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.

People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

It doesnt't really matter as they can disembark from any point now.

Unbalanced armies.

Horribly points costs, and worse power level.

GW not being, in general, competent at game design.

But I like yours!

The players

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

The cost of the rules between editions and books

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

Glad I'm not the only one that twitches when I see rear door mounted lascannons.

The assualt ramp is for assualting from and a land radier technically only has one side door moddeled as functional.

Currently people using non codex soup options to complain about codex's being better than theirs.
People trying to twist rules where RAI is clear but GW fluffed the RAW.
That GW keeps spending way too much time and pages of a rule book and codex on fluff instead of just doing a good job with the rules.

Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

 skchsan wrote:
Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

whispering into the ether...

BCB

 Desubot wrote:
The players

Yup.

The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

Glad I'm not the only one that twitches when I see rear door mounted lascannons.

I'm with you, brother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the fact GW expects us to believe some of the "aircraft" in 40k can go supersonic...

The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

Leman Russ’ model not having a beard.

Mould Lines!

Seriously there is something soul destroying about spending hours and hours just scraping little lines off the model before you can even get the joy of putting it together (esp if its got really fine details on the line - like ridges on pipes or plasma cannon ridges or just ANY detail)

Flamers being the go-to anti-air weapon in the 41st millennium

Oh man...those mold lines on the plasma guns...


Oh, and the players who abuse RAI in the name of RAW.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

Dang it, not only have I never really liked the Russ tanks looks but I never picked up on that. Now it’s all I see when I look at one. Does it have road wheels behind the armor if you cut a 1/4inch or so of it away?

Codices. They’re so outmoded as a game aid their replacements are being replaced.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

This for me as well

 Desubot wrote:


The players

Exalted!

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

So, Dakka Dakka?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dosiere wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

Dang it, not only have I never really liked the Russ tanks looks but I never picked up on that. Now it’s all I see when I look at one. Does it have road wheels behind the armor if you cut a 1/4inch or so of it away?

The Leman Russ' lack of suspension is mainly because it was based on WW1 tanks which had...no suspension.



It's not an oversight (a terrible design decision for actually making a tank? sure...)

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The attitude of, "If my army is not the top-tier, all-tournament-winning army, it's trash."

I think the greater problem has to do with GW's design methodology encouraging such binary distinctions. Things are so offensive that there's little functional utility to be had in the game than raw wound output and the delivery systems to ensure the can be used as early as possible, and those values tend to be universal and clear cut in a game where raw volume tends to supercede all. You either can annihilate your targets in the first turn, or you simply cannot function in the current meta. The above attitude is the only one that gets to exist in a tournament environment because there's no leeway for other forms of utility or usability to develop.

Simply put, there's no reason for that attitude to change until GW designs less around just taking models off the table, and instead around a good nuetral game. But good nuetral play is hard, so good luck on that one.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Flamers being the go-to anti-air weapon in the 41st millennium

...it isn't? Anyway. Things that bug me about 40K. Ridiculous statements.

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

Marines know how to duck.

skchsan wrote:Hardcore RAW types and IG players.

Lance845 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The players

Yup.

^-fosho-^

WAAC jerkwads who bring Rowboat to an 1800pt game and then want me to rematch 2 weeks later against the same list.

Unpainted fakeworld models and the people who ask me if my legit stuff is counterfeit like theirs.

Unpainted models in general. while I understand not everyone has the time & money (if you're chasing meta then I have no sympathy) to do it all.
I take the time to paint all my stuff and would like it if my opponents would do the same.

Anybody that complains about something they have zero control over. I don't bitch & moan about taxes even tho I don't want to pay (as much).

My biggest complaint simply comes down to GW not being consistent. They seem to rule on confusing/contradictions by throwing a dart at a board and going with whatever it says, or simply say "discuss it with your opponent first, but remember to have fun."

They have gotten better recently, but still.... bah. lol

 chromedog wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

The Land raider pattern doesn't matter. Every pattern should have the weapons on the front hatch.

Because otherwise the guns would have to stop long enough for the disembarkation (a transport shooting it's own passengers ass they disembark would be a bit too wasteful even by Imperium/Chaos standards)

Marines know how to duck.

In the case of the Crusader pattern in particular that'd be an impressive display of limbo skills.....

Rampant hatred of armies other than ones they own.

"My codex can't do that so yours shouldn't either!"