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.

Tactical_Spam 679627 wrote:I would consider the game broken if we let you write the rules. Shall we Ignore cover on a 6 too? How about everything is AP2? How about we don't even show up to play?

As I said: you would consider the game unplayable if you can't power game?

Noted.

And fact is, if you're playing eldar, that's what I'm ultimately going to say: "Oh, you're using a wraithknight, huh? Well, good game. I'm staying home."

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:The fact that you are cool with that is nothing short of disturbing. Boltguns should not do anything to a Titan. I get that you're bitter. But this kind of dramatic change is uncalled for. And I say this as a Marine and Guard player.

Speaking in terms of fluff: And an X-wing fighter shouldn't be able to take down the Death Star. But hey, we know how that worked out.

You are telling me that a Titan has absolutely no vulnerabilities that could be exploited, albeit rarely and on occassion, by bolter fire or chain sword?

Speaking in terms of game: if I am only using tactical marines and you are only using titans, then I might as well concede the game before we even deploy.

No legitimate army list should be invulnerable to any other legitimate army list. Period.

You don't run legitimate lists. You have said you run completely incompetent lists with nothing but Space Marines. You have brought a spoon to a thermonuclear war. Why should everyone else suffer because you can't even write a fething army list that includes nothing but Space Marines

Tactical_Spam wrote:You don't run legitimate lists.

If the list can be produced consistently with the rules in the core rulebook and with the codex, it's a legitimate list.

Period.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam 679627 wrote:I would consider the game broken if we let you write the rules. Shall we Ignore cover on a 6 too? How about everything is AP2? How about we don't even show up to play?

As I said: you would consider the game unplayable if you can't power game?

Noted.

Have I ever mentioned formations are banned at my FLGS? And Fortifications? And Flyers? And Forge World? I cannot power game if I try.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Have I ever mentioned formations are banned at my FLGS? And Fortifications? And Flyers? And Forge World?

I wonder why.

Power gamers galore, I'm sure.

The Idea of a Critical Success, which is pretty much what this is, like DND has doesn't work with a d6. If we used d12's or d20's in 40k, Then I could probably support this

But as it stands, This rule would fix Power Creep with Super Heavies and GMC like Sawing off your leg would fix an Ingrown Toenail. It just makes more problems than it's worth.


I play CSM, and Yes Bolters suck against high Toughness/ high AV vehicles, but Those are not the intended targets of Bolters. Bolters need to be hosing down Infantry.


Now If we want to fix power creep, a limit of like 25% of your army's points can be a Super Heavy/GMC would be a much better step in the right direction. Stops people from Bringing Big toys below 1000 points, and limits how many of those big baddies can, or HOW big those baddies can be, to most regular games.

An 1850 point game would allow you 463 points worth of GMC/SHV. Most armies can handle One Wraithknight at that level, and until you hit 2400, you'd only see one.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Have I ever mentioned formations are banned at my FLGS? And Fortifications? And Flyers? And Forge World?

I wonder why.

Power gamers galore, I'm sure.

And LoW? And Special Characters?

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:The fact that you are cool with that is nothing short of disturbing. Boltguns should not do anything to a Titan. I get that you're bitter. But this kind of dramatic change is uncalled for. And I say this as a Marine and Guard player.

Speaking in terms of fluff: And an X-wing fighter shouldn't be able to take down the Death Star. But hey, we know how that worked out.

You are telling me that a Titan has absolutely no vulnerabilities that could be exploited, albeit rarely and on occassion, by bolter fire or chain sword?

Speaking in terms of game: if I am only using tactical marines and you are only using titans, then I might as well concede the game before we even deploy.

No legitimate army list should be invulnerable to any other legitimate army list. Period.

No. Any Titan bigger than a Warhound would probably not have ANY weak point that a bolter could do jack crap against. Bolters are for hosing infantry. Period. If you want to take down vehicles or MC's, then bring a weapon appropriate for the job. We have access to these things called Missile Launchers, Lascannons, and Grav Cannons for a reason. Use them.

Except this change would still allow powergaming.
All it would do is just switch it from spam a few undercosted MCs/GMCs/SHs to spamming the cheapest, spammable blob of infantry.

Eldar would move to guardian spam and then lose, Tau to FW spam and be decent, guard would just destroy everything they touch with 50-man blobs, Orks would do the same with grots,

Marines would be left with nothing as they can't spam anything and their few power units are now more easily counted by... well all the above really.

And CSMs? Well we'd still only ever see Cultists in their troop slot, except now instead of 2 min 10 man units as a tax it's be several 35 man blobs. Still no actual CSMs...

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
The Idea of a Critical Success, which is pretty much what this is, like DND has doesn't work with a d6. If we used d12's or d20's in 40k, Then I could probably support this

Ok. You are cool with a 1/12 chance of a critical success? Easy:

"Every roll of 6 which normally couldn't cause a wound or loss of hull point shall be rerolled. On a 4+, there shall be caused a wound or loss of hull point."

War Kitten wrote:No. Any Titan bigger than a Warhound would probably not have ANY weak point that a bolter could do jack crap against.

Are warhounds as big as the death star?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Except this change would still allow powergaming.
All it would do is just switch it from spam a few undercosted MCs/GMCs/SHs to spamming the cheapest, spammable blob of infantry.

Eldar would move to guardian spam and then lose, Tau to FW spam and be decent, guard would just destroy everything they touch with 50-man blobs, Orks would do the same with grots,

Marines would be left with nothing as they can't spam anything and their few power units are now more easily counted by... well all the above really.

And CSMs? Well we'd still only ever see Cultists in their troop slot, except now instead of 2 min 10 man units as a tax it's be several 35 man blobs. Still no actual CSMs...

Easy solution: repeal unbound: all army lists must conform either to CAD or a formation or set of formations.

What? That changes nothing at all.

6 Troops slots. All those units I listed were Troops.

Congrats, you just made Jancoran's 50-man Guard Blob of Doom (tm) actually a threat.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
What? That changes nothing at all.

6 Troops slots. All those units I listed were Troops.

Congrats, you just made Jancoran's 50-man Guard Blob of Doom (tm) actually a threat.

I don't think things are as simple as that. Yes, it would make blob armies better than useless against pure mech or pure MC armies. That said, they would still be incredibly vulnerable against blast weaponry or template weapons. Oh, you have a 50 man guard blob? Well, check out this thunderfire cannon, this whirlwind, this orbital strike, these missile launchers and these frag grenades.

Unless your objection is that you don't think that guard blobs should be playable at all.

And I'll disagree. If it's consistent with the rules, it should be playable. Period.

Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
What? That changes nothing at all.

6 Troops slots. All those units I listed were Troops.

Congrats, you just made Jancoran's 50-man Guard Blob of Doom (tm) actually a threat.

I don't think things are as simple as that. Yes, it would make blob armies better than useless against pure mech or pure MC armies. That said, they would still be incredibly vulnerable against blast weaponry or template weapons. Oh, you have a 50 man guard blob? Well, check out this thunderfire cannon, this whirlwind, this orbital strike, these missile launchers and these frag grenades.

Unless your objection is that you don't think that guard blobs should be playable at all.

And I'll disagree. If it's consistent with the rules, it should be playable. Period.

Whis running tanks when every model and his cousin can kill it?

Do you know who wins? Necrons... Necrons win.

Tactical_Spam wrote:Whis running tanks when every model and his cousin can kill it?

1. Because the rules for a given formation says that you have to.

2. Because it confers other tactical advantages other than "haha, you can't kill it, scrub." If your opponent is playing a blob army, and I'm running a vindicator...sure, that blob can kill the vindicator. But if I shoot first, I'm taking out a nice portion of that blob.

Do you know who wins? Necrons... Necrons win.

Like that isn't true already. Lolz.

if by 'nice proportion' you mean like 5-7 models.

Woo, the blob now does 1/2 a hull point less damage-wise.

And to be able to even fire said Demolisher cannon you need to get in range of the blob...

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Whis running tanks when every model and his cousin can kill it?

1. Because the rules for a given formation says that you have to.

2. Because it confers other tactical advantages other than "haha, you can't kill it, scrub." If your opponent is playing a blob army, and I'm running a vindicator...sure, that blob can kill the vindicator. But if I shoot first, I'm taking out a nice portion of that blob.

CONGRADULATIONS... You killed 20 points of guardsmen in exchange for your 120 point tank! You are good at this game!

Do you know who wins? Necrons... Necrons win.

Like that isn't true already. Lolz.

And it still will be true considering they are the most resilient infantry unit in Warhammer.

Tactical_Spam wrote:CONGRADULATIONS... You killed 20 points of guardsmen in exchange for your 120 point tank! You are good at this game!

Like similar disparities don't already exist?

If I'm playing only tactical marines and you're playing nothing but wraithknights, what do you think the points killed to points lost ratio is going to be?

Seriously.

And it still will be true considering they are the most resilient infantry unit in Warhammer.

Yes. Increase their points cost. Nerf them to smithereens.

Much like Eldar.

Feth Eldar. Feth Necrons. Feth Tau.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:CONGRADULATIONS... You killed 20 points of guardsmen in exchange for your 120 point tank! You are good at this game!

Like similar disparities don't already exist?

If I'm playing only tactical marines and you're playing nothing but wraithknights, what do you think the points killed to points lost ratio is going to be?

If you are being an idiot and trying to play a WAAC TFG with nothing but tactical marines... you deserve to lose.

And it still will be true considering they are the most resilient infantry unit in Warhammer.

Yes. Increase their points cost. Nerf them to smithereens.

Much like Eldar.

Feth Eldar. Feth Necrons. Feth Tau.

I think somebody is angry that they have nothing but Tactical marines and that they deserve to lose.

Tactical_Spam wrote:If you are being an idiot and trying to play a WAAC TFG with nothing but tactical marines... you deserve to lose.

Ultimately? I agree. Thus the reason I don't play against said guy any more.

But frankly, I think that's a fault with the game.

I think somebody is angry that they have nothing but Tactical marines and that they deserve to lose.

Why shouldn't tactical marines be able to win? Fluff wise, they are supposed to be veritable demigods.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:If you are being an idiot and trying to play a WAAC TFG with nothing but tactical marines... you deserve to lose.

Ultimately? I agree. Thus the reason I don't play against said guy any more.

But frankly, I think that's a fault with the game.

I think its a fault with a certain somebody who owns nothing but Tacticals.

I think somebody is angry that they have nothing but Tactical marines and that they deserve to lose.

Why shouldn't tactical marines be able to win? Fluff wise, they are supposed to be veritable demigods.

Ever read Gaunt's Ghosts? Or the Salamanders Omnibus? Or the Death of Integrity?

Tactical_Spam wrote:I think its a fault with a certain somebody who owns nothing but Tacticals.

Remind me: is playing nothing but tacticals inconsistent with the codex rules? Is that not an army list that the rules allow?

Fluffwise, do tacticals never go out on their own?

Ever read Gaunt's Ghosts? Or the Salamanders Omnibus? Or the Death of Integrity?

I have not.

I think the point he's trying to make is that fluff and crunch don't necessarily match up. In the Gaunt's Ghosts novels you see 1 Guardsman taking out a CSM dreadnought using an exploding lasgun and some local fauna.

 War Kitten wrote:
I think the point he's trying to make is that fluff and crunch don't necessarily match up. In the Gaunt's Ghosts novels you see 1 Guardsman taking out a CSM dreadnought using an exploding lasgun and some local fauna.

And in the Salamanders omnibus, Vulkan He'stan nearly dies to a lone Haemonculus

 War Kitten wrote:
I think the point he's trying to make is that fluff and crunch don't necessarily match up. In the Gaunt's Ghosts novels you see 1 Guardsman taking out a CSM dreadnought using an exploding lasgun and some local fauna.

And my critical success rule would mirror that!

Well. The Dreadnought had already been severely damaged beforehand. But that's another discussion entirely. Alright. Have fun you lot. I'm signing off for the night.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I think the point he's trying to make is that fluff and crunch don't necessarily match up. In the Gaunt's Ghosts novels you see 1 Guardsman taking out a CSM dreadnought using an exploding lasgun and some local fauna.

And in the Salamanders omnibus, Vulkan He'stan nearly dies to a lone Haemonculus

See? As I said: what I am proposing mirrors the fluff.

GG.

Land Raiders allready punish you for taking them, with your "fix" you migh as well give you opponent 250pts advantage.

I agree with what others have said. This change would balance nothing. If anything it would make the disparity between certain things worse (ie any vehicle). IH are bad enough they don't need to be worse. Bolters and other such things being able to glance down a Land Raider (which is already a HORRIBLE vehicle) is just stupid. Tac squads are a tax you need to minimize and work around. Using things other than tacs to kill things is not WAAC. Never has been, never will be. Other units exist for a reason.

Absolutely useless rule.

In "fixing" the game, you break it another way. Only now, if I played a game against you and brought hundreds of grots or Guardsmen, you'd propose to nerf them to kingdom come.

Also, seeing as you "such a paragon of fluffy playing", surely you realise that Titans are quite literally millennia old. Titans outlive Space Marines by a VAST margin. Tactical and Chaos Marines in every form of fluff run for cover when a Titan appears, because guess why? The Titan would obliterate them! Only, now we have 100 Guardsmen killing them with glorified laser pointers.

Enlighten me, would you say it is possible to destroy an Abrams tank in today's universe using a pea shooter or cap gun. If you can, please show evidence. And don't bother using some Death Star analogy, because as we all know, the X-Wing had a weapon that could damage it. The issue was the tiny entry slit. Titans simply don't have an exposed area that is vulnerable to lasgun fire.

Or perhaps you can't take the hint they put in the codex for you: USE OTHER UNITS. Even if you do just want infantry, there's Devastators. Or even heavy and special weapons in the Tactical Squad. But in no situation should a bun be good at everything. Would you expect a character in DnD to be able to kill a dragon with a spoon, stark naked and kill it? I'd be glad to run that scenario by you. Your failure to make a balanced, adaptable (adaptable, now that describes Space Marine battle doctrine!) list is not your opponent's fault.

(And for the record - Space Marines do rarely fight TITANS with Tactical Marines alone )

But, I'm probably feeding the troll here.

Oh cool, you invalidated my Gauss. Sweet.