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.

AegisGrimm wrote:The time of the Imperium can still be humano-centric and still have xenos armies be competitive and balanced against them. Because humans aren't the gods of the universe- they are just more relatable.

I agree with you, but balance only exists within the game table context, not the 40k universe as a whole. Too many people begin arguments trying to reconcile the book and codex fluff with the limitations of the game and playability. This doesn't work and should be avoided.

Uhlan wrote:Too many people begin arguments trying to reconcile the book and codex fluff with the limitations of the game and playability. This doesn't work and should be avoided.

I disagree - I found it to work quite nicely, and at times even clearly reflected in the fluff (for example the resilience of Marine power armour in C:AoD, a piece of fluff whose numbers coincidentally align neatly with dice percentages in the TT).
The only things you have to keep in mind is that the game's rules are an abstraction, and that there is a difference between individual incidents and generic descriptions in the fluff.

Glorioski wrote:

daveNYC wrote:

Take Coteaz and you don't have to take Grey Knights.

Yeah, but it's a bit of a strange situation that you have to pay for a special character in order to take 'mook' level troops. Not that inquistorial warbands are that mookish, but you know. It would have been better if they had given each of the generic Ordos inquisitors a 'grand inquisitor' upgrade for x points that would turn inquisitor bands into troops. That way you could take a specialized Xenos, Hereticus, or Mallus Inqquisitor HQ for fluffy goodness.

I know it's not perfect. But you do have the option. I use a counts as for coteaz currently.

..and henchman are far from "mookish".

I was just pointing out the unusual fact that this is one special character that lets you take as troops units that are weaker than the regular troop choices. A Warboss lets you take Nobs, a bike captain lets you take bikers, and the Baron lets you take Hellions (usefulness may vary); but Coteaz lets you take... regular humans instead of Grey Knights. I'm glad the option is there, but it's a bit of a switch from the usual behavior of special character HQs.

Lynata wrote:

Uhlan wrote:Too many people begin arguments trying to reconcile the book and codex fluff with the limitations of the game and playability. This doesn't work and should be avoided.

I disagree - I found it to work quite nicely, and at times even clearly reflected in the fluff (for example the resilience of Marine power armour in C:AoD, a piece of fluff whose numbers coincidentally align neatly with dice percentages in the TT).
The only things you have to keep in mind is that the game's rules are an abstraction, and that there is a difference between individual incidents and generic descriptions in the fluff.

Well, the abstraction is the problem where these arguments are concerned. Not just the ranges and limitation of the weaponry, but of the sheer difference in the odds of say, a 10 man squad of Marines vs. a hoard of Tyranids. Play it out on the table and read about such events in the fluff. There is no similarity and no amount of abstraction even reasonably represents the outcome.

As a fan, I can understand the abstraction and deal with it knowing that if my Marines were fielded as written I'd never need more than 5 figures, holy-hell should break loose and everyone I game with would pack up their 25 to 50 figure armies and run home. A problem arises when arguments to reconcile these events with gaming occur... seriously pointless arguments.

Lol, I've seen it so often, I invite a friend who plays a game after reading about the Ultramarines. He's interested only to find his side sorely wanting. I try to explain the whole abstraction issue and show him the Marine miniatures. I get either a giggle or giant WTF!? (And yes, most people I game with have read about the universe before playing the game. I find it useful to cajol a friend into reading a book, reach their inner nerd, then get them to play with minis).

So begins the whole game playability abstraction/"it ain't the same thing discussion".

I believe it's better to keep the issue as two sides of the same coin at the most and pointless to reconcile with a constructive argument.

Uhlan wrote:Well, the abstraction is the problem where these arguments are concerned. Not just the ranges and limitation of the weaponry, but of the sheer difference in the odds of say, a 10 man squad of Marines vs. a hoard of Tyranids. Play it out on the table and read about such events in the fluff. There is no similarity and no amount of abstraction even reasonably represents the outcome.

Oh, stuff like ranges or morale are not even what I was referring to. I was thinking more about the numbers in the stats. Whilst a direct comparison is unadvisable, we can clearly gauge what is supposed to be superior/inferior to something else.

The biggest problem with the supposed gap between mechanics and fluff is that people tend to pick the most epic, legendary and exceptional events - at times out of some BL novel, even - and then try to present that as an accurate standard.
Hell, I've even seen people claiming the Movie Marines rules are supposed to be "the real thing", in spite of what the actual article (I've read it, just to confirm my suspicions) says.

Such grit and truthful tread this is!
I agree the army has many flaws. Some are bigger than others and nowadays 50% of tourney lists have grey knights.

Nurgle wrote:Such grit and truthful tread this is!
I agree the army has many flaws. Some are bigger than others and nowadays 50% of tourney lists have grey knights.

Grandfather speaks the truth....