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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I haven't been playing 40k for very long, and I still like it. Not so much for its rules, but for its fluff and models as well as the freedom it offers, which you won't find in any other miniatures game.

Thankfully you don't need the miniatures game for that, you can get them in novels, video games, FFG RPGs and other third party rule systems.

You won't get the nice miniatures and the joy of modelling them from a novel though.

You will from the FFG RPG and third party rule systems - customizing your minis as they progress would be great fun (yay magnets!). You can also enjoy a video game enough to want to collect a, say... blood ravens army because of it ; p
<--

 lordwellingstone wrote:
The heavy bolter is an excellent example of failure in design. The weapon has not changed since i started playing 13 years ago. Not because it's so good that it never needed changing. In fact i don't think i've ever seen devastators take HBs in anything but a humorous lark. HBs are weapons that are a part of an army beacuse they happen to be attached to things. Never are they a crucial part of a battle plan in the same way a lascannon or melta gun is.

Yet fluffwise ONE marine with a heavy bolter basically holds down a flank by himself.

Why not make taking a heavy bolter over another weapon an important strategic decision by making it an f'ing awesome weapon?!

Or make possessed an utter nightmare to fight like their fluff suggests rather than very expensive close combat marines with no guns or grenades?

It boggles me when the mantra is forge the narrative when the rules they write hardly follow the narrative anyway.

Heavy Bolters are the best weapon to compliment a tactical squad.

Plasmacannon? Can overheat and kill your guy.

Lascannon? Watch how the rest of your squad's bolters don't get to fire for a turn.

Multi Melta? Too short.

Missile Launcher? Very expensive now that GW has realized its a great all rounder. But useless against infantry if you so much as move. Also in 7th edition, it can no longer one-shot a tank, so if you arm your squad with the ML, you are sacrificing their shooting to strip off 1HP at best per turn.

The HB is still able to fire on the move (something that wasnt the case in 5th edition) and enhances your squad's effectivity at whatever enemy squad they are shooting at with zero risk and good range and its cheap.

I'm the kind of player who wants to take special weapons to make squads better at what they do instead of giving them an alternate role that comes at the expense of their main role.

I'll leave the tank hunting to my other units while my tac squads blaze away.

Many people say if you want to take Devastators, take more than 5 or your heavy weapons will start dropping very quickly. But more guys means more bolters, and more of a waste if you arm them with Lascannons. Thus I think 4 Heavy Bolters are also arguably the best loadout for a 10 man Devastator squad as they can now all fire at enemy infantry with no effectivity setback.

Of course, all this rant assumes you are playing with IF chapter tactics

While this is not a tactics thread/forum I'll counter that with I've never in many many years of going to large GTs ever seen a devastator squad fully decked out in Heavy Bolters.

So either you know something everyone else doesn't, or they are actually just not that good (I'm putting money on the latter). In fact in any large tournament setting I'm fairly sure I've never seen a heavy bolter on a marine in any squad. I've only ever seen them on units where they come standard and can't be replaced (godhammer pattern land raiders).

The point being either way that beyond the mechanics of one chapter tactic, they simply are not a weapon people choose to bring to the table. Their middling quality and relatively high points cost, and lack of versatility make them a 3rd string choice in nearly anyone's list. Sure you may come across the odd opponent where your heavy bolters manage to fit that special puzzle piece. But generally there are better ways to spend a heavy support slot and the points on the devastator squad (thunderfire, best 100pts in the game damn near)

But that's beside the point. The heavy bolter is one of MANY examples of missed opportunities on GW's part. Looking at so many other games out there and they make sure that nearly every piece in their game has a role to fill, it makes me look forlornly on 20 painted warp talons and just as many possessed who have really no role in the army that is not "overpriced cannon fodder" They really should be awesome units. "Claws that rend reality" should at least have rending... I mean come on... at least try GW, I know doing a second draft and big boy playtesting is hard but... it's your damn job.

Instead of selling miniatures, I'd just advise you get an RPG group and use your miniatures for it.

I do have a weekly RPG group. And it's a fantastically good time. But it's not the same experience i am looking for in a wargame.

My RPG group is actually in the process of adding a wargame night. Variety is the spice of life.

That said, my experience is on the opposite end of everything. I'm fresh in the hobby and I'm the sick devil convincing my friends its a good idea. The local comic shop selling models for a third of the price did most of the convincing, actually. So yes, we are on the cusp of change.

Uh... I love it so far. Painting was a new, painful but enriching experience. I've only ever known sixth/seventh edition, so I've got no qualms. I've had some hiccups. I got Dark Vengeance just before it updated. That bummed me out... so I contacted GW and they told me they'd let me exchange even though I had already opened my set and popped the sprues. So my new set has been here for a while and I have a positive experience base with GW.

There is no game store here, either. So its just my friends and we all have different goals. I want cool armies to collect and still have function. Another guy wants Tyranids and Orks purely for the fluff. Another is seeking to make the most cutthroat army of Dark Eldar possible. We all know he's going to win every match he's in. He wins everything. That's his thing. We're having fun getting there, though.

I'm going to look into recruiting more players if we're successful, actually. I'd love to see the comic shop making more money...

I can't make judgements for anybody else. This is a hobby. If it becomes a greater source of stress than enjoyment, somethig needs to give. If that's the game, well, that's unfortunate. Though, if its possible, I'd say just scale it back and get a tight-knit group for it. It sounds (from your OP) that more than anything, the people have worn you down. Power gamers suck. Especially in large numbers. Heck; people suck in general in large numbers. They're hard to manage and hard to communicate with on a meaningful level (by which one where they hear you and understand you and you know they hear you and understand you). Whatever you do, 40K or not, have fun with it. That's what its all about.

I couldn't recommend 40k to anyone, even if they had a good group. With a good group any game will be awesome and all the other games out there are far cheaper with better rules and ran by people that don't actively disdain you.

 lordwellingstone wrote:
The heavy bolter is an excellent example of failure in design. The weapon has not changed since i started playing 13 years ago. Not because it's so good that it never needed changing. In fact i don't think i've ever seen devastators take HBs in anything but a humorous lark. HBs are weapons that are a part of an army beacuse they happen to be attached to things. Never are they a crucial part of a battle plan in the same way a lascannon or melta gun is.

Yet fluffwise ONE marine with a heavy bolter basically holds down a flank by himself.

Why not make taking a heavy bolter over another weapon an important strategic decision by making it an f'ing awesome weapon?!

Or make possessed an utter nightmare to fight like their fluff suggests rather than very expensive close combat marines with no guns or grenades?

It boggles me when the mantra is forge the narrative when the rules they write hardly follow the narrative anyway.

My point wasn't that the HB sucks, it's that it has wildly different effectiveness depending on your opponent. Not "slightly" different, "wildly" different. I actually don't hate HB's, it's just usually the units that take them have something else they can take that is better vs a wider range of opponents.

If you take 5 heavy bolters at Bs4, they are anti-infantry weapons.
Against Necron Warriors, per turn of shooting you'll kill around 78pts worth of models.

Against Space Marines, per turn of shooting you'll kill around 28pts worth of models.

Against Imperial Knights, it can potentially do exactly 0 points of damage.

That's just too much of a swing, even if you only consider the infantry given it's an anti-infantry weapon, it's worth more than double it's value against one army vs another.

IMO, the Rock Paper Scissors game only works well if all armies have similar numbers of rocks, paper and scissors and the army construction template forces you to take at least a little of each. 40k isn't like that, some armies have a base 3+ armour save, some barely manage a 5+, some armies can completely forego rank and file infantry.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
IMO, the Rock Paper Scissors game only works well if all armies have similar numbers of rocks, paper and scissors and the army construction template forces you to take at least a little of each. 40k isn't like that, some armies have a base 3+ armour save, some barely manage a 5+, some armies can completely forego rank and file infantry.

I agree with your point, but the defensive value isn't the problem. It's the offense. The fact that models have wildly different defense is not a huge problem, you can just set the points to reflect that.
The real problem is that some armies don't have any scissors, so when they're facing an all paper army, all they can do is throw as much rock on it as possible and watch it fail.
Not to mention the whole all-or-nothing take on armour penetration. AP4 vs space marines? Might as well have AP -. You've payed for the AP4 but you can't use it. Lower it by ONE POINT to AP3, and all of a sudden you're tearing through marines like butter.
In Fantasy Battles, you pay for 1 armour penetration and you get 1 armour penetration.

 Purifier wrote:
I agree with your point, but the defensive value isn't the problem. It's the offense. The fact that models have wildly different defense is not a huge problem, you can just set the points to reflect that.

Not to mention the whole all-or-nothing take on armour penetration. AP4 vs space marines? Might as well have AP -. You've payed for the AP4 but you can't use it. Lower it by ONE POINT to AP3, and all of a sudden you're tearing through marines like butter.
In Fantasy Battles, you pay for 1 armour penetration and you get 1 armour penetration.

Whether it's offensive power or defensive power it has much the same problem, either you say different weapons have different values against different armour or different armour has different values against different weapons. And yeah, it's the AP system that's the problem in this case. If the HB was simply -2 armour save, you could have anti-infantry weapons that are worth their points against all types of infantry, not just infantry from army A but not army B. Things like grenade launchers and heavy bolters are always going to have issues finding a place in a game with an all or nothing armour system.

Then you also have the way vehicle armour works.

The real problem is that some armies don't have any scissors, so when they're facing an all paper army, all they can do is throw as much rock on it as possible and watch it fail.

Well that's kind of what I was getting at, a rock-paper-scissors system only works if all armies not only have access to all facets but also are somewhat forced to take a little of each.

I've played 40k since Rogue Trader. I quit in November of 2012 with the release of X-Wing miniatures. I grew tired of the constant price increases put upon us by GW. I felt my money could be better spent on other games.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I stopped playing a couple of months before 6.5/7 and despite having picked up a Necron army that ended up costing me $0 and still haven't played...I have a about six armies right now just collecting dust as I have lost interest in playing...though I have been getting into WHFB lately and it is a much better game. It doesn't help that it is still expensive as heck and the rules have some extremely questionable problems, but it is fun still.

Now, I still play 40k, but I wanted to agree on thispost that I believe, while still a GW product, Fantasy seems to be a bit more balanced, and reduces the amount of spam you can do. The only real issues with the game are Cannons and some of the "test or die" spells. I've been getting into it within the last few months, and have had fun (Even though I get my ass handed to me as I play TK)

 krodarklorr wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I stopped playing a couple of months before 6.5/7 and despite having picked up a Necron army that ended up costing me $0 and still haven't played...I have a about six armies right now just collecting dust as I have lost interest in playing...though I have been getting into WHFB lately and it is a much better game. It doesn't help that it is still expensive as heck and the rules have some extremely questionable problems, but it is fun still.

Now, I still play 40k, but I wanted to agree on thispost that I believe, while still a GW product, Fantasy seems to be a bit more balanced, and reduces the amount of spam you can do. The only real issues with the game are Cannons and some of the "test or die" spells. I've been getting into it within the last few months, and have had fun (Even though I get my ass handed to me as I play TK)

I'll also add that that Nagash is amazing looking.
It leads me to wonder if 40k will get a "end of times" story advancement. That could bring a lot of excitement and players back....or piss off the players they have left.

I hope it does get that, but very skeptical about it having a substantial effect unless coupled with other necessary change.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I stopped playing a couple of months before 6.5/7 and despite having picked up a Necron army that ended up costing me $0 and still haven't played...I have a about six armies right now just collecting dust as I have lost interest in playing...though I have been getting into WHFB lately and it is a much better game. It doesn't help that it is still expensive as heck and the rules have some extremely questionable problems, but it is fun still.

Now, I still play 40k, but I wanted to agree on thispost that I believe, while still a GW product, Fantasy seems to be a bit more balanced, and reduces the amount of spam you can do. The only real issues with the game are Cannons and some of the "test or die" spells. I've been getting into it within the last few months, and have had fun (Even though I get my ass handed to me as I play TK)

I'll also add that that Nagash is amazing looking.
It leads me to wonder if 40k will get a "end of times" story advancement. That could bring a lot of excitement and players back....or piss off the players they have left.

I mean, I love the way the End Times is going for Fantasy, which makes me feel I started WHFB at the right time, and gets me even more excited to play my TK. However, I don't want/care to see the same thing happen to 40k. I can almost guarantee it would end up with the Imperium armies getting a whole lot more stuff for them to use, while most of the Xenos races are left with nothing much new, since, unlike fantasy, MOST 40k factions hate eachother and would not work together very well, or for extended periods of time.

I think Imperium (which already contains a bucketload of factions in 7th edition) and Tau and Eldar would be willing to work together.

The Eldar could even control some orks with their psychic powers as was seen on Dawn of War, and the Imperium could also hire some of them like the Blood Axes, and maybe the Dark Eldar would also be the only evil faction most likely to join the good guys because their fear of Chaos is greater than their lust for torture. And, given the total fluff rewrite since 2012, maaaybe, just maaybe, one or two of the most reasonable Necron Dynasties could see the Tyranid or Chaos threat for what it is and join forces with the Imperium.

That leaves us with Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, the rest of the Necrons and Tyranids - four classic antagonists each hellbent on destroying the Imperium for their own reasons, but too different to ever ally with each other, and you still got the rest of the unruly Orks in the galaxy that could be part of the bad guys.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I think Imperium (which already contains a bucketload of factions in 7th edition) and Tau and Eldar would be willing to work together.

The Eldar could even control some orks with their psychic powers as was seen on Dawn of War, and the Imperium could also hire some of them like the Blood Axes, and maybe the Dark Eldar would also be the only evil faction most likely to join the good guys because their fear of Chaos is greater than their lust for torture

Well, even then, what would come of Necrons? We wouldn't really ally with many people willingly, since most people hate us. Therefor, I on a personal level wouldn't care too much for an End Times.

see updated post

 Sir Arun wrote:
see updated post

Ah, I see. Well, I suppose it COULD happen. But, we'll see.

40K is for fun now and I love it. I actually switched over from Fantasy because all the 'competitive' players went over to fantasy. I like fun, so current 40K is perfect imo. And if the last few remaining competitive guys follow the trend and rage quit, all the better.

As someone who's been playing GW games for over 20 years, and who remembers when it used to be about having fun and pushing models around on a table,I honestly say, 'good riddance.'

If I want competitive, I'll play a well-balanced game. Like Scrabble. 40K CAN be balanced, if both players make an agreement beforehand to not be douches to each other. That seems to be outside the skill set of many players. Sucks for them.

What an ignorant and insulting post.

Did you ever consider that maybe people have different concepts of what constitutes fun in a tabletop game?

You are part of the problem.

Perpetuating this 'us vs. them', competitive vs. casual mindset is exactly what is driving people away from the game. Only in 40k is there such a distinction; in other games, there are just players.

 Blacksails wrote:
What an ignorant and insulting post.

Did you ever consider that maybe people have different concepts of what constitutes fun in a tabletop game?

You are part of the problem.

Perpetuating this 'us vs. them', competitive vs. casual mindset is exactly what is driving people away from the game. Only in 40k is there such a distinction; in other games, there are just players.

The irony is that 40k isn't even for fun, because "fun" armies end up being worthless if someone so much as brings a good unit to the table. I bring up again my now-shelved likely forever all-Terminator army. Cool? Yes. Fluffy? Yes. Fun? Well, if I would be content with always losing then I guess it could be fun. Too bad that I actually want to win once in a while to not feel like my money is thrown away on pretty models. So feth me for wanting to win once in a while with a cool army instead of doing Drop pod SM or Bike SM or Centstar or whatever the current flavor du jour is in competitive armies.

Fair enough, perhaps my tone was a little harsh, I'll accept that my post was perhaps insulting.

But ignorant? I don't agree at all.

I don't care for rhe WAAC mentality. And as is always brought up in these threads, there are plenty of other wargames that can be played competitively. By your own admission, 40K is no longer one of them.

The era of fun has begun. Adapt or die. My group is having GREAT fun with 40K. Basically no one is playing fantasy any more, everyone is running fun lists in 40K and having fun. How dare we.

You can write up some tweaks of your own to the rules to make the game more competitive. In fact, GW ENCOURAGES THAT, specifically for people like yourself who want to play the game a certain way.

But you guys want it your way or not at all. You want the core rulebook to be written to cater only to yourselves and to hell with anyone who thinks differently from you. Well, too bad.

Some of us are perfectly happy with 7th ed. And GW has clearly decided that our money is worth more than yours.

And I'll remind you all that 'new edition blues' is hardly a new thing. This happens every edition. 8th ed. fantasy caused half the players to rage quit. Now they're back playing fantasy because they rage quit 40K. 9th Fantasy will drop and they'll all be back playing 40K again.

The thing that seperates 40K from the other games is the IP. It's better than all the rest. That's why X-Wing imo presents such a threat. While I, personally, despise the Star Wars IP, loads of people love it. And the models come painted.

You're allowed to be mad that the game you loved isn't there any more, what you aren't allowed to be mad about is the fact that other people are having fun with it and that GW has clearly decided that the casual players are the wave of the future. They sell more kits when people are running what the want to run instead of running the latest list they found on a thread on some forum called 'My list that never loses.'

When I'm paying almost $100 for rules, then damn right I want the rules to be written to NOT require modifying them, because they are rules for the game. At that point why bother paying for them? I'll just make my own up and save the money.

Besides, remind me again how to make an all-Terminator army viable without basically rewriting half the rules? I think that's a fun, fluffy army. But it's also useless against virtually everybody. While I'm no WAAC sore loser I'd also like to win sometimes too.

It's not about "WAAC" it's about the game being fundamentally broken. It's not just black and white, "fun" vs. "WAAC/competitive". There are some fun armies that cannot win at all because the rules are a clusterfeth and imbalanced (see my Terminator army above). That's hardly WAAC. I want a way to play what I'd like and not lose every game unless my opponent feels sorry for me and fields rubbish units or plays dumb to give me a fighting chance.

WayneTheGame wrote:
When I'm paying almost $100 for rules, then damn right I want the rules to be written to NOT require modifying them, because they are rules for the game. At that point why bother paying for them? I'll just make my own up and save the money.

Besides, remind me again how to make an all-Terminator army viable without basically rewriting half the rules? I think that's a fun, fluffy army. But it's also useless against virtually everybody.

It's not about "WAAC" it's about the game being fundamentally broken. It's not just black and white, "fun" vs. "WAAC/competitive". There are some fun armies that cannot win at all because the rules are a clusterfeth and imbalanced (see my Terminator army above). That's hardly WAAC. I want a way to play what I'd like and not lose every game unless my opponent feels sorry for me and fields rubbish units or plays dumb to give me a fighting chance.

Well....arguably, if I didn't bring a doomsday ark, it would probably screw with me a good bit. >.<

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:

I don't care for rhe WAAC mentality. And as is always brought up in these threads, there are plenty of other wargames that can be played competitively. By your own admission, 40K is no longer one of them.

And no where have I mentioned WAAC mentality. The desire to win and play a reasonably balanced game without doing a 12 step process to ensure both lists are appropriate does not make anyone WAAC. WAAC is purely when people are deliberately harming the fun of someone else knowingly. The desire to win a good game does not fall under the banner of WAAC.

The era of fun has begun. Adapt or die. My group is having GREAT fun with 40K. Basically no one is playing fantasy any more, everyone is running fun lists in 40K and having fun. How dare we.

The era of fun? Define fun. Your idea, or my idea? Further, no where did I say you couldn't have fun, or shouldn't. Throwing in 'How dare we' is unnecessary.

You can write up some tweaks of your own to the rules to make the game more competitive. In fact, GW ENCOURAGES THAT, specifically for people like yourself who want to play the game a certain way.

If I'm paying over $150 for a rulebook and codex, I shouldn't have to make any changes to make the game balanced and playable.

But you guys want it your way or not at all. You want the core rulebook to be written to cater only to yourselves and to hell with anyone who thinks differently from you. Well, too bad.

An absolute misrepresentation of many posters on here. The disappointed voices want a clear and balanced ruleset. By extension of being clear and balanced, the game would cater to both competitive mindsets and casual ones, at no cost to either side. In fact, a clear and balanced ruleset would cater better to casual players in nearly every way imaginable. There is quite literally no downside to writing a clear, concise ruleset that has been thoroughly playtested and balanced to ensure no faction or build is too strong or weak.

Some of us are perfectly happy with 7th ed. And GW has clearly decided that our money is worth more than yours.

I'm glad you're happy. Honestly, I wish I could enjoy the game as much as you do.

But I think we can both agree that catering the game to a singular mindset and excluding people is in no way a good business plan.

WayneTheGame wrote:
When I'm paying almost $100 for rules, then damn right I want the rules to be written to NOT require modifying them, because they are rules for the game. At that point why bother paying for them? I'll just make my own up and save the money.

Besides, remind me again how to make an all-Terminator army viable without basically rewriting half the rules? I think that's a fun, fluffy army. But it's also useless against virtually everybody. While I'm no WAAC sore loser I'd also like to win sometimes too.

It's not about "WAAC" it's about the game being fundamentally broken. It's not just black and white, "fun" vs. "WAAC/competitive". There are some fun armies that cannot win at all because the rules are a clusterfeth and imbalanced (see my Terminator army above). That's hardly WAAC. I want a way to play what I'd like and not lose every game unless my opponent feels sorry for me and fields rubbish units or plays dumb to give me a fighting chance.

Deathwing can be pretty effective as an all terminator army if done right, They got plenty of rules for an effective alpha strike that will leave your opponent reeling, and with the proper model placement and use of wound allocation mechanic, can take quite a bit of punishment as well.

I understand your frustration, but I don't think your argument has any merit at all. Building a list that's designed to lose and then complaining that you can't win with it is a choice you made. It isn't GWs fault. What you're asking for isn't fair, balanced rules, it's rules skewed towards Terminators. You could add in some tacticals, scouts, tanks, etc and have a fine Terminator-heavy list. But you are choosing to punch yourself in the balls and then complaining that it hurts.

Worth considering that if the Rulebook and codices were written to a better standard allowing all units to find a useful
role to fill than it wouldn't just be "competitive" players who would benefit.

Quite the contrary in fact. It would be the "casual" or new player who would be best served. There wouldn't have to be any pre-game negotiating of what is and isn't ok. You could just fly right into the game and start forging those naratives.

Most importantly new players wouldn't find themselves with collections of models which are terrible in game. You see it all the time in the army lists section.

"Help me make a list with these models"

"OK first buy these three much better units and $130 of transports"

"I just bought these and would like to make them work"

"*Best attempt at making a list out of the substandard options*"

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
You're allowed to be mad that the game you loved isn't there any more, what you aren't allowed to be mad about is the fact that other people are having fun with it and that GW has clearly decided that the casual players are the wave of the future. They sell more kits when people are running what the want to run instead of running the latest list they found on a thread on some forum called 'My list that never loses.'

Nobody is mad that other people are having fun. This also isn't about "casual" or "latest list they found on a thread". You keep thinking in pure black and white terms: Fun vs. Competitive. Casual vs. Hardcore, etc. it's not about that.

I'm glad that you are having fun. If I could venture a guess, you play with a regular group and don't just play pickup games at a game store? That's usually how these opinions go. The fact is that I'm paying $135USD or thereabouts for rules and a codex to play. Don't you think that it should come out of the box ready to use for that kind of price without requiring me to make a list of house rules and on top of that discuss half a dozen things with my opponent before unpacking my army?

Not one person has said the game should be competitive, however lots of people have said the rules should be balanced to foster competitive play and this fallacy keeps being tossed around that balancing a game around tournaments somehow makes it bad for regular play, and despite there never being any evidence to prove it this nonsense keeps being trotted out by various people on the forums, as though it's mutually exclusive. How does clear, concise rules hurt casual play?

Once again, there are plenty of concepts in 40k that just won't work in practice unless you are playing a clueless newbie or someone who deliberately gimps their own list to not be too hard, because the rules for those units or whatever just aren't good. All Terminators, regular CSM squads, the Pyrovore, Vespids, there's a bunch of units that just outright suck because they weren't designed with any sort of balance. I don't know about you but my definition of fun isn't getting stomped game after game after game because my fluffy Terminator army just isn't good unless my opponent basically lets me win. Does that sound fun to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
I understand your frustration, but I don't think your argument has any merit at all. Building a list that's designed to lose and then complaining that you can't win with it is a choice you made. It isn't GWs fault. What you're asking for isn't fair, balanced rules, it's rules skewed towards Terminators. You could add in some tacticals, scouts, tanks, etc and have a fine Terminator-heavy list. But you are choosing to punch yourself in the balls and then complaining that it hurts.

Ah but that's my army concept. A 1st Company elite army. It works in the fluff, doesn't it, so why not in the game? That is GW's fault. They could balance the rules so that if I have an all Terminator (BTW @SirArun I know Deathwing is slightly better but I wanted a generic SM chapter) army my force is very resilient but small, so each of my guys is very hard to kill but the trade off is that I'd only have like 30 figures. That's balance, what we have instead is that I'm just being told that I can't do what I want without throwing the game. What you're saying is that I shouldn't complain because the rules don't allow for a perfectly reasonable army idea and play something I don't want (Tacticals, Scouts, etc.) to make it viable. In other words I should change my concept and my fluff because the game won't support what I actually want to do.