Switch Theme:

Anti Forge World Climate?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Morgoth: that's not how unbound works. Either you don't have an FOC, or you do. There is no "almost no FOC".

Also Knights have their own FOC that currently gives no bonuses once so ever. So they can't count as Battle Forged either (as that is a specific FOC option).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/26 13:30:33


 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





morgoth wrote:
 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.


Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





morgoth wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.


Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.

Are we having the same conversation here?



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 MWHistorian wrote:

Are we having the same conversation here?

Yes even though you keep on trying to derail it... damn you're a hard one.
   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






morgoth wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.


Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.



Does not make much sense compared to what?

Wolf riding super-mutants in power armor?
"Clap if you believe" hordes of green football hooligans?
Evil for the purpose of evil space elves that consider BDSM as a valid combat tactic?
Killer robots who's programming got haywire enough for them to try eating people?

40K is not boasting much logic anyway, if you are looking for doing things in a practical fashion and not doing overly excessive things "to prove the point we can", you are looking at the wrong game world, because half of what defines 40k is "everyone is insane and going completely over the top"

But the case of super-heavies, its not even that far-fetched.
If there is a titan on the board, its not an army backed up by something absurd that overshadows the army itself that fights a "normal" army, its a deployed superweapon with its escort force fighting againt the forces sent to take down said superweapons.

What about deploying superweapons makes so little sense to you? we occasionally did that in real life. it sometimes even works. (not in such scale, but a tank in early WW1 was indeed a superweapon, B52 is fit for superheavy class aircraft.) we kina stopped the superweapon method once we started to use ICBMs (they are too easy targets for long-range missiles), but 40k does not follow the same limits of "practicality" and "reason", otherwise most large-scale fights would have ended with "they got nuked from orbit"

can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






morgoth wrote:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.


So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?


Thanks for completely ignoring (or missing) my point. Carry on.

This practice of "nothing to say : present straw man" is really obnoxious. My point is that 7th's introduction had some unintended consequences. The Lone Wolf army that was legal at the beginning of 7th literally broke the game. Don't bother replying to my post unless you can say whether you would or would not feel comfortable playing an army against which it is literally impossible to win.

While the introduction of Apoc units in regular 40k is intentional, and legal, my point (which you have completely failed to address in any meaningful way, as usual) is that legal 40k allows for some incredibly stupid things. I don't want to play "kill the giant" outside of a one-off scenario type game. I sure as hell don't want to play "kill the giant" in a pickup game. Reecius at FLG had some pretty solid video batreps of what was possible in the new 40k ruleset - things like reasonably competitive armies tabled in 2 turns by a Revenant Titan. This is why tournament organizers are restricting choices: because they, unlike you (for some inexplicable reason), understand the "The Game" (tm) is currently incredibly stupid and needs a bit of oversight to be playable in a competitive environment.

I don't want to play 40k that is "kill the giant" or "you can't win because every model you kill gives me a VP." I've been invested in this game since Rogue Trader, so I think I've earned the right to criticize it when the designers go off the reservation and publish garbage rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/26 21:38:15


Tier 1 is the new Tactical.

My IDF-Themed Guard Army P&M Blog:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/355940.page 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

To quote myself from another thread:

When the "good guys" are Nazi-wannabes, you know that gak is fethed up!

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 MWHistorian wrote:
morgoth wrote:
 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.


Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BoomWolf wrote:

If there is a titan on the board, its not an army backed up by something absurd that overshadows the army itself that fights a "normal" army, its a deployed superweapon with its escort force fighting againt the forces sent to take down said superweapons.

Yes but he's talking about a silly case where a superweapon does not have its escort. Or it wouldn't be slay the giant, it would be rape the escort, murder the giant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

I don't want to play 40k that is "kill the giant" or "you can't win because every model you kill gives me a VP." I've been invested in this game since Rogue Trader, so I think I've earned the right to criticize it when the designers go off the reservation and publish garbage rules.

That's because VP's are idiotic to begin with.
War is won by winning battles and destroying the enemy, not by fooling around stupid pretend objectives.
War is not won by having a lesser number of units on the field so you get more slowed KP.

So the Space Wolves had a stupid rule ? the whole tactical objective system is bad.

And they patched that SW thing.
And you can kill a Revenant Titan with sternguard drop pods or a centurion star can't you ?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/27 08:21:52


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




I love how im 14 years old and how people older than me aren't acting their age. Hilarious.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




When you're older, you'll realize there is no such thing as acting your age, unless you're afraid to look like a child, which in turn means you're still immature.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




morgoth wrote:
When you're older, you'll realize there is no such thing as acting your age, unless you're afraid to look like a child, which in turn means you're still immature.

Alright that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






I see morgoth is still successfully trolling another thread. *claps* Well done morgoth, you win again.

By the way: Your reasoning for VPs doesn't make sense.
War is won by winning battles and destroying the enemy, not by fooling around stupid pretend objectives.

Battles are fought for many reasons, and there are usually objectives that are more complex than "destroy the enemy". These could vary between the tactical, such as taking a bridge or hill, or the strategic, such as claiming military intelligence or an enemy vip. If the strategy being followed by command is sound, achieving these objectives will be what allows a battle to be won, and a campaign to continue successfully. There is more to war than mass murder.

With that said, this is completely off topic.

I think everything that has to be said abut FW has been said to be honest, to recap, some people don't like FW because:
A confusing number of rule books
Sometimes unclear or contradictory rules
Such a huge range of additional units is hard to remember
Perceived to be overpowered
High price tag
Previous editions of FW asking players for permission
Army lists are not in a codex, so not 'legal'
Strange and new things are scary
They make many titans and other LoW, therefore everything must be a similar power level.
LGS sometimes oppose them as their store does not sell them.
Tournaments don't allow FW models/lists, so they must be bad.

I think that covers just about everything.

   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
morgoth wrote:
 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.


Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.



Really? the games I played and saw that included a LoW (or just a knight) all ended with the SH dead and the player using it losing.
Except the Tctan, that thing is unkillable, especially in 6th (when I last saw him played)

In any case, "kill the giant" works, as long you can actually KILL the big thing without destroying yourself in the process.
If you can't, your list would probably fail horribly against an armored list that features no LoW anyway. and you can't even make a point against these.

can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Battles are fought for many reasons, and there are usually objectives that are more complex than "destroy the enemy". These could vary between the tactical, such as taking a bridge or hill, or the strategic, such as claiming military intelligence or an enemy vip. If the strategy being followed by command is sound, achieving these objectives will be what allows a battle to be won, and a campaign to continue successfully. There is more to war than mass murder.

Still, mass murder is a good way to win a war.

The bridge, the hill ... what's the point of holding any of these for a few seconds ?

Military intelligence of an enemy VIP ok.
But you standing on that objective for one turn when turns last about 12 seconds of real time doesn't give you the time to even find the usb key and plug it into your war-smartphone.

The way objectives are done in 40K is bollox. Supposedly standing on objective 6 makes me 2 VP, and then I get D3 more because I'm standing on two more objectives ? really ? ...
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





morgoth wrote:
 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Battles are fought for many reasons, and there are usually objectives that are more complex than "destroy the enemy". These could vary between the tactical, such as taking a bridge or hill, or the strategic, such as claiming military intelligence or an enemy vip. If the strategy being followed by command is sound, achieving these objectives will be what allows a battle to be won, and a campaign to continue successfully. There is more to war than mass murder.

Still, mass murder is a good way to win a war.

The bridge, the hill ... what's the point of holding any of these for a few seconds ?

Military intelligence of an enemy VIP ok.
But you standing on that objective for one turn when turns last about 12 seconds of real time doesn't give you the time to even find the usb key and plug it into your war-smartphone.

The way objectives are done in 40K is bollox. Supposedly standing on objective 6 makes me 2 VP, and then I get D3 more because I'm standing on two more objectives ? really ? ...

As a combat veteran I can say that there are always objectives to a battle, even small ones. "Go to that wall and see if you can get eyes on that sniper." "Check on the wounded and see if he has ammo to spare. etc etc etc. When I play objectives I have to make a story up about what they are and why. (slightly off topic, sorry.) This is one of the reasons I detest maelstrom missions, because it takes a sound idea and makes it totally random and dylexic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 13:59:16




Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.
It's either "kill the giant" or "avoid the giant", but it's still "XXXXXXX the giant".

When the game revolves around that one model, be it killing that one model, keeping that one model alive, or avoiding that one model to win on objectives... I just don't find it all that entertaining, at least not in standard games, as a once off for a cool narrative scenario maybe, but not as a regular thing in standard games using my standard army and playing standard mission objectives.
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.
It's either "kill the giant" or "avoid the giant", but it's still "XXXXXXX the giant".

When the game revolves around that one model, be it killing that one model, keeping that one model alive, or avoiding that one model to win on objectives... I just don't find it all that entertaining, at least not in standard games, as a once off for a cool narrative scenario maybe, but not as a regular thing in standard games using my standard army and playing standard mission objectives.

This sums up my view nicely.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.
It's either "kill the giant" or "avoid the giant", but it's still "XXXXXXX the giant".

When the game revolves around that one model, be it killing that one model, keeping that one model alive, or avoiding that one model to win on objectives... I just don't find it all that entertaining, at least not in standard games, as a once off for a cool narrative scenario maybe, but not as a regular thing in standard games using my standard army and playing standard mission objectives.

Replace "giant" with "Character" and then with "deathstar" and then with "flyer" and you sum up 40k from 2nd-6th. It's always been a problem, it's just the current problem tends to have really big models.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Replace "giant" with "Character" and then with "deathstar" and then with "flyer" and you sum up 40k from 2nd-6th. It's always been a problem, it's just the current problem tends to have really big models.

You can also replace giant with "SM HQ" or "Land Raider" or "Terminators" or "Canoptek Wraiths" or ... really every game revolves around a more important target - not going to change unless you want every model to be a basic marine with no options, for every army.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 ClockworkZion wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every game of 7th I've played with a LoW. Every game I've lost, it hasn't died.

"Kill the Giant" is exactly the way to lose to a LoW. It isn't what the game revolves around at all, unless you get some perverse moral satisfaction from killing it at the expense of your army.
It's either "kill the giant" or "avoid the giant", but it's still "XXXXXXX the giant".

When the game revolves around that one model, be it killing that one model, keeping that one model alive, or avoiding that one model to win on objectives... I just don't find it all that entertaining, at least not in standard games, as a once off for a cool narrative scenario maybe, but not as a regular thing in standard games using my standard army and playing standard mission objectives.

Replace "giant" with "Character" and then with "deathstar" and then with "flyer" and you sum up 40k from 2nd-6th. It's always been a problem, it's just the current problem tends to have really big models.
It hasn't always been as bad IMO, though I agree I don't like deathstars either. For the most part characters aren't as bad, though it's always been considered a bit of a dick move to take an expensive character when playing smaller games in my local gaming scene.

FWIW I don't think taking a Wraithknight in a 500pt match makes for a great game the same way I don't think a Warhound in a 1500pt game makes for a great game


Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Replace "giant" with "Character" and then with "deathstar" and then with "flyer" and you sum up 40k from 2nd-6th. It's always been a problem, it's just the current problem tends to have really big models.

You can also replace giant with "SM HQ" or "Land Raider" or "Terminators" or "Canoptek Wraiths" or ... really every game revolves around a more important target - not going to change unless you want every model to be a basic marine with no options, for every army.
It all comes down to proportions, at least for me. When a single model is more than a quarter of your force (give or take) it starts to change how the game is played in a way I don't really like.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 14:41:24


 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





morgoth wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Replace "giant" with "Character" and then with "deathstar" and then with "flyer" and you sum up 40k from 2nd-6th. It's always been a problem, it's just the current problem tends to have really big models.

You can also replace giant with "SM HQ" or "Land Raider" or "Terminators" or "Canoptek Wraiths" or ... really every game revolves around a more important target - not going to change unless you want every model to be a basic marine with no options, for every army.

It's the scale of the problem though that's the question. There's a difference between a SM HQ and a titan.
Can't you accept that people don't find it fun? Why do you ask for justification? I like Taco Bell, heavy metal, and Godzilla. They're opinions. I can say why I like them but I don't have to "Prove" that they're good. I like them, you may not.
I happen to not like Super Heavies in my games. It's an opinion. There's no right or wrong.
What is wrong is when you say "Play the game my way or get out." (Like a previous poster said.) It shouldn't be "Play my way or the highway."
I'd play a super heavy on occasion, but not a normal thing. I'd politely decline. That's not me telling you how to play. That's just me saying I'm not going to play a game I don't find to be fun.
I don't see why the Pro-SH team keep asking for justification. It's an opinion on fun, nothing more.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

I definitely won't demand that anyone play SH all the time, I just think that universal bans of them are just as unfair as being forced to play them all the time.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 ClockworkZion wrote:
I definitely won't demand that anyone play SH all the time, I just think that universal bans of them are just as unfair as being forced to play them all the time.
I don't universally ban them, I try and discuss with my opponent the best way to get the most out of the game.

But at the end of the day what I WANT is a more modular 40k. Not "these are the rules and the only rules regardless of whether you're playing 500pts or 50,000pts". I want to see 40k have a simple set of core rules which amounts to little more than a small infantry skirmish and then build up with vehicles, monsters, more expensive characters, superheavies, flyers, etc. Not only do I think that would open up more styles of play, it would encourage discussion and compromise between players on the sort of game they each want to play.

The trick IMO is balancing the idea of having options and not fragmenting your community, you don't want to present the rules in such a way as there's expansions very few people use (like Apoc and to a lesser extent Escalation in 6th), you also don't want to try and have an all encompassing rule set that doesn't really work great at different levels and so your community argues, fragments, people quit, etc. I think the best solution to this is to have your core rules very limited and then build on that with expansions (expansions that may be printed in the same book, but are written in such a way as to be building blocks on the core rules rather than one big jumbled mess).

You're always going to have problems where particular gaming groups get stuck in their ways and only want to play games their own particular way, but I think GW do a terrible job at managing the whole situation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 15:01:17


 
   
Made in au
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





Perth

morgoth wrote:
 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Battles are fought for many reasons, and there are usually objectives that are more complex than "destroy the enemy". These could vary between the tactical, such as taking a bridge or hill, or the strategic, such as claiming military intelligence or an enemy vip. If the strategy being followed by command is sound, achieving these objectives will be what allows a battle to be won, and a campaign to continue successfully. There is more to war than mass murder.

Still, mass murder is a good way to win a war.

The bridge, the hill ... what's the point of holding any of these for a few seconds ?

Military intelligence of an enemy VIP ok.
But you standing on that objective for one turn when turns last about 12 seconds of real time doesn't give you the time to even find the usb key and plug it into your war-smartphone.

The way objectives are done in 40K is bollox. Supposedly standing on objective 6 makes me 2 VP, and then I get D3 more because I'm standing on two more objectives ? really ? ...


i think you should go back and look at how wars have worked mate.
in wars smaller things are objectives for a reason. hold this bridge, it might be the only way to get tanks over a ravine.
hold this hill, it provides us a position to watch the enemy.
im really starting to think you have no idea what you talk about. and just troll threads

CSM 20,000 Pts
Daemons 4,000 (ish)
WoC over 10,000
6000+ Pts


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ausYenLoWang wrote:
i think you should go back and look at how wars have worked mate.
in wars smaller things are objectives for a reason. hold this bridge, it might be the only way to get tanks over a ravine.
hold this hill, it provides us a position to watch the enemy.
im really starting to think you have no idea what you talk about. and just troll threads


You didn't read that post. They clearly said that the problem is holding objectives for a few seconds, as you get in maelstrom missions where every turn has you desperately sprinting to claim a different objective instead of the one you just claimed. That bridge might be necessary for your tanks, but holding it for a few seconds and then abandoning it won't accomplish anything of value. To accurately represent objectives they need to be determined at the beginning of the game and constant until it ends. IOW, your troops have to get to that vital bridge, take it from the enemy, and hold it until the battle ends.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/28 00:38:42


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





Perth

 Peregrine wrote:
 ausYenLoWang wrote:
i think you should go back and look at how wars have worked mate.
in wars smaller things are objectives for a reason. hold this bridge, it might be the only way to get tanks over a ravine.
hold this hill, it provides us a position to watch the enemy.
im really starting to think you have no idea what you talk about. and just troll threads


You didn't read that post. They clearly said that the problem is holding objectives for a few seconds, as you get in maelstrom missions where every turn has you desperately sprinting to claim a different objective instead of the one you just claimed. That bridge might be necessary for your tanks, but holding it for a few seconds and then abandoning it won't accomplish anything of value. To accurately represent objectives they need to be determined at the beginning of the game and constant until it ends. IOW, your troops have to get to that vital bridge, take it from the enemy, and hold it until the battle ends.


yes but you also need to extrapolate the table top version of time out. a warzone may not be over in the 3 dice rolls. if you take the time to do anything literally then your in trouble, if you wanted to make real time over it, you could be holding that bridge for half a day between turns. again taking this game in every respect totally literally isnt going to work.
expand your 6x4ft table into 6 miles or more use the imagination to see it as bigger than it is then realise your not representing moving literally 6" per "turn", and you wouldnt be holding an objective for "seconds"


CSM 20,000 Pts
Daemons 4,000 (ish)
WoC over 10,000
6000+ Pts


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: