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.

Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?

You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.

Guys, can we please avoid the ad hominem arguments in this one and just drop it?

 Dracos wrote:
Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?

What would you prefer? That when you insult and attack me I tell you to "get over it' and "knock it off', or some other response? I'm treating you like a peer and a friend. Kindly do me the same courtesy. I never attacked or insulted you. You insulted me, and I told you to stop.

 Dracos wrote:
You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.

Yes. Of course. When judging a subjective situation whose opinion do you trust? If I'm asking a medical question I give a doctor's input more credence than a plumber's. If I'm trying to figure out a wiring diagram, an electrician gets more credit if his thoughts conflict with those of a dentist. When I'm curious whether a Helldrake is unstoppable and unbalanced, do I ask the guys who regularly face them in tournaments and beat them, or do I take the word of someone who's speaking hypothetically? In point of fact I personally KNOW that they're not unbeatable, and relatively easy to take out for several top armies, so I don't need to ask a third party whether the guy claiming that they're super-broken knows what he's talking about. I'm well aware that he doesn't.

I never insulted or attacked you personally. I responded to your false arguments and pointed out why they are false. You then attacked me personally my insinuating I have some personal issue that makes me need to "get over" myself.

You seriously can't see the difference between refuting the basis for an argument and a personal attack?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who got hostile and rude first. How about we drop that and get back to the discussion?

So what criteria are you using to determine that codex units that are more powerful than others are actually less powerful relatively than a few units in all the IA books?

You are simply using the authority from a few posters. You have no objective basis for saying one is worse.

The problem is that you are trying to make this subjective, when it should be objective. If you can't come up with an objective reason, maybe you need to concede that you are really just going on what a very good player you know told you.

Glocknall wrote:

Simply saying 6thed sucks and GW is bad at rules is not a valid argument.

The fundamental point is that the Warhammer 40,000 was not designed nor intended to be a tournament ruleset, the studio staff came right out and said so at their Open Day event last year, and the fundamental balance reasons for not allowing Forgeworld units are rather baseless when the game isn't designed for that type of play in the first place and with the inclusion of the allies rules allowing certain armies to allies with others on no consistent basis and allowing units in armies they were never (and still aren't) designed to work with/have access to, the balance aspect for arguing against allowing Forgeworld falls out the window.

Sure when it launched it was a mess but the ruleset is getting tighter with every codex and FAQ released and many people like myself are really enjoying it. How on earth do you balance something in less than a year when your have 14 or so factions and infinite number of possible army lists? These arguments are coming from the same people who dislike flyers, hull points, and oher 6th ed changes and instead of adapting as so many of us have done they are sticking their heads in the sand.

I don't dislike the concept of flyers, rather their implementation and the scale at which they're represented. Hull Points are an issue that is plain to see on tables with light/medium vehicles becoming increasingly rare unless stupendously cheap, and with the Eldar codex allows wargear that downgrades Penetrating hits to Glances on a 2+ seems just fine to most players because penetrations simply aren't necessary since vehicles now act as T6-10 models with a W characteristic and no armor saves. But those are other threads altogether. Fundamentally, 6E is not a tournament designed ruleset, if you're going to play it and disallow some thing just because they're in different books, that's rather silly.

You're not arguing the actual rules of multiple barrage honestly. Yes you can scatter on the first shot, but with 12 shots (4 HIT!) in total you can literally walk back the template to hit the unit your shooting for.

Depends on how well you roll but yes, in theory that's possible...but there's nothing new about that, that's been possible under every single iteration of the Thudd Gun's existence going back to 2nd Edition and was possible when re-introduced in 4E (and would have in 3E had it been around).

Using Prescience your getting even more hits.

This requires an allied psyker likely costing ~100+pts sitting there in the backfield babysitting the guns, so you're talking about something costing more than a Land Raider in total to pull that off.

Multiple Barrage is very potent and since wounds are allocated from each template placed you can literally pick out specific models in units and snipe them out.

This is about the only thing I can really see being an issue. That said, Between squads of 10 BS5 48" sniper drones, lots of eldar units able to allocate on 5's or even every shot, nob biker units often forcing 6-8 allocating hits, etc, such allocation gimmicks are quickly becoming rather commonplace and it's about the only time you'll really see it from most IG armies.

-Shrike- wrote:
I never understand all of this fallacy stuff.

Anyway, Vakthathi, it's not how OP it is, it's trying to resolve 12 barrage blasts using 6th Ed. rules. As even Peregrine said, he would probably limit it because of the timed nature of tournaments, and that takes up a lot of time.

That could make sense, but then, if we followed that to its logical conclusion, we'd have nothing but Deathwing and Draigowing lists at GT's, certainly no Ork Hordes and the like

 Dracos wrote:
Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?

You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.

I value the opinion more in this thread from those that play in tournaments including the big GTs. The argument for collateral damage is weak considering in a 'friendly' environment you can just decide not to play a game and you lose absolutely nothing.

Dracos, please give examples of what objective criteria we can use.

And what objective argument does anyone have for how powerful something is? Math hammer? Tournament results? None of that is objective. So what we have is player experience. Therefore when we are trying to determine what experience holds more weight, in the opinion of many it is going to be that of top tournament players. That does not mean other people don't get a say in the matter though. One thin I think many people fail to realize is that top tournament players are playing a different game than more casual tournament players, who are playing a differen game than guys playing in their personal game room. I'll say right now that I am in the middle category of hose I'm a casual tournament player, as such I'll defer tithe experience of those top players when it comes down to how something will effect top tournament play.

Mannahnin wrote: Ease of access to the rules is one. Another is the time factor, where being introduced to/reading the rules for IA units adds another time demand to events already tight on time.

The issue with this line of thinking is that it should then also apply to units/armies found in WD's.

One can't walk into a shop and pick up the rules for Sisters of Battle, one can't order them from GW or download them without resorting to piracy or buying the rules off Ebay 2nd hand. Yet nobody would suggest banning them. Dark Eldar were in the same situation for years for a while there and they never had such complaints. Dakkajet rules are only available from a direct-order online store just like FW rules as well, yet this line of thinking isn't extended to such units.

It's a rather muddled situation there as a result.

Those are excellent points.

I think that 98% of forge world is fine and I would be ok playing with it.

The problem lies with the other 2%. This part is what breaks the game by being unbalanced and what a lot of players would gladly take to a tournament.

Here is the problem:
#1, You will never get anyone to agree on what units are broken.
#2. There are so many units in all of the FW books that every FW-allowed tournament a new broken unit rears its head so a banned list would be reactive until after there is a problem.

That is why I am against FW at tournaments because unfortunately would I rather penalize the good 98% then have the bad 2%.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Dracos, please give examples of what objective criteria we can use.

I can think of two approaches. I find it likely there are additional ways of analyzing that I did not think of.

1) Mathematical analysis of the unit overall. There are many different ways to approach this, but picking one and offering an explanation would help.

For example, if two heavy support options available to a particular army are near identical but one is 50% of the cost, it would be obvious that they are not appropriately costed.

2) Comparison of how many times a particular unit is selected by high finishing armies versus selected overall.

For example, if every player brings a particular unit scores particularly well, it is evidence that the unit has some sort of inherent advantage.

There are certainly problems with both approaches. For instance, a mathematical breakdown of the unit suffers from being done in isolation, and a performance evaluation suffers from a bias in the individuals selecting it.

However, both approaches are leagues more appropriate than simply citing some authority who agrees with your position.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I think that 98% of forge world is fine and I would be ok playing with it.

The problem lies with the other 2%. This part is what breaks the game by being unbalanced and what a lot of players would gladly take to a tournament.

Here is the problem:
#1, You will never get anyone to agree on what units are broken.
#2. There are so many units in all of the FW books that every FW-allowed tournament a new broken unit rears its head so a banned list would be reactive until after there is a problem.

That is why I am against FW at tournaments because unfortunately would I rather penalize the good 98% then have the bad 2%.

Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I think the issue is less with it being more broken than x unit and more that ig for instance with FW can now take broken units in multiple slots, fast, heavy, troops, that are all under costed in a way that lets them be spammed more than equivalent broken units.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.

I can't build anything that can counter what FW IG can bring.

If you look at all of the posters here that are tournament regulars most think that 6th edition is close to balanced. FW throws off this balance.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.

I can't build anything that can counter what FW IG can bring.

Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.

I can't build anything that can counter what FW IG can bring.

Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.

I once again refer you to the army list that was built a few pages ago with bubblewrap, CCS, LC, Aegis Defence Line, etc. which basically saw itself camping in a corner and bombarding everything else to pieces. I have to admit, it's a pretty OP list except for the fact that they basically won't be able to capture anything. But why bother when you can just table your opponent?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.

The problem with the thudd guns isn't their power (heavy mortars are usually better), it's the incredible difficulty of resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon according to the rules in 6th. It was bad enough in 5th that I always used my thudd guns as heavy mortars just to simplify the resolution, and now in 6th you have to keep track of all 12 template locations AND resolve 12 sets of "closest model" for wound allocation purposes. And then you probably have to argue over 12 sets of how many models are under the template, or whether shot #7 was slightly closer to the melta gun or the random bolter marine. So you have a 150 point unit that does more than an entire green tide army to slow the game down, and the only limit on how many you can bring is whether you're willing to give up all your heavy support slots. It's quite easy to imagine an IG army that just camps on the objectives and uses thudd guns to stall long enough that the game ends before anyone can kill the blobs.

And it's not really out of nowhere, I've been using thudd guns as an example of "why 6th sucks" since I first read the new barrage rules. People have just started being more aware of it since it's been a subject of discussion outside of "why 6th sucks" threads.

Breng77 wrote:
Therefore when we are trying to determine what experience holds more weight, in the opinion of many it is going to be that of top tournament players.

The problem here is that nobody has experience. Nobody has ever played in a high-level competitive metagame where FW rules are legal and have been legal enough for the metagame to adapt to them. Every single comment about how FW units are overpowered and will ruin the game is based on nothing more than speculation and theoretical analysis about what might happen.

(This of course is why WOTC never bans cards without extensive tournament experience proving that they need to be banned.)

 Mannahnin wrote:
Peregrine does not attend any large tournaments, and may not even attend local ones. This is largely an academic argument for him, as participating in tournaments is not part of his hobby. His army is Death Korps of Krieg, one which is not presently allowed at nearly any tournament.

Except here's the problem with that: I love competitive games (of all kinds), and I want to play in large tournaments. This is not just an academic argument, I have a personal stake in the debate over whether people should adopt house rules that effectively ban me from participating. If tournament gaming is not part of my hobby it is only because other people are stubbornly saying "you are not welcome here".

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.

I can't build anything that can counter what FW IG can bring.

Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.

I once again refer you to the army list that was built a few pages ago with bubblewrap, CCS, LC, Aegis Defence Line, etc. which basically saw itself camping in a corner and bombarding everything else to pieces. I have to admit, it's a pretty OP list except for the fact that they basically won't be able to capture anything. But why bother when you can just table your opponent?

I acknowledge all of that but it won't defend against everything and means squat to half the stuff I mentioned. Bubble-wrap and aegis up all you want, a Heldrake won't care, Terrify and/or Psychic Shriek won't either. Poisoned weapons ignore the T7 and the cover won't matter unless the unit goes to ground in which case it isn't shooting the next round and the guns don't benefit. CCS orders fail 42% of the time on an Ld7 thudd gun battery. Bubblewrap likewise won't last forever and likely is made up of one's scoring units. Tabling an opponent is easier said than done, and the Thudd Guns aren't exactly capable at taking out vehicles, while unless you roll exceptionally well they also aren't going to be particularly effective against stuff like Terminators, Wraights, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.

The problem with the thudd guns isn't their power (heavy mortars are usually better), it's the incredible difficulty of resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon according to the rules in 6th. It was bad enough in 5th that I always used my thudd guns as heavy mortars just to simplify the resolution, and now in 6th you have to keep track of all 12 template locations AND resolve 12 sets of "closest model" for wound allocation purposes. And then you probably have to argue over 12 sets of how many models are under the template, or whether shot #7 was slightly closer to the melta gun or the random bolter marine. So you have a 150 point unit that does more than an entire green tide army to slow the game down, and the only limit on how many you can bring is whether you're willing to give up all your heavy support slots. It's quite easy to imagine an IG army that just camps on the objectives and uses thudd guns to stall long enough that the game ends before anyone can kill the blobs.

And it's not really out of nowhere, I've been using thudd guns as an example of "why 6th sucks" since I first read the new barrage rules. People have just started being more aware of it since it's been a subject of discussion outside of "why 6th sucks" threads.

That's really an issue of fiddlyness rather than the unit being broken itself however. But the method of laying down and placing the templates is no different than it was 2 editions and 7 years ago, only the wound allocation has really changed which, while fiddly and potentially time consuming, isn't an issue with it being broken. If we're going to get into issues why units shouldn't be allowed because of time constraints, lets talk about Ork Hordes moving and shooting and running and piling in during CC steps and whatnot.

One has to remember, this is a unit that came out almost the exact same time as the last Eldar codex did, and people are just now starting to complain that it's awkward and fiddly and overpowered? It's kinda odd to just see that all of a sudden.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One has to remember, this is a unit that came out almost the exact same time as the last Eldar codex did, and people are just now starting to complain that it's awkward and fiddly and overpowered? It's kinda odd to just see that all of a sudden.

No, it's not new at all. Like I said, I've been counting my thudd guns (bought because they're a cool model) as heavy mortars since 5th edition because the barrage rules were such a pain to deal with, and I've been using thudd guns as an example of why the 6th edition barrage rules are stupid since the day I got my 6th edition rulebook.

If we're going to get into issues why units shouldn't be allowed because of time constraints, lets talk about Ork Hordes moving and shooting and running and piling in during CC steps and whatnot.

The difference is that horde orks are an entire army archetype, and arguably the most fluffy one. You can't really take them out of the game without a lot of unhappy ork players. Thudd guns, on the other hand, are barely (if at all) better or fluffier than heavy mortars at the cost of a huge increase in time and complexity. Banning them has a negligible effect on IG players (as long as you let them count the models as heavy mortars) while removing a lot of potential for TFGs to deliberately slow play their way to victory.

I just have never heard/read/seen anything about people having issues with them until the last couple weeks so it's been rather odd. If they were there, I certainly missed them, overwhelmingly people preferred the Heavy Mortars, and, as least as far as I can see, usually still do as they have a high Strength, better AP and larger blast.

That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.

I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex. Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again. I'm guessing the answer will be no.

And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward. Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.

Peregrine I find it funny that you keep bring up wotc seeing as their tournament system is equivalent of having separate fw and non fw events. Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards. So sayin your excluded from events because you choose not to play without fw is equivalent to me complaining that every mtg tournament in my area is standard and I don't want to play with the new sets. If you wanted to play fw in a big event those events exist, and for those that don't want them non-fw exist.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.

I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.

I can't build anything that can counter what FW IG can bring.

If you look at all of the posters here that are tournament regulars most think that 6th edition is close to balanced. FW throws off this balance.

This is not a knock against you, simply a counter point to what you said. Sure the new sixth edition codices look very balanced with maybe Tau as a possible exception. The thing is there are still some fifth edition codices (Grey Knights, Imperial Guard and Space Wolves) that some still view as not balanced. Some say that sixth edition has inherently brought these three armies in line - I am not going to argue that but on the other hand I don't necessarily believe that to be true. So for those that do think they are over powered and under costed should they be banned as well? Basically you are supporting the re introduction of wide spread comp for 40k. How would you feel if you found out that a big event you were planning to attend banned Grey Knights because the TOs felt they don't belong in a competitive environment?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.

I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex. Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again. I'm guessing the answer will be no.

And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward. Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.

I've been avoiding this thread, because well, the sidelines are safer and have popcorn, but I have to chime in a bit . You keep lamenting thudd guns you say because of how hard/slow they are to resolve.

They arent.

Use them a couple times, and they're just like anything else, they don't take much time, and you get used to it. Providing you don't argue with your opponent about the minutia of every scatter direction (roll close to where you're at!) they resolve very, very quickly. Heck, if you miss they get even faster since all scatters resolve off the first hit. You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.

I used thudd guns at the Adepti-Team event as RITIDES mentioned, and though I was semi-joking when I apolgized to Nate about using them, they are very abuseable/too good for their points. That match unfortunately was just bad for Nate's team based on the lists outside of the thudd guns, which he mentioned as well. After all, only one team member (me) could have thudd guns, and both of our tables won with basically the same score. Heck, though we won teams I was on dropped the most points throughout the event! I think if you let something like FW in you 0-1 a choice from FW, and you probably also restrict players to 1 forgeworld choice period. 1 Unit of thudd guns isn't that bad - it's like a thunderfire or two, or shadowweavers, etc., but 9 is silly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.

I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex.

Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.

Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again.

I really haven't ever had much of an issue on either side (shooting them or being shot at by them), though admittedly I haven't seen them played in a large tournament yet. I have however dealt with all sorts of other sillyness like CC engagement radii, wound allocation, etc and I just don't see it being that much worse aside from the aspect of nearest-model wound allocation.

Instead of banning the unit outright it could also be much easier resolved by a relatively simple unit FAQ for the event saying that for the sake of time just use the original hit location for wound allocation only or something like that.

And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward.

Not in my experience, especially when it came to multi-AP application and the opponent figuring out the best order/allocation for themselves, it wasn't uncommmon for even experienced players to take a couple minutes trying to game it.

Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.

Most of the time people don't even do a single scatter right, so if the multiple barrage is messed up a bit because it's fiddly, I don't think most people will complain. At worst just set a rule saying "should any issue arise with template placement, defer to your opponent's judgement" really should suffice.

Target wrote:
You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.

No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).

The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.

Breng77 wrote:
Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.

The difference is that:

1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.

2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.

Target jumped in before me....

9 pages of arguing over yes or no. As a GT player I don't really care if they are there or not. There has never been 1 unit in any game (except fateweaver in 5th) that has made me lose a game. You take your pieces, and push them towards his pieces and you roll dice. You either win or lose based upon your strategy compaired to his, luck of dice, etc.

MVB is absolutely true in my opinion that the "top players" who support FW units see another "bow in the quiver", "bullet in the gun" to use. I will take whatever I feel to be the best prepared list for my playstyle against the meta and mission packet. If that involves "thudd guns" so be it. If that involves 5 landraiders and that fits my playstyle so be it.

LISTS ONLY MATTER IN A GAME WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING SOMEONE CLOSE TO or EQUAL TALENT, OR ARE HAVING BAD DICE LUCK.

So let them in or don't, players will still see what is on the other side of the table and have to respond.