your idea are:

They unbalance the game
They're most likely going to be used for selfish reasons (i.e. turning crappy armylists into competitive armies without any thought or effort being put into composition or playstyle.)
They're going to result in you being labeled "That Guy"
The contextual clues around them suggest a lack of understanding in regards to the hobby and these forums at large, as well as distinct confirmation bias (or paranoid delusion) that everyone is out to WAAC and be net-listing tourneybutts. This is both insulting, rude, and not indicative of reality.

Overall, the rule you proposed and your supporting arguments for it, as well as your inability to just let it go when others have pointed out why it is bad, have led me to assume that you have some intellectually dishonest motive for pushing for support for this terrible rule. And that's just not cool.

Also, telling you something is terrible is perfectly acceptable if we actually tell you why. Walrus told you why; You can bring guns to gunfights with every army. There's no reason to give knives special abilities.

"My inability to let go when others have pointed out why it is bad"?

By breaking the rules and the spirit of the forum by NO PROVIDING ANY SUGGESTIONS.

Why would I defend my rules against people who obviously don't give a flying gak?

I provided an avenue of response if anyone chose to offer up a suggestion-

"Originally I was going to give a subtraction to a stat like WS or BS, or give a shaken result, but this came out instead and I like it better."

After having my words repeatedly being called 'stupid, bad, terrible' with no constructive advice at all?

Only one assumption can be made here- trolls or WAACo's




If you can't hold your deriding, bullying comments back, and expect me to just take it, fine. I'll notify a mod.





For the last time, the rule is created to provide fluffy tactical options, NOT to-

"The issue is not that it's a house rule or that your opponent has to agree to it - it's that you've created the rule to be incredibly potent for cheap, lots-of-shots armies (like guardsmen and tyranids) and almost meaningless for every other army."

Wherein, not only have you blatantly ignored my words, but have put words into my mouth, and are purposefully ignoring a look at the fluffy aspect, WHICH IS WHY I SAID I CREATED THE RULE.

"Second of all, a Land Raider should not be killed by lasguns. If you can't understand why, then you probably shouldn't be posting in here and telling people their comments are not good enough."

Sorry for disobeying the unwritten, unimmutable laws of 40k Rules Development. Why does this forum exist again?


"Thirdly, your point about WAAC, non fluffy lists is just wrong on so many levels. Bringing autocannons, lascannons, plasma, and melta does not make somebody a WAAC, neckbeard, and calling people names will not make your point any stronger."

And yet, being forced to take them because someone doesn't want me to create a fluffy army, against which he will never play is NOT WAAC? Regardless of whether he will easliy beat it or not, still denying himself the chance to even consider the rule and whether someone else would find it enjoyable?

"Finally, the point of a forum is for people to post something and others' to respond. We are not bound to reply and always have to re-work an idea. Some ideas, like this one, are not worth fixing or altering as its so beyond necessary or pointless. We're telling its a bad idea, and we are fully entitled to. Its a bad idea that would allow you to field 200+ guardsmen and be able to kill anything with no thought about building a balanced list or taking the right weapons for the right situations."

Sure, you speak for everyone on the forum who may ever see this thread. Mkay.


"There is a reason that cheap lots of shots armies are countered by High AV, and it's the same reason that anti-vehicle weapons don't cost as much as vehicles - so that there can be some dynamic gameplay. If suddenly lots-of-shots armies can do everything, then there's no point in taking anything BUT lots-of-shots armies."

A 1/36 chance will suddenly, magically stop the game from working correctly and render horde armies the only viable option?

"And your rule makes it so that lots-of-shots armies can do everything. I now have no reason to ever not take max guardsmen. Ever. Because I can table any opponents on turn 2 or 3, regardless of their list, through sheer weight of 6's."

Your hyperbole is glorious. Also, yet again, using the rule in a WAAC situation, despite my protestations to the contrary.


"Just because NO ONE BUT YOU likes the idea of lasguns killing an AV14"

Another guy that speaks for everyone here?

" vehicle doesn't mean you can't propose the idea to players - it just means you'll probably run out of people willing to play against you. There is no novel or fluff value to this idea. Landraiders are fluffed as unstoppable juggernauts of war."

You're rigid adherence to the laws of 40k is simply astounding. And you are also ignoring my statement about reducing a stat instead. You do realize that you can knock little important parts off a tank right? Like, I dunno, targeting sights, stabilizers, ect. And, it you're so anathema to any small arms fire damaging a holy tank, you must HATE sniper rifles huh?


"It's a crutch because it allows your non-fluffy, terribly balanced army to compete with armies that have had thought and experience put into them. There is nothing realistically 'tactical' about some hillbillies with peashooters taking out trained soldiers with tanks and proper recon and satellite support."

Ahhh, I see, it is becoming clearer. I was right after all, true WAAC through and through. Only the superior netlist can win after all, what was I thinking, tactics to have an affect on gameplay? BAH HUMBUG! Oh oh oh, and now you're just calling me a liar and saying that I would use the rule to take a WAAC list!! LOL. And your lack of fluff-site is distasteful. After all, Marines are invincible.


"Referencing to neckbeard: The apostrophe comes after the s', denoting someones ownership. Also, this is rude, uncalled for, and a sign that you're not looking at the issues at hand, but rather assuming we're insulting you, instead of your (admittedly) crappy idea."

Yea man, totally rude, I'm sorry. I should have called you a WAAC after I knew for sure that you were one. Like now. At least I'm not putting words in your mouth, ignoring half of what you say and calling you a liar and making fun of you grammatical errors in an attempt to make you RQ this thread. Nah.


"Regardless how simple it is, it's not elegant. We're not talking about simplicity. It introduces a mechanic to the game that does nothing for a large portion of units and models, but almost hilariously boosts the power of a small subset of cheap, intentionally crappy units."

Oh, so you've changed your tact? We AREN'T talking about simplicity now? Is that because you know that it is SIMPLE, but you just can't be a man and admit it? Ok, I guess I can ride with that. Oh, wait, this again?? A 1/36 chance will make horde armies invincible? Now, you've brought this up twice now, you must have done some math to come to this obviously sternly held fact... Because, WHY would anyone just say something without knowing for certain if it's true, I mean that would just be foolish... right???




"Your last sentence is objectively wrong - If you don't like something, you pick apart your reasoning for not liking it. If any of those reasons are constructive, your post them. The constructive reasons for not liking your idea are:"

Constructive? We'll see...

"They unbalance the game"- maybe, but you've done nothing to prove that they are.
"They're most likely going to be used for selfish reasons (i.e. turning crappy armylists into competitive armies without any thought or effort being put into composition or playstyle.)" Who would do that? I thought that the whole point of house rules was to eliminate that?? Unless you're just ignoring that to add another bullet point to your list.
"They're going to result in you being labeled "That Guy"-" again, see the above. Another filler bullet point.
"The contextual clues around them suggest a lack of understanding in regards to the hobby and these forums at large, as well as distinct confirmation bias (or paranoid delusion) that everyone is out to WAAC and be net-listing tourneybutts. This is both insulting, rude, and not indicative of reality." -contextual clues? Little moar vague please. Confirmation bias ah? No confirmation bias. All I got was posts saying how dumb and unbalanced my rule is. Additionally, posts following my rebuttle have solidified this fact. I have yet to see any attempt in any of these posts to rectify the perceived imbalance and or stupidity of my rule. Just- it's dumb, it's hopelessly broken, and there is LITERALLY no way you could either fix the rule or take a derivation of it.


"Overall, the rule you proposed and your supporting arguments for it, as well as your inability to just let it go when others have pointed out why it is bad, have led me to assume that you have some intellectually dishonest motive for pushing for support for this terrible rule. And that's just not cool."

Let it go? Let my work be called stupid and worthless with no accompanying suggestions? It's called bullying.


"Also, telling you something is terrible is perfectly acceptable if we actually tell you why. Walrus told you why; You can bring guns to gunfights with every army. There's no reason to give knives special abilities."

The only way that would be a logically defensible argument is if I hadn't listed my reasoning for the rule. Which I did, therefore walrus either didn't read my reasoning, or didn't care. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that he didn't read it.

LoL Wall O Text...

This is almost exactly how the rules worked against Armored company armies back in 3rd edition. Any 6 for AP on tanks (since it was ALL tanks) was a glancing hit. I killed 4 Leman Russes with 75 points worth of Nurglings.

It's dumb.

WAAC...you keep using that term,

Dear SharkMolester,

You clearly don't understand why this rule is not garnering positive feedback. Myself and others have given you feedback, though not positive because your rule does not deserve it. You don't appear to like it, which nothing can be done about.

It appears forums are not for you, or maybe you should read through more proposed rules and understand what is a good idea, and what is not. To clarify, making a lasgun capable of destroying a Land Raider is not a good idea, no matter how you spin, justify it, or throw angry comments back at us.

I also don't understand why you think bringing nothing but lasguns is fluffy. My Guard army of chimeras and autocannon and melta guns is plenty fluffy. Understand that. By you proposing this rule, you are essentially circumventing a key tactical aspect of this game; bringing the right tool for the right job. This rule breaks that, and thus, it is a bad rule. There should not be a rule that does that, period. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

Feel free to notify the mods, I am beyond confident I have posted nothing that would break any posting rules.

Please stop using the words WAAC and fluffy, as you seem to have a different understanding of them than the rest of the forum.

SharkMolester: At some point you need to ask yourself why everyone who responds to this except you doesn't like the rule. There are two options:

1. Everyone except you is wrong.
2. You are wrong.

You are basically advocating a rule that allows a guardsman or shoota' boy a chance to kill a tank of any kind with their basic weapon, this doesn't work when looked at from balance or fluff.

On the tabletop this rule would, as previously mentioned, encourage a guard army to take max infantry and just blast everything with lasguns, while not unbeatable it certainly would be the most cost effective way of dealing with all targets, outperforming the dedicated anti armor by a long shot. You stated (sarcastically) that a 1/36 chance magically ruins the game, well that statement is actually correct given the volume of fire the guard or similar armies can put out, a twenty man blob can manage to do that without too much trouble, let alone in the numbers this rule would encourage.

From a fluff perspective this is even worse, Land Raiders barely get stopped by anti armor units in the fluff, and now you want them to be melted by lasguns? The same gun referred to as a flashlight? And that doesn't even take into consideration something like a Monolith getting killed by lasfire.

Lastly, is this really how you argue in real life? People are making valid points, your responses appear to boil down to "Nuh uh", perhaps it is true that people should be slightly nicer when conveying their criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that you have not actually addressed any complaints, instead you just call them WAAC gamers and ignore the points entirely, you seriously think the mods would back you on this?

I'm sorry but this rule as stated by others is not very good.

If you find someone who will play these rules more power to you but here is what i dislike.

Lasguns (and shuriken weapons, boltguns etc.) should NEVER be able to harm a vehichle. Sure they may cause some minor damage to a sensor or what have you t a tank, but even the luckiest of shots will not cause enough damage to hurt it.

And remember, its not that it is a 1/36 chance to do this, its that it has the potential (read: makes) the game totally unbalanced. Its not WAAC and definitely not fluffy to be pissed that your strength 2 ratling, weighing 100 lbs and standing at 3'5 just killed a 20 foot or more tall thousands of pounds greater demon in hand to hand combat combat by what..... ripping off his toenails? gently massaging the callous off of his heel?

I can picture the conversation now

Guardsman Bob: Don't worry mates, those snotlings can't stop this baneblade!
Guardsman Ted: Wait! that little one just shot a 6 shooter at us!
Guardsman Bob: EVERYONE OUT! there is a dint in the right tread, this thing is going to blow!

But seriously. there is already a mechanic in the game that lets lower strength weapon penetrate armor by sheer force. It's called rending.

Also, the new edition has a perfectly good rule to account for units in assault with something they cannot hurt. It's called Our Weapons Are Useless.

SlaveToDorkness wrote: Our Weapons Are Useless.

Incidentally, this is one of the best names for warhammer rules in a good while. 'It Just Won't Die' is up there though.

And the rule in the OP is unnecessary. You don't need a 'fix' for models that you can't wound or penetrate, the 'fix' is bringing a variety of weapons to the table, not upping the power of every basic weapon.

Also, in a general sense OP, you really should kind of cool off. Getting this defensive and nasty about people who don't like your idea for good reasons is not going to do well for you. Try taking a step back, breathing and then reading them again. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make them bullies, you and your ideas are not such special snowflakes that they are immune or above criticism.

AW doesn't have to provide an elaboration to the original idea to be constructive. He simply stated the idea was superfluous and gave a reason why. This is sufficient for a debate and is also constructive since he actually did give a reason and didn't make it personal. A constructive standpoint can also be "I don't think this idea will go anywhere"

--

Regardless, 3rd edition had a special type of army for the Imperial Guard where basically you got tanks, more tanks and some artillery tanks. Infantry were all elite. That army had "Lucky Shot" rule where every roll of 6 to penetrate became a glancing hit if it was confirmed (re-rolled to a 6 again).
The army had this rule because it was possible to build an Imperial tank line which presented nothing but AV13 to the opponent to hit. Third edition was infantryhammer - there were no dedicated transports and all vehicles were heavy support, including Rhinos iirc.
Since fourth edition you've got tanks as dedicated transports. Sure, AV14 are still (thankfully) rare, but you have got to take them into consideration whenever the opponent is a) unknown, b) Necron, c) Imperial Guard or d) Orks. Failing to take them into account means you have to fall back on plan B. Plan B is using S4+ attacks in melee.

The only case I can think of where Plan B is not a valid tactic for your army is against the Monolith, but who doesn't bring missile launchers? If so, just ignore it!

Panopticon: No, that's not it. He's not wrong, you're not right, and neither is anyone if we reverse it. There's only one single conclusion to draw from this:
A: So far only Sharkmolester likes the proposed rule.

Mahtamori: You make a fair point, I should have said something more along the lines of "If nobody likes it but you, then consider that the criticisms may be valid."

Naw. Opinions and things people like can be wrong. There's no need to sugar coat this for people's mental well-being. Fun has pretty much been dissected and examined, and though its got a bunch of complex, interesting interactions with gaming and games in general, it pretty much boils down to "players feel that the game is fair, and that the way they play and the decisions they make are meaningful to its outcome."

Shark's proposed rule removes both aspects of this; therefore it is wrong to implement if your goal is for both players to have fun.

Well the OP is called "sharkmolester", instantly reacted badly to any criticism, and seems very aggressive in general, instantly accusing AW (a well known and respected member) of breaking forum rules. Can I call "troll" yet?

Oh, something useful to add to the conversation: This essentially equates to giving everyone Gauss on a 6 to hit. No.

liquidjoshi wrote:Well the OP is called "sharkmolester", instantly reacted badly to any criticism, and seems very aggressive in general, instantly accusing AW (a well known and respected member) of breaking forum rules. Can I call "troll" yet?

Oh, something useful to add to the conversation: This essentially equates to giving everyone Gauss on a 6 to hit. No.

We'll see if he returns. If he doesn't in the next 3 days, go for it.
If he does, we'll see what he has to say.

SharkMolester wrote:

Spoiler:

"My inability to let go when others have pointed out why it is bad"?

By breaking the rules and the spirit of the forum by NO PROVIDING ANY SUGGESTIONS.

Why would I defend my rules against people who obviously don't give a flying gak?

I provided an avenue of response if anyone chose to offer up a suggestion-

"Originally I was going to give a subtraction to a stat like WS or BS, or give a shaken result, but this came out instead and I like it better."

After having my words repeatedly being called 'stupid, bad, terrible' with no constructive advice at all?

Only one assumption can be made here- trolls or WAACo's




If you can't hold your deriding, bullying comments back, and expect me to just take it, fine. I'll notify a mod.





For the last time, the rule is created to provide fluffy tactical options, NOT to-

"The issue is not that it's a house rule or that your opponent has to agree to it - it's that you've created the rule to be incredibly potent for cheap, lots-of-shots armies (like guardsmen and tyranids) and almost meaningless for every other army."

Wherein, not only have you blatantly ignored my words, but have put words into my mouth, and are purposefully ignoring a look at the fluffy aspect, WHICH IS WHY I SAID I CREATED THE RULE.

"Second of all, a Land Raider should not be killed by lasguns. If you can't understand why, then you probably shouldn't be posting in here and telling people their comments are not good enough."

Sorry for disobeying the unwritten, unimmutable laws of 40k Rules Development. Why does this forum exist again?


"Thirdly, your point about WAAC, non fluffy lists is just wrong on so many levels. Bringing autocannons, lascannons, plasma, and melta does not make somebody a WAAC, neckbeard, and calling people names will not make your point any stronger."

And yet, being forced to take them because someone doesn't want me to create a fluffy army, against which he will never play is NOT WAAC? Regardless of whether he will easliy beat it or not, still denying himself the chance to even consider the rule and whether someone else would find it enjoyable?

"Finally, the point of a forum is for people to post something and others' to respond. We are not bound to reply and always have to re-work an idea. Some ideas, like this one, are not worth fixing or altering as its so beyond necessary or pointless. We're telling its a bad idea, and we are fully entitled to. Its a bad idea that would allow you to field 200+ guardsmen and be able to kill anything with no thought about building a balanced list or taking the right weapons for the right situations."

Sure, you speak for everyone on the forum who may ever see this thread. Mkay.


"There is a reason that cheap lots of shots armies are countered by High AV, and it's the same reason that anti-vehicle weapons don't cost as much as vehicles - so that there can be some dynamic gameplay. If suddenly lots-of-shots armies can do everything, then there's no point in taking anything BUT lots-of-shots armies."

A 1/36 chance will suddenly, magically stop the game from working correctly and render horde armies the only viable option?

"And your rule makes it so that lots-of-shots armies can do everything. I now have no reason to ever not take max guardsmen. Ever. Because I can table any opponents on turn 2 or 3, regardless of their list, through sheer weight of 6's."

Your hyperbole is glorious. Also, yet again, using the rule in a WAAC situation, despite my protestations to the contrary.


"Just because NO ONE BUT YOU likes the idea of lasguns killing an AV14"

Another guy that speaks for everyone here?

" vehicle doesn't mean you can't propose the idea to players - it just means you'll probably run out of people willing to play against you. There is no novel or fluff value to this idea. Landraiders are fluffed as unstoppable juggernauts of war."

You're rigid adherence to the laws of 40k is simply astounding. And you are also ignoring my statement about reducing a stat instead. You do realize that you can knock little important parts off a tank right? Like, I dunno, targeting sights, stabilizers, ect. And, it you're so anathema to any small arms fire damaging a holy tank, you must HATE sniper rifles huh?


"It's a crutch because it allows your non-fluffy, terribly balanced army to compete with armies that have had thought and experience put into them. There is nothing realistically 'tactical' about some hillbillies with peashooters taking out trained soldiers with tanks and proper recon and satellite support."

Ahhh, I see, it is becoming clearer. I was right after all, true WAAC through and through. Only the superior netlist can win after all, what was I thinking, tactics to have an affect on gameplay? BAH HUMBUG! Oh oh oh, and now you're just calling me a liar and saying that I would use the rule to take a WAAC list!! LOL. And your lack of fluff-site is distasteful. After all, Marines are invincible.


"Referencing to neckbeard: The apostrophe comes after the s', denoting someones ownership. Also, this is rude, uncalled for, and a sign that you're not looking at the issues at hand, but rather assuming we're insulting you, instead of your (admittedly) crappy idea."

Yea man, totally rude, I'm sorry. I should have called you a WAAC after I knew for sure that you were one. Like now. At least I'm not putting words in your mouth, ignoring half of what you say and calling you a liar and making fun of you grammatical errors in an attempt to make you RQ this thread. Nah.


"Regardless how simple it is, it's not elegant. We're not talking about simplicity. It introduces a mechanic to the game that does nothing for a large portion of units and models, but almost hilariously boosts the power of a small subset of cheap, intentionally crappy units."

Oh, so you've changed your tact? We AREN'T talking about simplicity now? Is that because you know that it is SIMPLE, but you just can't be a man and admit it? Ok, I guess I can ride with that. Oh, wait, this again?? A 1/36 chance will make horde armies invincible? Now, you've brought this up twice now, you must have done some math to come to this obviously sternly held fact... Because, WHY would anyone just say something without knowing for certain if it's true, I mean that would just be foolish... right???




"Your last sentence is objectively wrong - If you don't like something, you pick apart your reasoning for not liking it. If any of those reasons are constructive, your post them. The constructive reasons for not liking your idea are:"

Constructive? We'll see...

"They unbalance the game"- maybe, but you've done nothing to prove that they are.
"They're most likely going to be used for selfish reasons (i.e. turning crappy armylists into competitive armies without any thought or effort being put into composition or playstyle.)" Who would do that? I thought that the whole point of house rules was to eliminate that?? Unless you're just ignoring that to add another bullet point to your list.
"They're going to result in you being labeled "That Guy"-" again, see the above. Another filler bullet point.
"The contextual clues around them suggest a lack of understanding in regards to the hobby and these forums at large, as well as distinct confirmation bias (or paranoid delusion) that everyone is out to WAAC and be net-listing tourneybutts. This is both insulting, rude, and not indicative of reality." -contextual clues? Little moar vague please. Confirmation bias ah? No confirmation bias. All I got was posts saying how dumb and unbalanced my rule is. Additionally, posts following my rebuttle have solidified this fact. I have yet to see any attempt in any of these posts to rectify the perceived imbalance and or stupidity of my rule. Just- it's dumb, it's hopelessly broken, and there is LITERALLY no way you could either fix the rule or take a derivation of it.


"Overall, the rule you proposed and your supporting arguments for it, as well as your inability to just let it go when others have pointed out why it is bad, have led me to assume that you have some intellectually dishonest motive for pushing for support for this terrible rule. And that's just not cool."

Let it go? Let my work be called stupid and worthless with no accompanying suggestions? It's called bullying.


"Also, telling you something is terrible is perfectly acceptable if we actually tell you why. Walrus told you why; You can bring guns to gunfights with every army. There's no reason to give knives special abilities."

The only way that would be a logically defensible argument is if I hadn't listed my reasoning for the rule. Which I did, therefore walrus either didn't read my reasoning, or didn't care. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that he didn't read it.

Let's begin:

WAAC means win at all costs. someone is not a WAAC, they are a WAAC player, as in someone who only plays to win and nothing else.

Lasguns can never damage tanks the same way an M4 could never damage an Abrams. No amount of hitting critical components with the weapon will do any damage to the tank because the weapon is simply too weak. As for sniper rifles, in game they are very weak and a poor choice against vehicles. Vindicare rifles are the exception because they are badass and are super-snipers with access to insane equipment no one else can ever get. In real life, while sniper rifles can be anti-material rifles, they are still rather poor against tanks due to advancements in armor. Better against planes or other, less heavily armored vehicles that are vulnerable while on the ground, like jets, where a shot into a gas tank or exposed gas line can cause an explosion.

You pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?

Oh, and there has never been any fluff about a lasgun taking out a Land Raider. This isn't a video game with health bars where if you wail on something long enough, even with a crappy weapon, you'll eventually kill it, this is 40k where you actually have to come up with a counter to vehicles... like missiles or lascannons or the equivalents thereof.

I like the part where he thinks his rule is good.


and the part where he's not responded since Wall o' Text

Yeah, no likey.
Also:

After having my words repeatedly being called 'stupid, bad, terrible' with no constructive advice at all?

Only one assumption can be made here- trolls or WAACo's

Um, WAAC players would probably love this rule, so calling people who dislike your rule WAAC players is just, um, stupid
Calling everyone who hates your idea a troll because they gave no constructive advice is a bit stupid, as in this case the only advice, really, is 'stop what your doing and never use ths rule', which is what everyone so far has said.

And you ASKED us if we liked it or didn't like it. Why ask us if we didn't like it if you only want to hear if we like it?

If you can't hold your deriding, bullying comments back, and expect me to just take it, fine. I'll notify a mod.

Um, bullying? What? There's been no bullying.... And no none, as far as I've seen has broken the rules, so calling a mod won't really do much...

Wherein, not only have you blatantly ignored my words, but have put words into my mouth, and are purposefully ignoring a look at the fluffy aspect, WHICH IS WHY I SAID I CREATED THE RULE.

What fluffy aspect? I mean, for Necrons it would be fluffy, which is why they have a rule called Gauss. No noe else has fluff about them blowing up a land raider with small arms fire...

Why does this forum exist again?

For someone to propose a rule and for the rest of us to critique it. If it is bad but can be saved, we say so. If it is good, we say so. If it is utter and can't be saved, we make sure you know.

Oh, so you've changed your tact? We AREN'T talking about simplicity now? Is that because you know that it is SIMPLE, but you just can't be a man and admit it? Ok, I guess I can ride with that. Oh, wait, this again?? A 1/36 chance will make horde armies invincible? Now, you've brought this up twice now, you must have done some math to come to this obviously sternly held fact... Because, WHY would anyone just say something without knowing for certain if it's true, I mean that would just be foolish... right???

He always said elegant...

I don't think I need to comment on the rest as it is either answered above or is so I shouldn't be bothered to even explain it


Sorry for the wall of text and if I OFFENED YOU I'm soory as I never intended to.

This could lead to the humerous sight of one grot blowing up a titan. no this rule whilst understandable is just bad. sorry

Troll post is trolling methinks.

If you think it's a troll hit the !-triangle instead of bashing (which incidentally has the same effect as trolling). I don't think it's a troll, I just don't agree with it.