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.

 jonolikespie wrote:

rothrich wrote:

What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?

What page numbers in the codex suppliments say you need permission?

Wrong way round actually - the entire game is permission based.

I can refuse to play against your blue painted orks because I think they should be painted green. Nothing you say will alter that, so we wont play a game.

Once you realise that fact, the whole supplements / FW / et al "legality" issue goes away.

Then you forfeit the tournament, hooray!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

rothrich wrote:

What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?

What page numbers in the codex suppliments say you need permission?

Wrong way round actually - the entire game is permission based.

I can refuse to play against your blue painted orks because I think they should be painted green. Nothing you say will alter that, so we wont play a game.

Once you realise that fact, the whole supplements / FW / et al "legality" issue goes away.

That's blatantly ignoring the issue though. Yes you can not want to play someone for whatever reason but ignoring the option to simply pack up and go home your opponent can legally bring a titan and drop it on the table with no more than a 'oh yeah, you get +1 for the initiative and some extra VPs if you kill it'.+



Man.. over the last like 3-4 months I've found myself thinking 'hey, I should do a heavily WWII themed IG company/Infiltrating Raven Guard/Pre Heresy Iron Warriors siege force/Alpha Legion army/Pre Heresy Night Lords/Deathwatch allied detachment/Inquisitorial army' but every time I put more than a little bit of thought into it I wind up back here commenting on how broken the meta is and wondering why I am even trying :(

I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.

Here's the narrative:

A SM expeditionary force comes across a planet occupied by smaller Tau and Eldar forces. The SM descend on the planet to be annihilated because the Tau and Eldar decided to team up to take on the SM. Maybe the SM will just by-pass Tau and Eldar forces in the future unless they have far superior numbers.

Sam no has to either buy a new army or refuse to play Ted in the future if he takes certain units. Ted must now either de-power the list (buy more stuff), pull his punches or simply not care and destroy people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That's blatantly ignoring the issue though. Yes you can not want to play someone for whatever reason but ignoring the option to simply pack up and go home your opponent can legally bring a titan and drop it on the table with no more than a 'oh yeah, you get +1 for the initiative and some extra VPs if you kill it'.+

Packing up and going home means you are basically aren't playing the game, meaning your probably going to start getting bitter about the game, especially if it happens repeatedly.

Barfolomew wrote:
I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.

Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.

jasper76 wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:
I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.

Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.

Not if Ted only has the one army, or that was all he brought to the store.

jasper76 wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:
I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.

Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.

While you are correct there, there is a factor that is as yet unconsidered in this scenario:

Let's call (so that I can remember who I'm talking about) Sam "Newbie" and Ted "Veteran".

So, the story goes either as above or like this:

-Veteran uses his Taudar list, but pulls his punches, and coaches Newbie through the game (as he should).
-Newbie with his SM plays several games against Veterans who don't want to crush is army just yet, pulling punches, not using cheese.
-Newbie plays other Newbies, and gets a feel for the game.
-Newbie invests a large amount of cash into similar kinds of units to what he started with (it's what he's comfortable with)
-Feeling that he is now fairly capable as a player, he decides to join a tourney, away from his regular group.
-The tournament players with their cheese lists roflstomp Newbie's army in almost all cases, breaking his faith in the Emprah.
-Realising that is army is actually fairly ineffective against competitive lists, Newbie regrets all that time and money he spent on what are currently inferior units.
-A couple of years later, Newbie has rebuilt his army with better units (costing him quite a bit), and can now play well against the Veteran.
-7th ed comes around shortly thereafter, Newbie buys the £50 BRB, the £30 SM codex, and makes his list.
-Newbie realises that his expensive army reconfiguration was an utter waste of time, as now those units are inferior, and he must start again.

This won't always happen, but it does sometimes.

Selym, that's a totally plausible, perhaps common, scenario. But that seems to have more to do with the cost of models and the frequency of rules releases than any specific rulebook or codex edition, and this can happen to anyone (newbie or veteran) without the scratch to buy multiples of every model in a codex + new models when a new dex come out.

Newbie's mistake? Going to a tournament.

Remember people, competitive play does not always mean tournament play.

Your story implies 2 things

1. All tournament lists are cheese
2. Competitive lists are cheese

I disagree on both counts. I play competitively at my group as do all the players there. Competitive does not always equal cheese. Tournament list does not always equal cheese. Now I know that this isn't what you're trying to say, it's just how it reads (Stupid Internet!).

This is general discussion, not 'Tournament Forum'. The definition of 'competitive list' changes based on the environment in which one plays. His list was competitive in his group, it was not at a tournament.

From the OP, this thread really seems like a particular reaction to Escalation and/or Fortifications books. But if you take it for what it is, the possibilities are pretty friggin cool IMO. A bunch of flyers raiding a stronghold. A couple homemade Stompas bearing down against a Tesseract Vault. And not HAVING to throw away te FOC to play.

I imagine these games won't be fun or competitive "unless you have one too". But for me, I can't wait to throw an Infinite Phalanx against some crazy heavies or fortifications if for nothing else the spectacle of it.

I can understand these concerns by putting myself in the shoes of a tournament player, but surely TOs can create a "pure army tournament" or an "everyone gets one heavy tournament", etc, etc.

rothrich wrote:

What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?

Page 108 of the rulebook says you can play an army list from a codex, an altered army list (covers supplements, FW and dataslates) or "your own system" (homebrew).

The book of life has a rule that if someone says "Wanna play a game of chess, only I'm using queens in place of rooks?", you have every right to say "No thanks."

jasper76 wrote:
The book of life has a rule that if someone says "Wanna play a game of chess, only I'm using queens in place of rooks?", you have every right to say "No thanks."

Yes, but that honestly has nothing to do with what is legal to play in 40k.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
40K is at it's best when two players decide "the way that "x" is playable is stupidly written, and isn't fun. Y'know, let's agree to avoid "x" when we play so the game is more than just removing casualties."

Wouldn't 40K have been at its best if GW had tested the rules, and found out that the way that 'x' was playable was stupidly written, and re-written it for better balance?

Every other game with massive imbalance inherent in the system has some sort of list of restrictions to rebalance the system, when does 40k get one? If Games Workshop is unwilling to make one I suggest we do what other game communities have done and band together to create one of our own.

GW themselves have done this, and stated numerous times, how their rules are JUST a framwork, to be altered and interpreted as we see fit, to play games with.

They also admit they are NOT desgined for super competitive tournament play in mind.

as always, for the past 6 editions, the tournament community has to tweak things a bit so that its considered "fair" by the people who play in the tournies and want the game to be a bit more like chess.

However, what is "fair" has always differed from group to group across the planet.

as for "legal" GW has come out and said plainly, "all the gw rules are as official as YOU make them"

with a few common sense tweaks to ban the "I auto win you auto lose" or coin flip scenarios, we are in the best edition ever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yes, but that honestly has nothing to do with what is legal to play in 40k.

You're right, of course. Sorry, the reaction to the new supplements has made me a bit unnecessarily argumentative.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.

Training... exercise?

except most games end with 3/4 of both armies lying dead. But I didn't think of that one

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.

Training... exercise?

except most games end with 3/4 of both armies lying dead. But I didn't think of that one

Naw man, all of them just have some broken bones, had to retreat, some burns, bruises, cuts, and scars, and them knocked out. Ya gotta get with the times! Those bolter guns were shooting out less damaging ones just enough for the concussion to knock out a marine but not enough to do any long standing harm.

Or "laying out, because they got paintballed".

I now want see paintball gun wielding Space Marines conversions.

 Psienesis wrote:
Or "laying out, because they got paintballed".

Somebody out there please make this a thing.

"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!

Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talore wrote:
I have been following the thread. Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I was playing along

Well, as long as we understand each other.

Yes, yes, I'm stupid and you should make fun of me for my opinion. See? I can play along too, though evidently I have been playing 40K wrong all these decades.

Aegis, you were the one pointing out how the players were the issue, not the game. By doing so, you explained how 40k should be treated in a way you find enjoyable, and that people who enjoyed it differently were somehow wrong.

That's the issue with your argument. If you can somehow define under some universal umbrella what casual means, or what fun is, or what forging a narrative is, maybe you'd have a proper leg to stand on, but you don't.

Instead, you claim that 40k is fine if you do several things that many players may not enjoy doing. Claiming such things, like taking it too seriously, or spamming, dodges the actual issues with the game and tries to place the blame on the players rather than the game designer.

The players aren't the issue. A legal list is a legal list. If GW didn't want people to play these kind of lists, they wouldn't be possible. Its that simple.

But once more, no one is saying you can't have fun playing 40k. But blaming the players for the faults of 40k is wrong on multiple levels for many reasons.

After 15 years of gaming and seeing this awesome game called 40k on tables at conventions and gamestores for so long I thought "Man, this must be an awesome game!" So I buys an army, builds it, paints it, struggles to find an opponent who wants to play the 500pts I have, and while winning that first game says to my opponent-now-buddy "Holy [beep] these rules are [beep]!" He says to me "Yeah, the rules have always sucked." An enlightening conversation ensues. So I started planning games now realizing this isn't magic where you show up with your game pieces they show up with theirs and play. But the thing I don't get is why the [beep] anyone thought this was a competitive supported game!? Just goes to show people will make a competition out of anything. And in the end THATS OKAY! It's fine, they enjoy it, let 'em do their thing, I'll do mine, never the twain shall meet.

But humbly for their sake in some weird way I hope competitive 40k either becomes a balanced well defined rule set or dies entirely and leaves behind flavor play. So in response to the original post, I don't know, but I hope so

Played an Escalation game without a Super Heavy in my army and won last night.

The sky is not falling. It was one of the tightest games of 40k I've ever played, and definitely, definitely one of the funnest.

Was it a Revenant? Because it's the D weapons people are worried about, not super heavies in general.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Was it a Revenant? Because it's the D weapons people are worried about, not super heavies in general.

Nerp. If I ever play one of those, I'll give it a shot, and if its an auto-win situation, I just won't play it again unless there's some GMing to make it a non-auto-win situation. But I read the rules (finally), and I aint too scared to try, and think I can win in principal . You get so much Outflank and cool anti-heavy WL traits, and VPs on either every or every third HP.

I'll likely never see one. Eldar armies were already for all intents and purposes shunned in my local meta before Escalation...noone plays against them so noone brings them, and outside of my flgs, I'm just seeing CSM, CD, Tau, Necrons, Emprah arimes, and will start seeing Tyrannids whenever the new codex comes out.

What superheavy was it? And did it have any D-weapons?

Ork Stompa w/ a D weapon of some sort, which nastied out 2 Monoliths and a DD Ark, if I recall (game lasted til 1 am so my memory is a little hazy).