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.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Arondight wrote:
If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

That army is made of pure win!

I have to agree I really want to see what a Hello Kitty Chariot looks like.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Failed Terror tests
That super unit (Blood Knights with the ward save banner and the regen banner) or (Bloodthirster with *anything*)
A souped up character beating the snot out of a unit
A really nice shot with a cannon/stone thrower
Repeated casting of certain spells (warp lightning, conflagration of doom)

Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....not going to happen without support. And I can always ensure said characters regiment meets one of my own with a character in it.

A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

Amen Mad Dok!

Super units are avoidable, and my dwarf cannons had the habit of overloading the powder (rolling a 10 for the distance fired) and hitting nothing at all.

And the same goes for 40k. You can take your Lash Prince every game or your maxed out Lootas, won't mean you win all the time.

Well Mad, these cases seen to make sense, and at the risk of getting in the sandbox and sounding like a child, here I go...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

The last tournament I was in I got zero blocked by an Ork player for playing a black dragon, it made a flight move caused 6 terror checks, 4 of his units ran and the rest of the game was a single charge and bolt throwers cleaning out the rest. I don't think a terror causer is the ultimate weapon, or even unfair necesarily, but it absolutely shapes the game in some games, and it has nothing to do with maneuver or clever play at all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

Unless they fly, or have a banner that ignores rank, most of the effective big points units have a gimick. Even still, I admit your point is somewhat valid, things can be countered with good play, I always said the maneuver game is cool, but at least explain to me this, why is there NO DIFFERENCE between a Goblin unit of 25 and a unit of 50? They both have the same rank bonus right? They both have the same front line attack when charged, and they both fold up on the morale role after losing a few models... Once you have 4 ranks of 5 you don't need anymore models, and bigger units have no additional melee advantage, which is absurd for a rank game.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....

Sounds good on the surface, but this is really blatantly wrong, who charges a character into rank bonus 5? Every time I faced the bretonians the single surviving knight model goes for a warmachine crew, or an archer unit, or another single character, and when that kind of teeny unit breaks the giant blocks of +5 rank bonus next to it sometimes leave because of morale. Furthermore what happens when that character is a dragon or a greater demon, that has flown down the flank, ended up enfalade to your whole army and is negating your rank bonus of 5? Yea, all those block units are worthless then. Sounds good on paper and here in the forum, but character hammer works great in practice.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

I have to blast you on this one. Cannons, particularly great cannons can character snipe by aiming on the ground. They are absolutely devastating, they hit, bounce and they kill the general/wizard in a single shot right out of a unit? It's game winning. They come in 3s in some armies.... I have seen entires armies of VC go down this way in turn one... Not only that but they don't even have fire arcs, which is ridiculous for medieval artillery which have to be blocked in, they have a 360 fire arc? The volley gun can shoot 30 shots in a single missfire? That's more shots than an average bow unit for a whole game, even if rare, when it does happen it wrecks a game! A warp lightning cannon can shoot through a hill? An imperial Mortar uses the big blast circle from 40k? Even misses will kill entire units at a time? Skaven have flame throwers? In a Rank Game? You can't seriously expect to claim that artillery is not gimicky can you? Furthermore how does blocked medieval artillery shoot at high flying monsters? They elevate? A Great cannon isn't a medieval cannon, it plays more like an 88 flak in practice with elevation and a 360 fire arc and it is ridiculous.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

Agreed, for the gun powers, I'm not talking about shooting style magic, I'm talking about the kind of spells that wreck the maneuver game, and they are all over. Like free moves, like regenrating/summoning new undead units, I'm talking about bretonian magic that has no range or LOS restrictions, so it doesn't matter where your caster is, and spells that can make your mount carry your general off the table, or teleporting.

The block maneuver game is a good game, it's common to all sorts of wargames, like ACW, Napoleonics, medieval and ancient games of all sorts, it is where all the block maneuver tactics come from that fantasy has. But when the crazy fantasy elements are added it circumvents that too often. That's when WHFB becomes a questions of whose gimmick works better instead of who maneuvered the best...

Okay. Here we go again. Not trying to pick on you in particular, just trying to clear up what I consider to be misconceptions...

Terror. Causing 6 tests is something of excellent positioning on your part, and exceedingly poor consideration on your opponents behalf. Him failing 4 of them is extremely unlucky (Orcs have Ld7 basic, meaning they should pass over 50% of Terror tests). This is an extreme result and cannot be used to prove anything. The only time Terror won me a game outright was equally bizarre. Hydra lurking in the woods (old Dark Elf book mind!) Bretonnian Bus, containing General, BSB, Damsel and something mental like 12 other models, turns to face. Damsel uses Lore of Beasts (might have been the Lord version now I think about it, but regardless) and casts the movement spell. His unit is so long, that despite being near the middle of the table, the unit is a mere 8" from his edge. In order to make the charge, the Spell specifically states you follow all normal rules. He fails his Terror, and rolls 10" for his flee, taking the entire unit off the board. This isn't skill. This isn't a broken rule. This is sheer, unadulerated jamminess on my behalf!

Most of the effective big points do indeed have a 'gimmick' as you put it, which generally calls into play the BSB being in said unit (and there are far better places to stick him, I can tell you!). And again, I say for the points sunk into the unit, it had better kick seven shades of snot out of most enemies. After all, I sunk a quarter of my total available points, often more, into that unit.... How is this gimmicky? I've chosen to put all my eggs in one basket, gambling it's going to pay off. Because, if it doesn't, I am well and truly buggered. Big stuff can *always* be dealt with. Whether my opponent has brought something which can do so effectively is not a fault of the game!

If there is a single surviving Knight....well, he can take on the Artillery all he wants. Generally it's cheap enough to not really matter, and by the time I've chinned a Bret unit down to a single model, I'd expect the Artillery to have had it's innings! Character Hammer, unless including a Dragon or similar big gribbly, simply does not work in experience. I really don't mean to belittle you here matey, but trust me. I know what I'm on about, and by your own admission, you don't really play Fantasy all that often.

And then you go on to state Artillery has too good an effect. Fliers no longer fly high. They are described as swooping along the ground. Think the Fell Beasts in Return of The King attacking the Gondorian Knights. Fairly easy to hit with a Cannon. 360 line of sight...why not? It's pivoting, and an abstraction. If Artillery had restricted vision it would never be used. Plus, generally, Artillery has three turns, possibly four if your really lucky, in which it has it's say. The ones you listed really aren't as bad as you make out. The Skaven Warpfire Thrower, for example, gouts the flame a totally random distance, and has a short range (18" assuming you roll the 10!) and cannot move and fire, nor, IIRC, can it stand and fire. Thus, it's only going to get one or two cracks of the whip before it's knacked! Imperial Mortars. I also have an extensive Empire Army, and the Mortar really, REALLY needs the big template. It's pretty inaccurate, and low strength (S3,-1 to saves). I've had direct hits off it in the past (combination of skilled guessing and favourable lack of scatter) and never have I achieved more than taking out a complete rank. Now, the Hellstorm, if the bloody thing ever manages to hit the target can mess an enemy unit right up, but as I said, getting a palpable, solid hit is sheer luck. I mean, I make my guess, then the overshoot, THEN the Scatter. Artillery is very much not Gimmicky. For it's lack of reliability, it's expensive. Plus, it is often competing for Special and Rare slots, limiting access to tastier ranked up units which are more assured of making their presence felt. Again, if I have artillery, it's generally in an army where it really should be expected. If you have failed to take units suited to hunting down these small, vulnerable units, thats neither my fault or the design of the game!

Magic....well, Undead really need their Necromancy spells, and as I demonstrated last night just using 5 Dispel Dice, locking down his Magic Phase can be catastrophic. I don't know if you've noticed, but Skeletons, for what you get (a poor fighter, lightly armoured) are extremely expensive (9 points with Spears now I believe...Dark Elf Spears are cheaper and infinitely better!). Magic have no range or LoS. Oh well. I'm taking on Bretonnians, I expect it and anticpate it. Other than my Savage Orcs, I never leave home with less than two dispel Scrolls, and I personally don't believe in Lvl1 Scroll Caddies. Using these, and my dispel dice and/or Magic Resistance cannily, I can predict his Magic Phase and more or less decide in advance what I'll allow him to have.

Manouvers trump Gimmicks every single time in Fantasy. Yet every army has it's definite strength, and an exploitable weakness. It takes the player to exploit both of these, and mitigate them as well.

Though you do raise an interesting point about 25 Gobbos being arguably just as good as 50 Gobbos. You are kind of right there, barring your oversight of an enlarged Panic threshold! However, Gobbos as with most Infantry, have no cap on the number of units. Instead of a single block of 50, go for 2 of 25. Even without the second Command Group, your still much, much better off. However, in the Rules Discussion of Fantasy, I have brought this up today as a discussion topic, so feel free to join in!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Here we go again. ... 'gimmick' ... I say for the points sunk into the unit, it had better kick seven shades of snot out of most enemies. After all, I sunk a quarter of my total available points, often more, into that unit.... How is this gimmicky?

Indeed.

Perhaps I am playing the wrong game.

If julius Caesar were a warhammer character he would have 6 attacks at S6 with killing blow from the Gladius of Imeprial justice and...

I'm kidding here. I'm just trying to make the point that in other wargames Generals are great because of their command ability, but in warhammer they lead charges and fight, and that fantastic elelments are often very powerful. That's what I generally mean by gimmicky. I concede that others may see this as the element with the most appeal, and I am not saying that is wrong either. It's just a big reason why I don't like fantasy and the heart of all the points I made earlier.

I actually think the same thing, when a Daemon/Carnifex flips a tank over in WH40K.

(Also, imagine if you will, that occsionally, I try to play devil's advocate in the forums, in an inteligent manner, because I think the discussions are interesting.)

No, fair enough. Thankfully I thought to point out I wasn't having a go myself, so all is well.

Thing is, a General in Warhammer is a *Fantasy* hero. They are meant to lead by example with feats of derring do and the overcoming of horrendous odds etc. And their Ld Bonus can make a real difference, and is often the main reason I rarely bother with Spell Casting Lords. I'd rather have the extra fightiness and the Ld boost than some spells which may or may not make a difference.

And I really think thats the crux of the appeal to me. In 40k, for example, a Dreadnought can wade into infantry and be reliably immune to the return attacks. Pick the right squad, and you are laughing. But in Fantasy, it's rare you are genuinely in a lose lose situation in a combat!

I would just point out that a lot of the time (not all the time though) squad upgrades mean a normal squad kitted right can deal with mister Dreadnaught. Tau and Tyranids are the exceptions here. The other point is that with squads being so mobile in 40K, avoiding the Dread is a lot easier than avoiding a superunit in Fantasy.
I think fantasy is at it's core a fun game, what bugs me is that all of my armies have difficulty fielding what I see as fun, background focused lists against my opponents more ganky, abusive lists. I used to enjoy it before they started with the extreme builds, now it just frustrates me. The reason I like 40K more at the moment is that my lists can be background sensible, look good on the tabletop, and have a good chance against anything from Nidzilla to Khornate Daemons.
This may be my local play environment, and others may be more fun. But it does seem to me that fantasy strongly encourages ganky, frustrating, one dimensional builds to a greater degree than 40K at the moment, and there are serious power imbalances.
I was delighted when they reduced the range and effectiveness of terror, and I was very happy with the Orc book when it came out. Now I'm looking at the ganky lists my opponents are using with a fair amount of distaste and not playing.

Augustus wrote:If julius Caesar were a warhammer character he would have 6 attacks at S6 with killing blow from the Gladius of Imeprial justice and...

Actually he is a character in WH40K, he is called Murderous Killgear, OOps, I mean Marneus Calgar.

I would like to say I like 40K because there is less of the gimmick type stuff, but with the evolution of 5th and rules exceptions for things like combat squads and sternguard and characters changing whole armies around like fleet for everyone, or mastercrafting everything. I don't know if I can really make that claim entirely justified.

Furthermore with the massive change to the WHFB style CC morale checks in 5th, where every dead model counts against you as a combat resolution modifier I really get the sense that they are a lot closer games now than they ever have been.

Gimmick arguments aside.

I still like the mechanism for the missions better in 40k though than I do in WHFB, where the mission and setup always seem to be the same, as in set up 12 in and then play a meeting engagement (last man standing VP type of fight). I like that in 40K missions are often times fights for objectives and there are more ways to set up than just in big lines, quarters, staying off board, outflank and deepstrike etc.

Da Boss wrote:...fantasy strongly encourages ganky, frustrating, one dimensional builds to a greater degree than 40K at the moment...I'm looking at the ganky lists my opponents are using with a fair amount of distaste and not playing.

That's to bad. I certainly agree, however, depending on who you ask, I think you might get that exact same issue from people who don't like 40k because of army builds...

I think if I played Imperial Gaurd or Necrons I'd be feeling sorta the same about 40K. It's not that these armies can't win, it's that they force you to play in a couple of very definite ways to win. I like armies that are flexible and have a lot of diversity. When Fantasy is played that way, it's really fun. But currently with my armies of choice (Common Orcs and Goblins, Ambush Beastmen) and my opponents armies (Daemons, Undead, All Cav Brettonians (which I can beat but am sick to death of playing against because every fight is the same) and MSU Elves) it's no fun for me. I understand that my arguments are very local and personal, and accept entirely that fantasy is not inherently worse than 40K, just explaining why I've stopped playing. It was my main game up until about 16 months ago, when the new books started infesting my play environment.

I think thats an important part of the appeal of any game, the style of it.

40k suits fast play, and certainly, since it was made largely objective dependant, it appeals a lot more to me. However, I still love Fantasty BECAUSE of the Battle Types. It works beautifully for pitched battles, and lends itself more to my style of campaigning (map based ala Mighty Empires), whereas 40k is much more of a Narrative thing, with the games not so much representing landgrabs and expansionism, as wresting control of critical locations to better control vast areas.

Still, each to their own, but I highly reccomend persevering with Fantasy!

Augustus wrote:The block maneuver game is a good game, it's common to all sorts of wargames, like ACW, Napoleonics, medieval and ancient games of all sorts, it is where all the block maneuver tactics come from that fantasy has. But when the crazy fantasy elements are added it circumvents that too often. That's when WHFB becomes a questions of whose gimmick works better instead of who maneuvered the best...

To be fair, that's why it's "Fantasy", not "Ancients"...

But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

JohnHwang: I think you've just summed up a lot of my problems in one go.
Though I still enjoy the fantasy aspects, I'd prefer it if the system didn't encourage you to mess with it to negate stuff and win.

Da Boss wrote:JohnHwang: I think you've just summed up a lot of my problems in one go.
Though I still enjoy the fantasy aspects, I'd prefer it if the system didn't encourage you to mess with it to negate stuff and win.

Blame it on the game developers and there terrible Army Books. They write the army books to sell models, period. They will break, bend or mutilate what ever rules they so choose in order to appeal to gamers. The "New Shiny" syndrome.

Augustus wrote:Maybe Im playing the wrong game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:To be fair, that's why it's "Fantasy", not "Ancients"...

Yes indeed. Touche.

I like 40k because It has gunz unlike da fantsy gunz

JohnHwangDD wrote: But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

So basically the game is terrible because you can't adapt to some of these simple problems that come up when playing. I guess you want 6 inch movment, 24 inch shooting, 3+ armor saves all around.

@Dice: And Monkey-Boy calls *me* a "troll"???

No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S
____

Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

komando wrote:I like 40k because It has gunz unlike da fantsy gunz

Fantasy does indeed have guns. And not just your poxy handguns either... Flame Cannons, Organ Guns, Hellcannons, Leadbelchers, Repeater Bolt Throwers, Ratling Guns, Warp Lightning Throwers

Try standing a Space Marine in front of that lot and see what happens.

Hmm... didn't I start this thread by being anti-fantasy? Focus Flashman, focus!

That SM should do just fine. He's basically the same as a Chaos Warrior on foot...

This also happens to be a 40k board....I think if you posted something like this on say, Ulthuan or Bugman's you may get different answers.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

So basically the game is terrible because you can't adapt to some of these simple problems that come up when playing. I guess you want 6 inch movment, 24 inch shooting, 3+ armor saves all around.

Wow. He actually played the "Use Tactics" card...

I agree with JohnHwangDD in this instance. In addition, the sheer amount of rules exceptions that are packed into a single army book boggles the mind. I play Brets (and I field lots of peasants, thank you very much), and I'm frequently SOL against Undead and other fear-causing creatures with my Ld8 (maybe a 9 on the biggest Lords, Ld7 on those units without Paladins). Fantasy is OK in a casual setting, but I also find the "fiddliness" with movement, angles, and other nonsuch to detract from the game - and I do know that's all part of the allure, for some.

That's why I prefer Ancients if I'm going to push blocks around, using the same warhammer basics, and it plays so much more interestingly to me without all the "fantasy" elements.

As a 40k player, it is more forgiving on set-up, plays a bit faster and looser, and most if not all of my games tend to be very close (whereas my WHFB battles tend to roll down hill really fast, or can be pretty much over if you've botched deployment in some way)

I have have to agree with you about games ending suddenly. Playing an army of orks with my dwarfs, after about two turns his entire army was in rout. All because of a few lucky shots from my war machines. But usaully for me i don't have enough time to finish a game, not vice versa.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

I disagree with you Mad Doc. A terror causer has the ability to run a unit off the board without even fighting it. That's good by itself. But you can also stack the odds in your favor with certain armies (the Masque, Lore of Death, Doom Totem). Suddenly your armies good leadership isn't so great. And when I say win the game, I don't mean flat out end the game right there. But if you manage to eat your opponents largest/best unit because of a terror-charge ... then what is left? The rest is just mop up with all of your army vs. only part of his. That's game winning.

The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

Yes they should but certain units can become too powerful. The example I'm thinking of is graveguard with the regen banner. The whole unit gets regen *and* you can bring them back. Oh, and they get regen against crumbling. That's way too powerful.

A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....not going to happen without support. And I can always ensure said characters regiment meets one of my own with a character in it.

I never said the character went in by himself. Of course he has a unit to support him, so his kills add to their static CR. :S

A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

I'm talking about when the cannon kills a dragon or a super character. That's a 90 pt cannon vs. a much more expensive character.

Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

True. But it only takes one casting of Van Hels Danse Macabre to really mess up your opponents plans. Similar movement spells also apply here.

And now WoC can make a whole unit disappear with Infernal Gateway. The fact that that is even possible boggles my mind.

If someone does have a uber death character you just shoot it. I managed to kill a chaos lord on a dragon with only 20 handgunners and a great cannon. I'm quite suprised the cannon hit as it usually misfires or overshoots. After that was gone he didn't have much left. If you have those uber powerful characters you can't bulk out on troops, and troops win you the game, not characters. Characters are only there to give your units a little edge.

I don't know about that, some characters are much more valuable than troops because they either: confer a great special ability or they are very killy.

Besides, it is easy to stick that chaos lord in a unit of knights so that he gets a Look Out Sir! roll.

JohnHwangDD wrote: @Dice: And Monkey-Boy calls *me* a "troll"???

I would never do that. Trolls , good ones anyway, actually never appear to be trolling. You always seem to be flailing wildly running head first into tardsburg.

JohnHwangDD wrote: No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

So because you can only make a fist you are angry when other people make a sheet of paper to beat you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

I would start with a Hireling Wizard Lord, Arsarnil, a paymaster and the goblin hewer to start.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S

So you play 2nd edition?

JohnHwangDD wrote: Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

Like your wonderful, they don't sit still and let me beat them tantrums. How dare they use rules in their book, how dare they out general you and make your ego wang suffer shrinkage. It's ok it's not your fault, it is obviously the game is defective because you can't win.

Cruentus wrote:
Wow. He actually played the "Use Tactics" card...

No it's more like you are bitching that people do not sit and let him auto win, when it is obviously the fault of the evil game designers that those meanies who don't let him win. I am a bad person too instead of offering his ego a hand job I call him on his BS.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

So because you can only make a fist you are angry when other people make a sheet of paper to beat you.

No, I'm angry because so many Fantasy players such as yourself are giant flaming hypocrites for claiming that the game is "better", while doing everything possible to negate or avoid dealing with those factors which supposedly make it "better".

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

I would start with a Hireling Wizard Lord, Arsarnil, a paymaster and the goblin hewer to start.

So:
- a lot of Magic - which must be the General
- a Flying, Terror-causing Monster
- the mandatory sack
- a mean War Machine.

Now, let's go back to my initial complaint and see what happened:
Psychology? We just give up by taking a Ld8 Wizard Lord instead of a Ld9 General. Worse, we're still saddled with the Paymaster and his unique liabilities that can potentially case the entire army to break and run. Yay.

Movement? The Dragonlord pretty much ignores all of the Movement restrictions that Fantasy is known for. The Wizard and Paymaster are Characters who always Skirmish. The War Machine doesn't move, but when it does, it basically Skirmishes slowly. So much for wheeling and reforming and so forth...

Ranks? No comment on block infantry, aside from the given fact that a Flying Dragon is pretty good for stripping Rank bonuses on a Flank Charge. Notionally, the Wizard and Paymaster *could* join block infantry, but we never got past the Character selection phase.

So really, you're just re-proving the stereotypical point that competitive / good Fantasy armies focus on avoiding those rules which pretend to make for a better game, focusing on Characters for Herohammer-style play. Yay.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S

So you play 2nd edition?

I did. Nothing to recommend there.

But FWIW, my Eldar are Fleet, with short-ranged guns. Guard are Sv5+. And Marines are mostly Jump Infantry. Only my Sisters and CSM are close to being MEQ-like with 6" move, R24" guns and Sv3+ - and they're my smallest armies.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

Like your wonderful, they don't sit still and let me beat them tantrums. How dare they use rules in their book, how dare they out general you and make your ego wang suffer shrinkage. It's ok it's not your fault, it is obviously the game is defective because you can't win.

Another lame, no-content attack-type response? Yeah, you're driving home how the Fantasy R better...

Yep, winning in both game systems is based on breaking rules. Funny how pretty much every sustained encounter of civilizations in world history was based on a similar model. If you want diversity of approach, you get rule breaking. Pretty simple really.

Also, just because it shocks me, I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with John (horror, of horrors!). Though that may simply be because Dicemonkey can't seem to enter an argument without referencing a phallus.