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.

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?

Oh, I understand why the situation irritates people, it's no different than having my nobs melta'd by a skinny humie. But here's the thing: These guys that have +5 toughness are still completely viable when facing every other army, were as other multi wound unit is a massive target for every meltagun and missile launcher in the game. Force weapons are only common in one army (an overused army, but that's beside the point). It's the same as people who complain about poison weapons killing MCs too easily. Heaven forbid that your super powered wrecking ball has an Achilles' heel.

Maybe if your nobs were staring down an army full of meltaguns. Don't you think that would be a more apt analogy? And suddenly every third 40k player was playing that army. Then you'd look at your nobs and say "hey. These things are crap. Why does GW do this?" And you'd be right. You can say "just don't play that unit" and that's basically what we're already doing. Problem solved. It's still a bad way to design a game.

Units countering units is great. That's the strategy. Whole armies countering units is another issue all together. It's basically playing 2000 points against 1800 or 1750 or however many depending on how many points the countered unit costs. Since that unit is worthless to the player who fields it, it unbalances the entire game.

Hey, you guys remember when this game used to be fun before d-bags got hardcore into this game? When i go to a free play night i don't like seeing an army that is designed to kick me in the balls. I had a friend who played bugs, and yet every person who tailored a list brought about 15 flamers. Talk about fun. You can't play a game because some d-bag playing grey knights plays to win and nothing else. And hate to tell every one fighting in this thread. This thread was made for another reason. Not just to fight with one another over why a guy with grey knights (who started playing this codex ed) is a d-bag.

Why can't i upgrade a rhino with a ramp to assault out of it? Is it that hard to use the back hatch as a ramp? Every army's transports that are closed top come with a ramp on the model besides the land raider, and yet its the only tank (storm raven aside) that you can assault out of. Bugs need to go back to 4th ed rules when it comes to instant kill.

plague marines shouldn't have feel no pain, noise marines should. Its just fluff. Noise marines don't feel any pain. They get hurt and free pleasure. Plague marines get hurt and can't with stand damage but feel pain.

There needs to be a pre hersey codex to come out for all space marine legions.

And ork players should only be able to call a waaaagh if they yell it, and have a war boss who's model is bigger than every other model.

I agree on the Waaaagh! rule. In fact, instead of d6", it should be based on how loud and proud they shout their WAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

GreatGunz wrote:You think that because you aren't reading

Genuine apology, I thought you'd read the part where I mentioned there are work-arounds for that too

You can easily take sideboard lists, or have a couple of 'standard' lists that you flick through.

Surtur wrote: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.

Read the pre-battle commentaries. They're loaded with "Well, I'll be facing X, so a big squad of Y should come in handy" and similar comments.

And while list tailoring can exacerbate existing disparities, it also gives players a chance to do some role-reversal. If somone loads up on flamers and anti-light tank against Orks, the Ork player could just throw down a mega-nob/nob biker list and blow them out of the water. Thats why it's so interesting, because of the double-blind nature of it. You have to anticipate the way he's going to build his list, and the way he's going to build his list depends on how he anticipates you will build your list.

GreatGunz wrote:Maybe if your nobs were staring down an army full of meltaguns. Don't you think that would be a more apt analogy? And suddenly every third 40k player was playing that army. Then you'd look at your nobs and say "hey. These things are crap. Why does GW do this?" And you'd be right. You can say "just don't play that unit" and that's basically what we're already doing. Problem solved. It's still a bad way to design a game.

Or, you could say don't play that unit against an army full of meltas. Or whatever.

GreatGunz wrote:Maybe if your nobs were staring down an army full of meltaguns. Don't you think that would be a more apt analogy? And suddenly every third 40k player was playing that army. Then you'd look at your nobs and say "hey. These things are crap. Why does GW do this?" And you'd be right.

Dude. IMPERIAL GUARD. Getting s8 weaponry is like breathing to them. And I still take my Nobz, because I overcome their weaknesses with the rest of my army and clever thinking

You can say "just don't play that unit" and that's basically what we're already doing. Problem solved. It's still a bad way to design a game. Units countering units is great. That's the strategy. Whole armies countering units is another issue all together. It's basically playing 2000 points against 1800 or 1750 or however many depending on how many points the countered unit costs. Since that unit is worthless to the player who fields it, it unbalances the entire game.

Units having advantage over other units is a part of this game. Sometime a whole army has that advantage, just like Dark Eldar with poison weapons, or grey knights and, well, everything. But rather than getting mad, one simply needs to think about what other advantages that unit can use. I mean, seriously? Meph and the Swarmlord? Their mere presence gives GKs a hard time.

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:You think that because you aren't reading

Genuine apology, I thought you'd read the part where I mentioned there are work-arounds for that too

You can easily take sideboard lists, or have a couple of 'standard' lists that you flick through.

There's something we can agree on. I think sideboarding would resolve the issue nicely. It does in m:tg in any case, and adds extra depth to the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:
You can say "just don't play that unit" and that's basically what we're already doing. Problem solved. It's still a bad way to design a game. Units countering units is great. That's the strategy. Whole armies countering units is another issue all together. It's basically playing 2000 points against 1800 or 1750 or however many depending on how many points the countered unit costs. Since that unit is worthless to the player who fields it, it unbalances the entire game.

Units having advantage over other units is a part of this game. Sometime a whole army has that advantage, just like Dark Eldar with poison weapons, or grey knights and, well, everything. But rather than getting mad, one simply needs to think about what other advantages that unit can use. I mean, seriously? Meph and the Swarmlord? Their mere presence gives GKs a hard time.

I can't imagine why any gk player would find mephiston intimidating. What you're talking is more like rock-paper-scissors than "strategy." Strategy is what it takes to win when forces are roughly evenly matched, as in chess. Playing iyandin against dark eldar (for example) is more like gambling. It's not strategy at all.

Did you actually read my post? My whole point was that unit countering can be over come by strategy. YOU are the one going "X is useless against Y, why bother"

I did.

Lukeprowler wrote:"I use my strategy because I'm extra smart. You don't cause you're dupid."

What do you want me to say to that? You'll have to be more specific about your cunnin plans if you want me to comment on them.

GreatGunz wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:You think that because you aren't reading

Genuine apology, I thought you'd read the part where I mentioned there are work-arounds for that too

You can easily take sideboard lists, or have a couple of 'standard' lists that you flick through.

There's something we can agree on. I think sideboarding would resolve the issue nicely. It does in m:tg in any case, and adds extra depth to the game.

I'm glad we finally found some common ground

Oh, we're playing that game now? Fine then.

Having several threats in a list forces a player to either focus on one treat at a time, allowing the unfazed unit to run rampant, or split their fire, making it ineffective. At the same time, consider what targets to take out first
Speed is the best defense and offence. An enemy that can not catch you is powerless. I'm sure staying out of range of assault is easy even for a simple guy like you
Denying an army it's resources makes it weaker. If it can't use what make a unit "useless" then it becomes strong again.
Screening units keeps your expensive stuff safe.. And I don't just mean that +4 save, tying a powerful shooting unit with assault keep them from shooting. Cover too
The power of a unit is not just it's potential as a beat stick, but also it's ability as a force multipliers. Aura effects, powers that increase another unit's power, or decrease an enemy's strength. Use these and you don't even have to risk losing that unit.
Not EVERY squad in an army has an advantage over you. I mean, those Psyfle dreads don't have force weapons, so they're a good target for your multi wound units. And If they have another squad protecting that, then that's good, because it's now out of your hair (see tactic 3).

You can ask for specific examples if you want, but I bet you can figure them out with a little time.

Oh yeah, one I missed:
Don't mock your opponent.

Okay, so, there's this guy. His name is Lord Castellan Usarkar E. Creed. . .



Jokes aside, how can you really justify scouting a titan or a baneblade? I understand scouting a unit of infantry or some light vehicles, but this rule can get ridiculous.

Edit: I can't grammar. I have the dumb.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, we're playing that game now? Fine then.

Having several threats in a list forces a player to either focus on one treat at a time, allowing the unfazed unit to run rampant, or split their fire, making it ineffective. At the same time, consider what targets to take out first
Speed is the best defense and offence. An enemy that can not catch you is powerless. I'm sure staying out of range of assault is easy even for a simple guy like you
Denying an army it's resources makes it weaker. If it can't use what make a unit "useless" then it becomes strong again.
Screening units keeps your expensive stuff safe.. And I don't just mean that +4 save, tying a powerful shooting unit with assault keep them from shooting. Cover too
The power of a unit is not just it's potential as a beat stick, but also it's ability as a force multipliers. Aura effects, powers that increase another unit's power, or decrease an enemy's strength. Use these and you don't even have to risk losing that unit.
Not EVERY squad in an army has an advantage over you. I mean, those Psyfle dreads don't have force weapons, so they're a good target for your multi wound units. And If they have another squad protecting that, then that's good, because it's now out of your hair (see tactic 3).

You can ask for specific examples if you want, but I bet you can figure them out with a little time.

Oh yeah, one I missed:
Don't mock your opponent.

Vladsimpaler 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?

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

Interesting that I'm a reason not to like GK. I have advocated for other armies against them in discussions and tactics. I also seldom have agreed with kaldor on things. Such as I am not a fan of list tailoring and will play my deathwing, eldar, csm, daemons or gk lists because i like them. I see no reason to change the list just because of who i'm facing. I have played too many tournaments to have the mindset. I play against too many varieties of IG, Eldar, SM, Nids, etc to just build for that one guy. I also play pick up games with that in mind so I just use the list I plan to use in a tourney. So I think you really need to save statements like that to yourself. They are uneeded.

Daemons are depicted as being 'nigh invulnerable' in the fluff.

My Bloodletters disagree.

Luke_Prowler 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?

Oh, I understand why the situation irritates people, it's no different than having my nobs melta'd by a skinny humie. But here's the thing: These guys that have +5 toughness are still completely viable when facing every other army, were as other multi wound unit is a massive target for every meltagun and missile launcher in the game. Force weapons are only common in one army (an overused army, but that's beside the point). It's the same as people who complain about poison weapons killing MCs too easily. Heaven forbid that your super powered wrecking ball has an Achilles' heel.

That'd be great if they had an Achilles' heel as long as there was an ounce of opportunity cost attached to that counter.

If you've got something like a Warboss, T5, that's great, but he has no psychic defense and he has to be in close quarters to be viable. Same thing with Nobz. That means they simply aren't sensible choices against Grey Knights. That's stupid. Why should they be countered by every unit in the codex in the one place where they're supposed to be strongest? It's not like a Warboss is strong at ranged attacks and can just choose to sit back and snipe Grey Knights for the entire game.

And considering Cleansing Flame, what else am I supposed to use against Purifiers?

Well, of course there are some options, key among them being Kan Wall, but even then, why should I be excluded from otherwise perfectly viable troop choices (sluggas, slugga trukks), merely because a certain popular codex carries the counter to all of them? Orks are supposed to be a close combat army for feth's sake.

It's not that it's impossible to negotiate, the obvious answer is just to take your Warboss and throw him in the garbage can and vow never to buy any Slugga Boyz if you're planning on winning against Grey Knights, but perhaps if you think about it you'll see why that isn't a perfectly satisfactory answer to everyone. I want to use Slugga Boyz. I want to use Meganobz.

@Ted

This sounds the same as nids players who have had to for go a lot of their MCs because of popular codexes like DE, SW, GK etc. Orkz aren't the only codex like that.

Orkz and horde armies force players to use templates. It's just the nature of the beast as the meta swings with each new book.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
And if I find myself facing GK in a pick-up game?

Get better friends? Seriously, friends don't let friends play GK. Or Daemons of Chaos in WHFB.

^^^this^^^

There's really no justification why Kroot are terrible in game, when their badass in stories or in general fluuf/background. Going toe to toe with Orks on Pech is no small feat considering their just as armored as Orks...

Just a nice little page break from the Grey Knight whinge fest that's almost taken over this topic...

-Loki- wrote:

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.

I think its easier on a horse because of the differences in how they move

GreatGunz wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, we're playing that game now? Fine then.

Having several threats in a list forces a player to either focus on one treat at a time, allowing the unfazed unit to run rampant, or split their fire, making it ineffective. At the same time, consider what targets to take out first
Speed is the best defense and offence. An enemy that can not catch you is powerless. I'm sure staying out of range of assault is easy even for a simple guy like you
Denying an army it's resources makes it weaker. If it can't use what make a unit "useless" then it becomes strong again.
Screening units keeps your expensive stuff safe.. And I don't just mean that +4 save, tying a powerful shooting unit with assault keep them from shooting. Cover too
The power of a unit is not just it's potential as a beat stick, but also it's ability as a force multipliers. Aura effects, powers that increase another unit's power, or decrease an enemy's strength. Use these and you don't even have to risk losing that unit.
Not EVERY squad in an army has an advantage over you. I mean, those Psyfle dreads don't have force weapons, so they're a good target for your multi wound units. And If they have another squad protecting that, then that's good, because it's now out of your hair (see tactic 3).

You can ask for specific examples if you want, but I bet you can figure them out with a little time.

Oh yeah, one I missed:
Don't mock your opponent.

Thank you for confirming that you have no intention of actually listening to anything i say. On the ignore list you go

Tl;dr
None of the DE characters have eternal wariors, and that has always bothered me.

NOm

nomsheep wrote:Tl;dr
None of the DE characters have eternal wariors, and that has always bothered me.

NOm

Drazhar.

I didn't realise the Drazhar had eternal warrior now. O.o


Nom

nomsheep wrote:I didn't realise the Drazhar had eternal warrior now. O.o


Nom

Yeah, though I think he should also have an Invulnerable save for his price.

blood reaper wrote:

nomsheep wrote:I didn't realise the Drazhar had eternal warrior now. O.o


Nom

Yeah, though I think he should also have an Invulnerable save for his price.

A lot of the De characters could use a bit of love to make them worth taking.

Nom

Luke_Prowler wrote:Thank you for confirming that you have no intention of actually listening to anything i say. On the ignore list you go

That took long enough. What a relief.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, we're playing that game now? Fine then.
.I'm sure staying out of range of assault is easy even for a simple guy like you

Having just read this thread all the way through. I'm pretty sure his interest in what you have to say waned around this point. I know it's where mine did.

Nom

Is it just me or is this thread going way off track?

For me this is about fluff that does not make sense. I think there are other threads to complain about EW and how a lot of characters should have it while a lot of units need it in the current meta. For me fluffwise it should only be given to Daemons and characters that just keep coming back from death like the phonex lords but GW has this idea that every codex should have 1 EW special character so you have Yarik, Draigo, the Sangiuor etc.

Fluffwise just dont understand the new necrons. They are a timeless race of machines that never ages, but they went to sleep long ago for no good reason. If you dont age why wouldnt you just stay awake forever? They now quest to regain their flesh and souls but have no clue how to accomplish that.

DE mandrakes dont make sense to me. Now according to the GK FAQ they are daemons, in a soceity that hates daemons and is afraid of them.