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.

Drager wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.

Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.

These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.

Spoiler:

You can only take one Patrol for each Primary detachment you have, though.

Also I will need to reread the rule regarding having a hand of over 10 cards - I can't remember if you had to immediately discard if you drew over 10, or if you would be unable to draw if your hand would go over 10.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the proposed broken strategy would be to take a full super-heavy detachment of let's say Baneswords and Stormlords, load them up with guns, assign them the <Armageddon> subfaction, and spam a bunch of company commander-led detachments full of Conscripts to draw up your cards.

2x Stormlord 3x Banesword, all with 4x THBs/LCs in a Superheavy Detachment - 150PL
Company Commander+Conscripts in a Patrol = 5PL
Company Commander+3x Conscripts in a Battalion = 11PL

If you wanted to squeeze that into 200PL, you could get 3x Battalions and 3x Patrols in there and then spend your extra 2pl on some antipersonnel weapons for a couple of your superheavies. So that's a draw of 13 cards, make sure to put your two "Search your Deck" cards (one generic one IG specific) in the deck and you're pretty much guaranteed to have Industrial Efficiency in your hand turn 1, though its worth noting you will NOT have it turn 2 because it'll be discarded.

With 240 bodies, even having to pack pretty densely for apoc you could probably corner deploy and keep your tanks from being damaged at least in melee turn 1.

Seems like a pretty powerful strategy, and something to think about "how can I beat something like this". On turns when the big boys get their double shoot card, they're laying down 19 big blasts against tanks and 17 big blasts against infantry. That's a LOT to deal with - reliably knocking down 3 knights in a turn if they want to

A couple thoughts I have about counterstrategies:

1) Officers are pretty flimsy, typically only a single small blast is required to kill them as they have a 10+ save. Each officer wiped is 2 fewer cards drawn, and they only get the possibility of the double fire card back when their deck runs dry. If you were forced into a position where you were just trying to weather and outscore the baneblades, you could wipe the 6 officers with a relatively small amount of effort, and they only have two cards that could allow the officers to survive, Look Out Sir and the "remove a single blast" one. Directing a normal army's anti-infantry fire exclusively at the officers would relatively easily wipe them, though they will undoubtedly be trying to hide behind terrain and the tanks.

2) The rule that states a unit cannot be affected by a command asset until another command asset affecting them is fully resolved does give us a small bit of solace since Industrial Efficiency states it lasts until the end of the turn. That means that cards like Armor of Contempt would not be usable to save a baneblade from focused fire. At W5 Sv6+ LD5 a baneblade isn't super durable as superheavies go. A big boy knight gets an extra wound, 2 extra LD and a 5+ instead of 6+ against large blasts, as an equal cost comparison.

My main strategy would be to focus all fire I can on officers to slow down card draw after turn 1, try to focus my antitank fire on whatever baneblade type is more threatening against the units I've got left after the initial barrage, and prioritize hunkering down on objectives because turn 1 my opponent is certainly doing nothing to control objectives.

If I am able to take out 2 baneblades and at least 3 officers turn 1 with my full army, he's not getting his double-fire card back until turn 4 at the earliest, and I don't think 3 single firing baneblades alone can serve to table the other 2/3 to 1/2 of my army. Guard don't actually have a ton of other shooting buffs that aren't subfaction-locked, and the other armageddon card is useless for baneblades.

An Aimed Firing knight Castellan with no cards puts down 3.32 big blasts against tanks. A fully decked out double firing stormsword puts out 5. If they fire at each other, both has the same .66 chance of failing morale, the stormsword takes 3.43/5 wounds of damage and the knight takes 4/6.

It is a cool trick, for sure. But you are in essence structuring your whole list around dealing about ~30% more damage than just a rando stock knight, who happens to be coincidentally about ~30% more durable than you.

I know this is a simplification, and in reality the IG player would get some other cards with which to do damage, the knight player would have a draw of probably around 3-4 cards to have the possibility of getting a defensive card, etc etc. It's just intended to highlight how you've gone from approximately mutally assured destruction in two turns.....to approximately mutually assured destruction in 2 turns.

That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...

Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...

You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?

Ice_can wrote:

Drager wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.

Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.

These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.

Spoiler:

You can actually do it for 5 PL as it's 2+3, I was hoping their might have been some limit on numbrr of warlords or suchlike somewhere else in the rules that had maybe been missed, but it sadly looks like some house rules will be needed to keep the card farming in check already.

You can't get a fully functional detachment for 5, because you lose your faction trait if you take less than 3 units. It's probably worth the 1 PL to keep the ability to use the commander's leadership or a few more to do that and get another solid unit.

Lance845 wrote:Patrol detachments are specialist detachments. You can take up to 3 specialist detachments for every 1 main detachment.

Il have to double check tonight unless someone else can read the rules, but i think specialist detachments don't generate cards.could easily be wrong about that but i kind of remember it.

They do generate cards as far as I can tell (looking at the book right now).

I am not as worried about this as most people seem to be. Let's imagine you want to draw all 30 cards so you need 14 Company Commander warlords and 1 more warlord of any type. To get those most efficiently lets take a Battalion and 3 patrols for every 4 commanders. That's 2 + 3x3 + 3x(2+3) = 26 PL for 8 Cards. So we take that 3 times and are at 78 PL and +24 cards per turn (CPT)! But our army is made of a bunch of slow 1 wound units.... that's not great. we need another Battalion now to unlock the remaining Specialist Detachments we need, so that's another 11PL taking us to 89PL and +26 CPT. Now let's add a Supreme Command so we can use the cards we are drawing. 3 fully upgraded Tank Commanders is 48 PL, we'll make one of these the Warmaster and our missing Warlord. We are now at +27 CPT and 137 PL. Finally, we add one more patrol at 5 power, giving us +29 CPT (30 total with the free one) and that costs us 142 PL.

That doesn't seem very scary. Most of your units don't have ObSec can't use their commanders' leadership and die to a stiff breeze. Imagine you are being shot at by Kabalites in Venoms, for every rapid-fire shot at you you lose a commander (96% chance) and 8 PL puts out 3 Rapid Fire Shots. It wouldn't be surprising in a 150 PL game to see 10 such units at only 80 power, that on average kills all your commanders turn 1, or if you have deployed so far back they can't rapid-fire you with all of your commanders it kills half of them in a single volley. Then there's the rest of the list, which is likely geared to anti tank and eats the tank commaders. You get 1 big turn, sure, but then you get... nothing.

Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...

You are confused. There are 8 conscript squads, 240 models. Deploying in a corner you can absolutely screen against turn 1 assault if the tanks are in close formation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...

You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?

This is also true. Assault units' biggest advantage would be the ability to get themselves tangled up in the infantry squads, which would likely be the best protection they could have on the battlefield as the infantry would be very unlikely to hurt them and would most likely take a turn or two to chew through.

The big con of conscripts vs Infantry is most likely going to be their tendency to give up the ghost after two turns, rather than one.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...

You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?

No, actually i didn't know it was like this in Apoc. Thanks for the info.

Well that still looks like the loyal 65 is unfortunately going to be a thing in Apoc, why the Design team think IG should always have more orders when they are always a bureaucratic process driven inflexible juggernaut.

If anything they should be the last faction to be getting extra cards for just taking another joe with some gold braid.

Or just house rule it so specialist detachments dont generate cards. If you want a tiny strile team with minimum requirements that can act independantly then you can. But you dont get to draw an extra card for it.

Drager wrote:
That doesn't seem very scary.

Because tank commanders aren't the scariest thing. You should be buffing the LoW units. A Banesword battery of five tanks is 150 points and puts out a ton of shooting against vehicles (and becomes terrifying firepower with the Armageddon asset), and you can substitute Macharius Vulcans if you want more anti-infantry shooting. And artillery is also cheap. A master of ordnance is 5 points for a BS 2+ (because you always take aimed fire) 7+/7+ barrage shot with 100" range. A detachment of three with a company commander is only 17 points, which means your draw engine can also drop artillery shots anywhere on the table while keeping the officers safely out of LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
why the Design team think IG should always have more orders when they are always a bureaucratic process driven inflexible juggernaut

I don't think it's deliberate. I think GW just fails to understand that when you give out a resource based on how many detachments you have the armies that can spam cheap detachments will gain a significant advantage. The issue isn't the IG officers, it's the fact that IG have a 1-point unit and therefore can take additional detachments for only 5 points each. If you assume that people are only taking "fluffy" IG detachments then having officers draw an extra card per turn to represent the command structure is not a problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

Drager wrote:
That doesn't seem very scary.

Because tank commanders aren't the scariest thing. You should be buffing the LoW units. A Banesword battery of five tanks is 150 points and puts out a ton of shooting against vehicles (and becomes terrifying firepower with the Armageddon asset), and you can substitute Macharius Vulcans if you want more anti-infantry shooting. And artillery is also cheap. A master of ordnance is 5 points for a BS 2+ (because you always take aimed fire) 7+/7+ barrage shot with 100" range. A detachment of three with a company commander is only 17 points, which means your draw engine can also drop artillery shots anywhere on the table while keeping the officers safely out of LOS.

Now were up at 300 PL or above and everyone is drawing 30-50% or so of their deck. At this level taking your draw mechanic is less powerful so... Ok. I was trying to keep it to low points and use units people said they were worried about. I still fail to see this as much of a problem.

the_scotsman wrote:
1) Officers are pretty flimsy

Stat-wise they are flimsy. But remember that not being in LOS gives you a 1+++ against everything but barrage weapons, and even an IG draw engine that just hides behind cover all game is contributing enough by sheer card draw to be worth it.

2) The rule that states a unit cannot be affected by a command asset until another command asset affecting them is fully resolved does give us a small bit of solace since Industrial Efficiency states it lasts until the end of the turn. That means that cards like Armor of Contempt would not be usable to save a baneblade from focused fire. At W5 Sv6+ LD5 a baneblade isn't super durable as superheavies go. A big boy knight gets an extra wound, 2 extra LD and a 5+ instead of 6+ against large blasts, as an equal cost comparison.

That's not how that works. The rule is that you can't play an asset while an asset is being resolved, not while some of its effects are still active. For example, you can't respond to an orbital strike by giving one of your units a free move action to get it out of the blast radius. In the case of Industrial Efficiency the asset is fully resolved once it grants the rapid fire buff and both players can resume using assets.

An Aimed Firing knight Castellan with no cards puts down 3.32 big blasts against tanks. A fully decked out double firing stormsword puts out 5. If they fire at each other, both has the same .66 chance of failing morale, the stormsword takes 3.43/5 wounds of damage and the knight takes 4/6.

Think scarier, and remember how powerful the destroyer rule is. A double-tap Banesword is putting 8.888 blasts on a vehicle from its main gun alone, then another 1.777 or 3.555 (depending on if you're within 24") from its four lascannons. And it still has ten heavy bolter shots for infantry (or twenty, if you're within 18", but you probably don't want to be there).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Now were up at 300 PL or above and everyone is drawing 30-50% or so of their deck. At this level taking your draw mechanic is less powerful so...

Not necessarily. Want to take a titan or three? That's a ton of points invested in units that are giving you very few cards per turn. It sure would be nice to be able to spend an extra 75 points to draw +30 cards per turn...

For 75 pl Aeldari can get 15 patrols for +15. Assume then that you also have, say 5 real detachments for the remaining 225 power and you're drawing 21 cards a turn. Assuming you put in 3 tutors that's most like 22+. So like I said it's not too different.

Perri, I said big blasts. As in, 10 small blasts assuming single-fire lascannons (There is no deployment gap that's less than 24", so I find being in 24" of armored targets your first activation of turn 1 a little unlikely).

Double firing the banesword puts out 5.33 large blasts on vehicles, a regular aimed firing castellan puts out 3.33.

And that's assuming the Knight player brings no cards at all to help him. no Firestorm Protocols to let the knight double shoot, no benevolence of the machine god or Omnissiah's grace to cut the damage against him by 1/3.

You're also not remembering that other factions can easily play the cardspam game just as well. Orks have a full vanguard for 6PL that doesn't stop drawing a card until you kill all three meks who run around repairing vehicles and gumming up charge lanes. And everyone has access to Voxnet Subverted while several other factions have counter-stratagems.

A strategy that relies on having a single stratagem every turn and on having one particular order down on one particular incredibly vital detachment is exactly the kind of strategy that looks amazing on paper, and seems unbeatable when all goes well for it, but will not provide nearly as reliable success as you seem to think.



EDIT: sorry, fair enough, deleted.

the_scotsman wrote:
Again again, you can only take a single patrol for every other detachment.

Nope. You can take three specialist detachments for every normal detachment, not one. Also, the super-heavy detachment is a core detachment as well as the four you listed.

the_scotsman wrote:

Again again, you can only take a single patrol for every other detachment. You must have one

vanguard
battalion
outrider
spearhead

for every patrol.

Supreme command is also one per army, in case someone starts talking about spamming hqs for some armchair general reason.

It's 3 specialist per core. So 5 battalions 15 patrols is legit. Looking at the book right now.

the_scotsman wrote:
Perri, I said big blasts. As in, 10 small blasts assuming single-fire lascannons (There is no deployment gap that's less than 24", so I find being in 24" of armored targets your first activation of turn 1 a little unlikely).

You are correct, I misread that.

Double firing the banesword puts out 5.33 large blasts on vehicles, a regular aimed firing castellan puts out 3.33.

Of course it's also worth noting that the Banesword's double tap range is 70" and it can fire once out to 140", while the knight loses a ton of firepower outside of 48". Range matters.

You're also not remembering that other factions can easily play the cardspam game just as well.

Sure, but "other factions have broken stuff too" is hardly a compelling argument. I'm not claiming that this particular list automatically wins against any conceivable opponent, my point is that it's clearly out of line compared to a "normal" Apocalypse army and lists like this are a huge balance issue.

And everyone has access to Voxnet Subverted

Fortunately there are multiple options to put aimed fire right back on that detachment.

A strategy that relies on having a single stratagem every turn and on having one particular order down on one particular incredibly vital detachment is exactly the kind of strategy that looks amazing on paper, and seems unbeatable when all goes well for it, but will not provide nearly as reliable success as you seem to think.

But it's not really that much of an all or nothing strategy. The IG LoW options are good even without the full combo, the combo just makes it broken.

Drager wrote:


They do generate cards as far as I can tell (looking at the book right now).

I am not as worried about this as most people seem to be. Let's imagine you want to draw all 30 cards so you need 14 Company Commander warlords and 1 more warlord of any type. To get those most efficiently lets take a Battalion and 3 patrols for every 4 commanders. That's 2 + 3x3 + 3x(2+3) = 26 PL for 8 Cards. So we take that 3 times and are at 78 PL and +24 cards per turn (CPT)! But our army is made of a bunch of slow 1 wound units.... that's not great. we need another Battalion now to unlock the remaining Specialist Detachments we need, so that's another 11PL taking us to 89PL and +26 CPT. Now let's add a Supreme Command so we can use the cards we are drawing. 3 fully upgraded Tank Commanders is 48 PL, we'll make one of these the Warmaster and our missing Warlord. We are now at +27 CPT and 137 PL. Finally, we add one more patrol at 5 power, giving us +29 CPT (30 total with the free one) and that costs us 142 PL.

I think you forgot one minor thing. "Up to a maximum of 10"

 Dr Coconut wrote:

Drager wrote:


They do generate cards as far as I can tell (looking at the book right now).

I am not as worried about this as most people seem to be. Let's imagine you want to draw all 30 cards so you need 14 Company Commander warlords and 1 more warlord of any type. To get those most efficiently lets take a Battalion and 3 patrols for every 4 commanders. That's 2 + 3x3 + 3x(2+3) = 26 PL for 8 Cards. So we take that 3 times and are at 78 PL and +24 cards per turn (CPT)! But our army is made of a bunch of slow 1 wound units.... that's not great. we need another Battalion now to unlock the remaining Specialist Detachments we need, so that's another 11PL taking us to 89PL and +26 CPT. Now let's add a Supreme Command so we can use the cards we are drawing. 3 fully upgraded Tank Commanders is 48 PL, we'll make one of these the Warmaster and our missing Warlord. We are now at +27 CPT and 137 PL. Finally, we add one more patrol at 5 power, giving us +29 CPT (30 total with the free one) and that costs us 142 PL.

I think you forgot one minor thing. "Up to a maximum of 10"

Thanks! Missed that.

That's actually a misconception. One of the preview articles made it sound like you can only draw 10 a turn but that's not actually in the rules.
It just says that you have to discard down to 10 at the end of each phase, so you could draw your full deck and then discard whatever you don't want at the end of the orders phase.

Diversion83 wrote:
That's actually a misconception. One of the preview articles made it sound like you can only draw 10 a turn but that's not actually in the rules.
It just says that you have to discard down to 10 at the end of each phase, so you could draw your full deck and then discard whatever you don't want at the end of the orders phase.

Yup. As the current rules are written, the strategy of drawing up your entire deck and discarding down to the cards you want to have in your hand is legitimate. It seems like I can pretty comfortably get to a 30 card draw with a pure guard list using a 7PL detachment with 30-man conscript blob, an officer, and most likely an astropath as backup character/psychic power caster.

I've got the following list at 300PL:

Superheavy Detachment: 5 loaded up 30PL baneblades (Armageddon for doubleshoots)
Spearheard detachment: 1 Deathstrike, 2 manticore, 1 Master of Ordnance
Spearhead Detachment: 3 wyverns, 1 Master of Ordnance
Battalion: 3x 20-man conscripts, 1 officer
12x Patrols: 1 30-man Conscripts, 1 officer, 1 astropath

That's a 29-card draw at 300PL, which lets me get the following hand every turn:

-Doubleshoot armageddon strat for my superheavies
-Telekine Dome for my superheavies
-Pick a Die Result for the hour is now on my deathstrike
-Vortex missile
-Gunners Kill on Sight for my tanks
-Reroll 1s in shooting card for my superheavies
-Reload one-use guns for my artillery
-Look Out, Sir
-Voxnet Subverted
-Replace an order with Aimed Fire in case my opponent Voxnets me

That all sounds/looks pretty gosh-darn gnarly. I'm definitely going to look at what a standard 300PL tac list might have and see what I'd do if I were to come up against a list build like that one.

You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Or GW could actually be competent and design thing's in such a way that they aren't trivially easy to abuse.
Alot of competitive players do not like thet way certain mechanics work, as they also enjoy the fluff etc but they accept that the best way to build a list in 40k is soup and CP farm's.
We just wish GW would actually understand the complete issue and fix it.

I seriously doubt anyone that's contributing to this thread is going to play such a list it's about identifying the broken so you can prevent it, it's a solid methodology thats work for many industries for many years, why GW find it so dang difficult I dont know.

You can stand out and say players should self regulate to the fluff all you want, but it's far better if the game is just actually designed tested and balanced by the actual rules that everyone has instead of some internal moral compass, if that worked why does life need law's?

Ice_can wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Or GW could actually be competent and design thing's in such a way that they aren't trivially easy to abuse.
Alot of competitive players do not like thet way certain mechanics work, as they also enjoy the fluff etc but they accept that the best way to build a list in 40k is soup and CP farm's.
We just wish GW would actually understand the complete issue and fix it.

I seriously doubt anyone that's contributing to this thread is going to play such a list it's about identifying the broken so you can prevent it, it's a solid methodology thats work for many industries for many years, why GW find it so dang difficult I dont know.

You can stand out and say players should self regulate to the fluff all you want, but it's far better if the game is just actually designed tested and balanced by the actual rules that everyone has instead of some internal moral compass, if that worked why does life need law's?

Except those who complain and demand change immediately piss on anything done as, "Not enough" or "Too Much". Its always the same....its like someone pointing out that a machine gun can kill 20 people without much effort and then go into math about all of the increased abuses that can be done with said gun....they then demand that the stupid gun manufacturer fix all of these obvious blunders instead of....oh I don't know.....not having a human being lose their mind and pull the trigger?

 Da-Rock wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Or GW could actually be competent and design thing's in such a way that they aren't trivially easy to abuse.
Alot of competitive players do not like thet way certain mechanics work, as they also enjoy the fluff etc but they accept that the best way to build a list in 40k is soup and CP farm's.
We just wish GW would actually understand the complete issue and fix it.

I seriously doubt anyone that's contributing to this thread is going to play such a list it's about identifying the broken so you can prevent it, it's a solid methodology thats work for many industries for many years, why GW find it so dang difficult I dont know.

You can stand out and say players should self regulate to the fluff all you want, but it's far better if the game is just actually designed tested and balanced by the actual rules that everyone has instead of some internal moral compass, if that worked why does life need law's?

Except those who complain and demand change immediately piss on anything done as, "Not enough" or "Too Much". Its always the same....its like someone pointing out that a machine gun can kill 20 people without much effort and then go into math about all of the increased abuses that can be done with said gun....they then demand that the stupid gun manufacturer fix all of these obvious blunders instead of....oh I don't know.....not having a human being lose their mind and pull the trigger?

Or don't rely on the most reliable failure mechanism to prevent something from happening.
Their a people that are the reason we now have 18 drawings and words to tell you puting conductive things in live plug sockets is not good for your health. Or the warning that a kettle may contain hot water, an item which is designed to boil water needed a label to tell someone that it may actually be doing what it's designed for.

LOL!

True! :-)

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Dawg, if you think I'm considering running out and buying 1500$ of baneblades and guardsmen to dunk on someone in a game of apoc, you're crazy. And also being a needless dick with this.

A card that lets ANY detachment effectively fire twice with all their weapons is a little abusive, . Highlighting what happens when you give it to five superheavies is a good thought exercise to see whether it actually constitutes something super out of line.

I don't think I'll ever really face an army list like above, but I do think I might at some point face someone playing guard, using officers to draw a bunch of command cards and trying to draw what is obviously the most powerful card in the IG arsenal.

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Don't you think this is a bit excessive and insulting considering you're talking about people who just enjoy playing the game in a way that you don't enjoy?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Dawg, if you think I'm considering running out and buying 1500$ of baneblades and guardsmen to dunk on someone in a game of apoc, you're crazy. And also being a needless dick with this.

A card that lets ANY detachment effectively fire twice with all their weapons is a little abusive, . Highlighting what happens when you give it to five superheavies is a good thought exercise to see whether it actually constitutes something super out of line.

I don't think I'll ever really face an army list like above, but I do think I might at some point face someone playing guard, using officers to draw a bunch of command cards and trying to draw what is obviously the most powerful card in the IG arsenal.

On the one hand apoc is exactly where someone would and should have a detachment with 5 super heavys. And thats fine at that scale. It's sort of what it's built for. On the other hand if you are playing apoc at closer to the standard 40k scale of game nobody should have 5 super heavys. Someone having 1 or 2 should be the absolute tops.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Don't you think this is a bit excessive and insulting considering you're talking about people who just enjoy playing the game in a way that you don't enjoy?

Pretty much just +1ing peregrine's comment. For most of us we ARE just playing for fun. Learning and understanding a system in detail is fun for me and others. The same thing that makes me interested in deconstructing a list also drove me to understand DNA and genetics. If that's not fun for you, that's cool, but for some of us, it really is. Playing with these lists is also fun, but not to dunk on noobs. It's fun to test against someone else with a deeper understanding because that's how you learn new things and get better. That process of getting better and levelling up your ability is a strong draw for some of us.

Drager wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
You guys reaffirm it to me every day on the forums as to why I don't play with Tourny players anymore.

It is so good to not have to worry about dbag players pulling out mathhammer to abuse a game.....A Game! How bought you guys just play for fun and learn how to control yourself so you don't build lists like above?

Don't you think this is a bit excessive and insulting considering you're talking about people who just enjoy playing the game in a way that you don't enjoy?

Pretty much just +1ing peregrine's comment. For most of us we ARE just playing for fun. Learning and understanding a system in detail is fun for me and others. The same thing that makes me interested in deconstructing a list also drove me to understand DNA and genetics. If that's not fun for you, that's cool, but for some of us, it really is. Playing with these lists is also fun, but not to dunk on noobs. It's fun to test against someone else with a deeper understanding because that's how you learn new things and get better. That process of getting better and levelling up your ability is a strong draw for some of us.

If so, then why whine so damn much?