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.

>>>>> To claim the victory points for an objective you can't just zoom up to it on the last turn, you had to hold it for a turn. <<<<<<

So you would penalize the player because he has a fast moving unit?

What about a Marine player having a Predator roll up on an objective on the last turn?

Please note that I am not arguing that skimmers can be a problem, just pointing out that the rules need to be adjusted fairly.

Moz wrote:
I'd also gripe that the possibility of such lists really destroys any chance for all-assault armies competing at anything, but then there's Bill and his 100 battle point stealershock in Chicago...

Bill knew that he would be in trouble if he ever faced any skimmer lists, but he was lucky and dodged all of them.

The problem is in tournaments is that you build ‘take all comers’ lists, and unless you play SAFH or Necrons, you will struggle against all skimmers.

The only solution at this point is to not play those kinds of people (or in a tournament, take just as cheesy a list of your own).

I don't see penalising people who made be perfectly enjoyable opponants because they took a legal list you may have a hard time with as an acceptable option.
look at it as a challenge to overcome, not something to run away from.


In tournament you should expect to face the most powerful lists. if your normal list can be a "take all comers" and just as powerful, so much the better.

I don't see penalising people who made be perfectly enjoyable opponants because they took a legal list you may have a hard time with as an acceptable option.
look at it as a challenge to overcome, not something to run away from.

There's only so many times 'It's a challenge' can be repeated when a Skimmer Tank Spam drifts onto the objective turn 6 for the auto-win the rest of the game being irrelevant, or when your ground vehicles fold like paper, but the 'fragile' Eldar skimmers weather entire army worths of shooting.

I, and many others, don't have fun playing such things- it isn't a challenge, it's a huge crutch for the opponent to casually stroll around on.

If I'm not having fun in a hobby I pay for for fun, then I'll refuse the parts of it that aren't fun. I'm not obligated to be the whipping boy for every Taudar player who really needs that win.

In tournament you should expect to face the most powerful lists. if your normal list can be a "take all comers" and just as powerful, so much the better.

I've learnt this the hard way, 40k isn't designed as a sport- it fails badly at it.

Skimmers are at a huge advantage to win objective or Recon missions before the dice are even rolled. A lot of armies struggle to leave there deployment zone, but skimmers can fly 24” in the last turn to get a lot of bonus points. One way you can slow them down is to remove the tank label so they can't tank shock infantry off of objectives.

Here are a couple of examples how how good Eldar Skimmers are:
I played my shooting Word Bearers against Eldar with only one Falcon at the Adepticon Championships last year. We had 5 objectives we were fighting over, and on the top of the last turn I held 2 objectives, and he was able to pin my Furies that were going to take one of his is, and flew his Falcon out from behind cover that he was hiding behind from turn number 3 to take another objective we were fighting over. Then on my turn I unloaded tank hunting auto cannons, 2 Lascanons, 3 plasma guns and then to finish it off some powerfist attacks, and at the end of the game it was still standing there.

To give you another example of just how good Falcons are in objective/recon missions, I will point you to my Las Vegas GT game against Dark Eldar.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/170117.page
It was on table 2 in game #5. He blew me off of the table and I had nothing left but the unkillable Falcons. But because it was Recon, not only did he not get the VPs for my Falcons, but I also got double VPs for being in his deployment zone for my minor win.

I lost both my Falcons in Game #1 on the last turn to some lucky Necron shooting, and as you can see be Kesher’s signature he shot one of my Falcons down with the first shot of his Lascanon, but that is certainly not the way to bet.

Laserbait wrote:So you would penalize the player because he has a fast moving unit?

What about a Marine player having a Predator roll up on an objective on the last turn?

Please note that I am not arguing that skimmers can be a problem, just pointing out that the rules need to be adjusted fairly.

Not penalising him because he has a fast moving unit, just stopping him claiming an objective by running a fly-by just as the game ends. If the skimmer, or any other unit, has taken control of the area sufficiently that they can advance onto the objective on turn 5 and remain their intact for turn 6, then you've earned the objective.

A predator attempting the same thing would be subject to the same rules. If it moves up to the objective, survives and holds it for a turn, it claims the victory points. But if its just rushing up the field on the last turn past a bunch of enemy units, exposing flank and rear armour because the game will end before the enemy can fire... that's goofy.

Note the rule would apply to all units. It would just impact skimmers more, as their increased mobility gives them the greatest ability to steal objectives late in the game.

mughi3 wrote:I don't see penalising people who made be perfectly enjoyable opponants because they took a legal list you may have a hard time with as an acceptable option.
look at it as a challenge to overcome, not something to run away from.

Not really. There's only so much fun to be had in challenging yourself to play against the hardest lists with other strong lists. It's the nature of 40k that stronger lists tend towards extremes, if you take some power armoured infantry, take nothing but power armoured infantry... and then you've got safh. One falcon is a good unit, but can be nullified or even destroyed... but three falcons overwhelm most any list that wasn't specifically built to defeat it. Similarly tyranid monstrous creatures are pretty good, but its the overwhelming natures of having 8 of them on the field that gives nidzilla its strength.

This means the best lists tend to be one-dimensional, featuring as many of one type of unit as possible. This generally leads to less interesting games, fewer tactical options, than games with more versatile, less hardcore lists. The group I play with pretty much all agrees with me, most of us being reformed competitive players, now just trying to play interesting games rather than winning.

We're pretty open about that, and if someone insists on taking a very powerful list like 3 falcon eldar, I'll probably just pass on the game. If the same guy is happy to pull his list back to something that's still hard but a little more versatile, I'm happy to play.

In tournament you should expect to face the most powerful lists. if your normal list can be a "take all comers" and just as powerful, so much the better.

Yeah, that's what I said. In tournaments you take powerful lists knowing the other guy will as well.

sebster
I undestand your position, but i am more concerned about the attitude of the player rather than the army list.

If the army list is legal i will play it. in my group/league we have IG, tau, orks, eldar, 1k sons, emperors children, dark angels, sisters of battle, and nids regularly on the table. the people in my group are pretty competative list designers and try to squeeze the most effective use out of thier overal army(some are quite fluff concience as well). so i do expect a tough fight no matter what i am up againt and by the same token i don't intend to be a pushover for them. the thing is, as tough as our lists are(these are the same lists we take to tournaments) we still have a blast because the people in our group are enjoyable opponants to play with. it also helps that we do scenerio missions as well as meatgrinders and try to use GWs recommended 25% table terrain guidlines.

I've had some tough games against non-regular(to my group) players, who were unpleasant to play against rather or not thier list was tough. they were doing things like-ignoring rules or being ignorant of them, arguing rules throughout the game(sometimes even after they have been shown the relevant rule), not undestanding how thier army works. bring sore loosers(and sometimes sore winners because they didn't have an easy time of it), having thier army and units unclearly organised, loosing track of thier wargear(or phase out number) etc...

There are certain people in fact that i refuse to play against. the player makes the games so unpleasant because of reasons like those mentioned above, not because of thier army list.

mughi3 wrote:sebster
I undestand your position, but i am more concerned about the attitude of the player rather than the army list.

If the army list is legal i will play it. in my group/league we have IG, tau, orks, eldar, 1k sons, emperors children, dark angels, sisters of battle, and nids regularly on the table. the people in my group are pretty competative list designers and try to squeeze the most effective use out of thier overal army(some are quite fluff concience as well). so i do expect a tough fight no matter what i am up againt and by the same token i don't intend to be a pushover for them. the thing is, as tough as our lists are(these are the same lists we take to tournaments) we still have a blast because the people in our group are enjoyable opponants to play with. it also helps that we do scenerio missions as well as meatgrinders and try to use GWs recommended 25% table terrain guidlines.

I've had some tough games against non-regular(to my group) players, who were unpleasant to play against rather or not thier list was tough. they were doing things like-ignoring rules or being ignorant of them, arguing rules throughout the game(sometimes even after they have been shown the relevant rule), not undestanding how thier army works. bring sore loosers(and sometimes sore winners because they didn't have an easy time of it), having thier army and units unclearly organised, loosing track of thier wargear(or phase out number) etc...

There are certain people in fact that i refuse to play against. the player makes the games so unpleasant because of reasons like those mentioned above, not because of thier army list.

Sure, nothing can make the game fun when the other guy is a jerk. Which is where that old rule about only gaming against people you'd share a beer with comes into the equation. But that's not necessarily related to the strength of the lists they play, I apologise if I implied otherwise.

But in regards to your own situation, if the expectation in your gaming group is to take the strongest lists, then someone suddenly refusing to play 3 falcon eldar would be pretty obnoxious. If you're in a social group where taking the toughest lists is the standard course of action, then my advice to avoid games against 3 falcon eldar isn't that useful.