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.

zoat wrote:I was rather assuming Chenkov as part of the package as well

Oh, well yeah. Then it would be.

In any case, as conscripts aren't going to be doing very much killing, you have to judge it by its strategic impact. Having guaranteed captured/contested objectives at the end of the game is something that nothing else in the codex can accomplish, and is rather sassy, in theory.

I want to continue to re-iterate the importance of having a few pieces of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the field as a key feature in having a meaningful game. Without something that forces movement and gives some protection, the gunline armies you continue to face will just murder any of the infantry units you put in the field, be they conscripts, platoons, or armored vets.

I also don't fully understand the conscripts as you have them in your most recent army. You're paying 300 points for 160 points worth of guys, plus the cost of Chenkov. What if Chenkov dies early (not rhetorical, I don't know the rule)? Does that cause problems? In the best case scenario, I see a "conscript sandwich", in which a front mass of conscripts advances, followed by platoons. The conscripts take the hits and get pulled, the platoons get a little further than normal, and you bring in conscripts to claim your rear objectives. But what if they don't shoot at your conscripts? What happens if the conscripts actually get across the board? They have Ld 5, so at first contact they'll just break and run. If I had to choose between shooting at platoons with a 5+ cover save that can get something done, and bare conscripts without a cover save, there's no question, I'm still shooting at the platoon. If the conscripts are delivering some characters with combat power (priests/commissars), that's a different story, but then SITNW isn't really doing you a lot of good in that case. Why don't you just buy more conscripts and keep some in reserve instead of messing with fiddly rules. You could start with more units on the board (or not, as you choose), but wouldn't have to take a unit off in order to use your other units.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like you could potentially make real use of Creed. Maybe an army with Creed and 4 shooty blobs (one for each order) + supporting units. You would have the option of scouting or outflanking one of them to give you a bit more mobility as missions required.

 Ailaros wrote:
Allies allow a player to make a mockery of game balance if they want to.

Allies are the game balance.

It's you who is doing the mocking.

Biophysical wrote:I want to continue to re-iterate the importance of having a few pieces of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the field as a key feature in having a meaningful game. Without something that forces movement and gives some protection, the gunline armies you continue to face will just murder any of the infantry units you put in the field, be they conscripts, platoons, or armored vets.

I still don't see it. What we'd be talking about is units that, at worst, will have to make a single round of movement to adjust their fire. If the firepower is on vehicles, it's likely that their firepower isn't even going to be seriously reduced by this movement.

Plus, the farther upfield something is, the harder it is to hide behind. You see the same principle in optics. My thumb is big enough to obscure the sun from 3 feet away, but once you get to 300,000 miles, you need something the size of the moon to actually obscure the target.

What we'd need here, then is some really huge pieces of terrain, which I will agree that my FLGS is somewhat tragically lacking.

Biophysical wrote:I also don't fully understand the conscripts as you have them in your most recent army. You're paying 300 points for 160 points worth of guys, plus the cost of Chenkov. What if Chenkov dies early (not rhetorical, I don't know the rule)? Does that cause problems?

Firstly, you're paying 300 points for hypothetically up to 1120 points of guys.

Secondly, when you take chenkov, it unlocks the ability for conscripts to take the upgrade. As such, chenkov doesn't need to survive for SiTNW to work. I certainly wouldn't be bothering if he needed to stay alive for the rule to work.

Biophysical wrote:In the best case scenario, I see a "conscript sandwich", in which a front mass of conscripts advances, followed by platoons. The conscripts take the hits and get pulled, the platoons get a little further than normal, and you bring in conscripts to claim your rear objectives. But what if they don't shoot at your conscripts? What happens if the conscripts actually get across the board? They have Ld 5, so at first contact they'll just break and run. If I had to choose between shooting at platoons with a 5+ cover save that can get something done, and bare conscripts without a cover save, there's no question, I'm still shooting at the platoon.

I'll not spoil my next battle report (especially when it's going to come out in just a few hours), but this exact situation happened in the game I played last night.

Biophysical wrote:Why don't you just buy more conscripts and keep some in reserve instead of messing with fiddly rules. You could start with more units on the board (or not, as you choose), but wouldn't have to take a unit off in order to use your other units.

Well, firstly, I don't have the models.

Secondly, four conscript squads are four conscript squads. Two consctript squads with SiTNW are somewhere between two conscript squads and fourteen conscript squads.

Thirdly, my DZ is already crowded enough. I like that SiTNW allows you to bring in guys slowly over time, rather than all just one big lump. Furthermore, being able to put guys on the field without making a reserves roll means that I've got much more control over the reserves situation. More dependable that way.

Biophysical wrote:The more I think about it, the more it seems like you could potentially make real use of Creed. Maybe an army with Creed and 4 shooty blobs (one for each order) + supporting units. You would have the option of scouting or outflanking one of them to give you a bit more mobility as missions required.

The problem with regular infantry platoons is that they don't survive long enough. It doesn't matter how you upgrade them if they're just thrown off the table.

DarknessEternal wrote:Allies are the game balance.

It's you who is doing the mocking.

Oh, bah-ZANG!!!

Seriously, though, do you really think that the person writing the tau codex took careful consideration to how game balance would be affected if they were allied to GK? Of course not. Intra-codex balance is difficult enough, and inter-codex balance is already pretty flimsy (thank you matt ward). Allies throws on the next exponential level of complexity to game balance, to a level which rather seems impossible to achieve. If players are interested in a balanced game, then they will have to balance the game by their choice of allies. If players are only interested in winning, then they will attempt to exploit this lack of balance as much as possible.

Yes, it is possible to use allies to make weak, old codices stronger, but it's also possible to combine two strong codices to make things that are ultrastrong. It's not doing a service to older codices. All it's going to do it to replace "play THE codex to be competitive" with "play THE primary/secondary combination to be competitive". It's only a matter of time before there is even LESS diversity in the tournament environment.

 Ailaros wrote:

Seriously, though, do you really think that the person writing the tau codex took careful consideration to how game balance would be affected if they were allied to GK? Of course not. Intra-codex balance is difficult enough, and inter-codex balance is already pretty flimsy (thank you matt ward). Allies throws on the next exponential level of complexity to game balance, to a level which rather seems impossible to achieve. If players are interested in a balanced game, then they will have to balance the game by their choice of allies. If players are only interested in winning, then they will attempt to exploit this lack of balance as much as possible.

Yes, it is possible to use allies to make weak, old codices stronger, but it's also possible to combine two strong codices to make things that are ultrastrong. It's not doing a service to older codices. All it's going to do it to replace "play THE codex to be competitive" with "play THE primary/secondary combination to be competitive". It's only a matter of time before there is even LESS diversity in the tournament environment.

These are the basic rules now; like it or lump it.

Do you really gain anything complaining about why people shouldn't be using allies? How far are you going to extend this criticism? No one should use fortifications? The Assault Phase?

Where do you draw the line at your version of "true 40k" and why should anyone but you be subject to it?

I'd like to introduce you to the writings of David Sirlin.

:-) Didn't play you this league, but might Sat at the Tournament if you're going... Playing my BA (Fleshtearers) this league, but I honestly think you have the tools to make for a competitive force. Your Manticores, 1-2 would I think do a number on the Mech forces, especially the Necron and GK stuff I see a lot of. Yes, you'd have a harder time dealing with 3+ armor, but with the exception of my army, there seem to be a LOT of vehicles that would have a hard time there... But I'm a fan of Artillery :-)

Your old Al Rahim (? I forget his name, My Praetorians don't use them...) with loads of Melta flanking would terrify a lot of folks... Losing the ability to assault out of reserve sucks, but... But the overload of DE/GK/Necron stuff hitting the table seems like it spells the end of assault guard...

I must as well disagree to what you said to Allies, Ailaros.

Yes, it is possible to use allies to make weak, old codices stronger, but it's also possible to combine two strong codices to make things that are ultrastrong.

This is imho even theoretically not true. Lets say we have a top 5 of codices:

1. Codex A
2. Codex B
3. Codex C
4. Codex D
5. Codex E

Now if I have Codex E, which is the weakest, I can mitigate my weakness if I ally with Codex A. Agreed.
But if I have Codex A, what sense would it make, to ally myself with the weaker Codex B?
And what sense does it make to take a primary detachment of Codex B to ally with Codex A if I can have Codex A completely anyways?

So if the difference between the codices is so high, why would an alliance be beneficial? Since the strongest codices shouldnt have specific weaknesses. Thats why they are the strongest...
So having allies will bring difference, but not improvement in strength.

Second problem with allies is, you have to buy a HQ and a troop and then you have limited access to units, so spam is not possible. This is also more in favour of the difference and less in favour of the quality...

Kind of... You are just comparing letters... If codex A has the best Troops, and B has the cheapest or best fliers? Not all of the Codexes have a best of anything... It's a bit more complicated... :-) For me, that is the problem, the ability to override the designers internal balance (if any :-)) for each codex... The illustrated GK/Necron list above was a bit to the "let's bring out the All Star Team" for me... But :-) Just my opinion as always...

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
I must as well disagree to what you said to Allies, Ailaros.

Yes, it is possible to use allies to make weak, old codices stronger, but it's also possible to combine two strong codices to make things that are ultrastrong.

This is imho even theoretically not true. Lets say we have a top 5 of codices:

1. Codex A
2. Codex B
3. Codex C
4. Codex D
5. Codex E

Now if I have Codex E, which is the weakest, I can mitigate my weakness if I ally with Codex A. Agreed.
But if I have Codex A, what sense would it make, to ally myself with the weaker Codex B?
And what sense does it make to take a primary detachment of Codex B to ally with Codex A if I can have Codex A completely anyways?

So if the difference between the codices is so high, why would an alliance be beneficial? Since the strongest codices shouldnt have specific weaknesses. Thats why they are the strongest...
So having allies will bring difference, but not improvement in strength.

Second problem with allies is, you have to buy a HQ and a troop and then you have limited access to units, so spam is not possible. This is also more in favour of the difference and less in favour of the quality...

Codex A Best Melee Army
Codex B: Best Long Range Shooting Army
Codex C: Best Fliers
Codex D: Best Short Range Shooting Army
Codex E: Best Mid Range Shooting Army.

So I Play army A. I have amazing Melee and will crush you in close combat. I am the dominate army atm and only really lose to long range firepower due to me having to cross the board. So I decide to take Codex B's best shooting units as allies. Now I have improved my army by making it both a great melee army and a good shooting army. Who cares if fluff wise the two wouldn't work together, I'm only here to win.

Except that the people who wrote the fluff have dictated how well A and B will work together.

If only fluff matched reality...

-Nazdreg- wrote:But if I have Codex A, what sense would it make, to ally myself with the weaker Codex B?

So, other people have adequately addressed this, but I'd like to throw in another way of thinking about it. Don't think of the individual codices as billiard balls that can only be interacted from the outside. Allow for transparency of the codices.

For example. Let's break up each codex into different power tranches. For example, the flier part of the IG codex may be good, but the mech part may be only okay, and the foot part might be bad. Remember, you don't have to ally an entire codex, you can ally just the best part of that codex.

So, let's take your ranking system and add this nuance. It might perhaps look more like:

Codex A - part 1
Codex B - part 1
Codex C - part 1
Codex A - part 2
Codex B - part 2
Codex A - part 3

etc.

As such, a person who only played codex A would be able to choose from the best part of the game, the 4th best part, and the 6th best part. If a person chose codex A allied with B, they could pick the best part, the second best part, and the 4th best part. In this case, the person who allies will have a stronger list. In a game with such tiny margins for error as 6th ed appears to be, this might very well be noticeable.

Meanwhile, if you took an army that only had access to the 6th, 12th, and 16th choices, being able to add a single element of the best thing would still leave you far, far behind the two best codices allying together. If the point was to help older codices become more competitive, they haven't. At least, not in an environment where people play competitive to the utmost.

pchappel wrote:Your Manticores, 1-2 would I think do a number on the Mech forces, especially the Necron and GK stuff I see a lot of. Yes, you'd have a harder time dealing with 3+ armor, but with the exception of my army, there seem to be a LOT of vehicles that would have a hard time there... But I'm a fan of Artillery

Yeah, manticores would probably be the most sensible route to go here, especially as they are conveniently the exact same price as the deathstrikes.

Of course, there is the overhanging shadow of fliers, which means I should in theory put in hydras, but they're so bad against so much stuff (including some fliers)... I don't know.

pchappel wrote:Your old Al Rahim (? I forget his name, My Praetorians don't use them...) with loads of Melta flanking would terrify a lot of folks... Losing the ability to assault out of reserve sucks, but... But the overload of DE/GK/Necron stuff hitting the table seems like it spells the end of assault guard...

I did actually miss Harker in the next game after this one, but al'rahem is just SO expensive in a list that is already under-upgraded due to lack of points.

If Al'Rahem's conscripts outflanked when they SITNWed, perhaps, but still, where do I get the points from?

In any case, the new codices are just one of many, many reasons assault guard is dead.

DarknessEternal wrote:How far are you going to extend this criticism? No one should use fortifications? The Assault Phase?

This conversation has been going on now over a couple of my battle reports and over several other threads on dakka recently. I think I'm going to have to write a longform essay about what I've figured out so far.

I think at the end of the day it comes down to player intentions. In a world, where winning games overshadows thematic/fluff lists, I don't think anyone should be at all surprised by the person who likes to make and take the most powerful list. But who doesn't like to win? We all like to take that powerful unit(s) in our lists. You see a lot of debate about the difference between casual play and tournament play and trying to set a code of ethics for each and what that entails. The problem is there is no universally accepted definition for what a casual game means or entails. Obviously this Batrep would fall under the "casual" game category in that (as far as I know) it is not part of a tournament nor is it a game in preparation for a tournament.

Here's the issue as I see it:

There are obviously two mindsets going on here: one is focused on taking a theme-list and optimizing it to fit the current rules. The other is focused on discovering how well the theory hammer of taking units already known to be powerful actually play/synergise with one another. The problem is that these two mindsets clash and it is pretty obvious which one is gonna win the day. One is trying to discover its place, while the other knows its place and is merely exercising its authority. In this you could say it is an unfair battle. Unfair, but perhaps necessary. The only way you're gonna optimize your list is to take it up against lists that are already optimized (you probably know this). But I think you also need to consider that maybe certain themed lists have their limitations: the theme itself. Unfortunate, but true to an extent. I have played a few more games recently and did take a big blob in my recent one, but I am starting to see its limitations in a broader scope. Fortunately it was supported by a good deal of armor (so my list wasn't necessarily a themed list, but I was able to extrapolate how things would have gone had I of taken that second blob and dropped w/e). Basically what I am getting at is that when it comes to some themed lists they will do well in certain scenarios, but they just don't have the scope of power that optimized and tournament-tailored lists have.

In casual games I think this has to be addressed before the game begins. The players should come to terms about how they define what casual game means and how they can come to a compromise on how they'll play the game. At the end of the day the casual game should be fun for both players. This I think we can all agree to be truth-fact. Maybe it was agreed upon to test an army list (either one), or it wasn't. Either way, when you see your army get stomped you're gonna be a little disheartened to say the least. Honestly I think one way around this is to tell the opponent what armie(s) you'll be playing. You'll both have an idea of what to expect and can tailor your lists accordingly. Tailoring might be frowned upon, but if both parties are able to do it, then everyone should be on an equal footing in theory.

Actually, there's something else entirely that's going on outside of the fluff v. winning axis.

As you get better, and you want to keep ramping up the challenge, there are two ways that you can do this. The first way is to fight harder opponents (with harder lists). The second is to play with a weaker list yourself.

The first way of doing this is the most common, but it's also the worst. It's bad because you pretty quickly run into a ceiling in 40k. The strength of a list only gets SO high. The ability to manipulate odds with player skill only gets SO fine (and, certainly, easily overtakes the coarseness of the random mechanic of the game). Trying to be competitive by being as strong as you possibly can against the best players you can fight is really unsatisfying. The reason is because you wind up bonking into the luck ceiling, because it's a game of dice.

This was all so frustrating that it made me quit 40k. In the meantime, this strategy basically runs over everybody else who doesn't want to play competitively in the first place. I know I made more than a couple of enemies in my 5th ed days.

Meanwhile, the handicap method is far, far superior. Unlike there being a limit to the amount of strength you can have, there is virtually no limit to the amount you can handicap yourself. Moreover, handicapping sets the bar further back before you wind up running into the fact that 40k is a dice game. And you get the benefit of doing strange stuff, and coming up with new things. And you don't obliterate casual gamers.

And, in the end, there is much more to be gained by "Wait, you won a game against that opponent with THAT terrible army?" than there is in "Oh, it was a draigowing mirror match and one of you won". The latter is a matter of who rolled better. The former betrays real skill.

It would be a grave mistake to consider me as only a casual player. I very much believe that it is possible to be both competitive AND have a fun game, but those two concepts are something that you really have to keep separate. Yes, competition keeps the game fresh (and thus fun), but it is possible to have a fun competitive game just as it's possible to have a boring competitive game (just as it's possible to have a fun or boring casual game).

My mentor in this regard is the above poster pchappel. Were it not for my proclamation in the next game, he would definitely be my favorite opponent. While he does sometimes go for the most face-pounding lists possible (cf. my face getting pounded by DoA in this game), more often than not, he takes a decent list with a bunch of strange stuff in it (cf. this game). I respect my opponent way more for drawing me in the second game than beating me in the first. The first game says nothing more than "I, too, can field the most powerful list in the game at the moment". The latter says "I can still be awesome, even with a bunch of random junk".

So, the moral of the story isn't actually a straight-up fluff vs. competing thing. The story is fun vs. boring, while at the same time a dialogue about what the best way to be a competitive player is.