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.

I wish to point out that this thread easily could go under either the general and proposed rules sub-fora. In a strong sense, this thread deals with topics that could go under both. I have opted to put it in this subforum because it primarily deals with proposed rules for list construction, gameplay and provides a "meta" discussion of proposed rules changes.

I wish to begin the topic by asking an apparently simple question: What is your primary goal in playing Warhammer 40k? The way I see it, there are two obvious answers:

1. To win
2. To have fun (in some respect other than by winning alone).

And the main source of fun in 2 is the spectacle of 40k.

Before I go on, I wish to point out that if your answer to my question is 1, then this thread is not for you. I recommend passing it over. I also wish to point out that if your answer is 1, then Warhammer 40k is probably a poor game for this purpose. You could "win" at other games with far less expense, time and effort involved. If you wish to win at Warhammer 40k, then in order to do it consistently, you'll be engaging in a never-ending cycle of expensive purchases, painting (or else, paying someone else to paint), construction, etc. all simply to engage in a two to three hour futile exercise of: I place models. You place models. You pick up models. I win." Or else: I place models. You place models. I move models here, there and over there. I then do nothing for the next 2 to 3 hours other than pick up models. I win anyway.

Somehow, that seems like a spectacular waste of time, money and effort to me.

Of course, that may be your idea of fun, and if it is, then more power to you, I suppose, but again, this is not the thread for you. We simply won't see eye to eye.

So, I'll assume that your purpose in playing Warhammer 40k is to have fun, and the chief component of this fun is the spectacle of warhammer 40k. That's why we even bother going through this whole model construction and painting thing, right? That's the whole point in reading anything other than the rules for the models, right? That's the point in even knowing what the difference between an Eldar and a space marine is, right?

So I want you to think back to the last game that you played which you could really call "spectacular," i.e, made for a really good "show," so to speak. When was the last time that you really had FUN in a warhammer 40k game even if you didn't win it? How would you characterize that game?

In the poll, I put three basic options:

1. Battle of Normandy IN SPACE. Basically, tons of infantry (and some vehicles) on both sides. Tons of casualties. Tons of action. The germans may not have won, but bullets were flying everywhere, lots of people died, and both parties did tons of stuff. In other words: STUFFED HAPPENED, and stuffed happened on BOTH sides of the map. Everybody was constantly doing stuff.

2. Godzilla IN SPACE. Basically, big giant monsters (wraithknights, imperial knights, etc.) that take tons of fire power to go down and which the common rank and rile soldiery can't touch. Now, you may have fun playing this way. But think about it from the perspective of the person controlling the tokyo soldiers: is that really fun for them?

Again, think about Dark Souls I. Did anybody really have fun against the big red dragon at the bridge right after the Taurus demon? What about the big red dragon in dark souls II?

3. Super Saiyans vs. tokyo soldiers: Basically the same concept, except you have what are, for all intents and purposes, normal infantry who have ridiculous super powers and are, for all intents and purposes, untouchable. In a game of Vegeta vs. yajirobe, do you REALLY want to play as yajirobe?

I'll write more later, but first, I want you guys to think about these three alternatives, because, ultimately, the answer that you pick has important implications for how you should construct your army lists, what armies you should play, how you should actually play the game, etc.

I'll make the actual proposals after you guys start discussing this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming that the fun game is the first one I mentioned (i.e., Normandy in Space). Why?

2 and 3 are not spectacular. They are a mind-numbing, boring exercise in futility and time wasting. There is nothing fun about moving models to an objective and going to ground for 5 turns.

There is nothing fun about playing "Keep away from the death star."

Why? Because in those games, NOTHING HAPPENS. Well, I stand corrected. Plenty of things happen for your opponent. Nothing happens for you. You are playing a giant game of hide and seek, and you never get to seek.

Unless, of course, it's Godzilla vs. Godzilla or Super Saiyan Goku vs. Super Saiyan Vegeta.

And that's not the game I signed up for.

That could be a fun game, and in fact, GW released exactly that game (IK vs. IK). But that's not the warhammer 40k that I signed up for.

So, in my proposals, I am going to assume that the fun game, that everyone wants to play, is NORMANDY IN SPAAACE!

My assumptions are these:

1. The goal of both players is fun for the sake of fun.
2. The way that this is accomplished primarily is by making sure that STUFF HAPPENS for both players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With that preface, I offer my proposals. Note, of course, that these are not proposals for game changes. These are proposals for list construction and use of already existing in game mechanics. We don't need GW to balance the game. The potential for balance is already there.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

Catnipaddict wrote:
Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

You are disagreeing with a conclusion. If you wish to disagree with my conclusion, then I'll ask you:

1. Which of my principles you disagree with.
2. What part of my reasoning you disagree with.

If you simply tell me that your fun consists in winning, then I'll point out that I say in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

I admit the possibility that other people have a different criterion of fun in the OP. I also point out that such people should ignore this thread.

The whole post seemed to be a bit convoluted in what it was trying to say and the way it was written. The same goes for the poll. I've read through the entire thread and still not 100% sure I understand the poll.

And why is having fun in 40K through winning wrong? If that's the only way they have fun, then sure. But I find myself answering that question with both answers: I find it fun to win at 40K and I have fun with genuinely good games.

Traditio wrote:With that preface, I offer my proposals. Note, of course, that these are not proposals for game changes. These are proposals for list construction and use of already existing in game mechanics. We don't need GW to balance the game. The potential for balance is already there.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.

These proposals are incredibly subjective and as far as any of the rest of us know are untested on the tabletop. I think if anyone is going to abide by these changes, then you need to tell us exactly what issues these address, how they fix them, and (if possible) provide results from play-testing them. I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to think that before they implement these changes, they need to see that you're genuinely interesting in seeking out and identifying problems, finding at least one solution (because there's always more than one), and then implementing it with an explanation of how it fixes the problem.

Traditio wrote:Final point:

From this, the rationale for my "crusade against buffs" should be evident.

It's far easier to balance the game through nerfs rather than buffs. What makes the game less fun isn't the vast majority of the things in the game. It's a select few elements that turn the game into 2 or 3 rather than 1.

Those things need to be nerfed.

Buffs just make more and more things obsolete, whereas what is called for is the opposite.

I think the concept you're looking for is an "Overall Nerf" rather than "No Buffs Whatsoever". For example, consider a Tactical Marine: You could could increase his Ballistic Skill to 6, which is obviously a buff, but you could decrease all his other characteristics by one to a minimum of one, which is obviously a nerf. In this example, it can clearly be seen that the Tactical Marine has been nerf overall despite receiving a buff to Ballistic Skill.

If all you do is nerf the game, it becomes easier to balance because, depending on how much you nerf, there will be less to balance. Plus where does nerfing stop? I mean, the same could be said of buffs, but in a scenario where all you're doing is nerfing, I still think a "Nerfing Only" policy runs into trouble really quickly.

Overall Nerfing is a hell of a lot better than Straight Up Nerfing (with No Buffs), especially from a balancing perspective.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I'm sorry people enjoy having fun in a way that is different then your way. But that doesn't mean they are wrong for it.

I admit the possibility that other people have a different criterion of fun in the OP. I also point out that such people should ignore this thread.

So already you're cutting out a lot of the player base and a lot of the user base here on Dakka.

IllumiNini wrote:The same goes for the poll. I've read through the entire thread and still not 100% sure I understand the poll.

Normandy in space: tons of infantry and dedicated transports.

Super Saiyan Vegeta: unkillable deathstars (e.g., captain smashfether)

Godzilla: giant, difficult to kill things (e.g., wraithknights, imperial knights, etc.)

And why is having fun in 40K through winning wrong? If that's the only way they have fun, then sure. But I find myself answering that question with both answers: I find it fun to win at 40K and I have fun with genuinely good games.

Primary vs. secondary objectives.

What I am describing is setting out to create a spectacle, and then trying to win once dice have started to role.

The criterion of "fun" for other people is making sure that you win before you even roll dice.

Thus the fact that people play Godzilla or Super Saiyan Vegeta, but would not want to play the tokyo soldiers.

These proposals are incredibly subjective and as far as any of the rest of us know are untested on the tabletop. I think if anyone is going to abide by these changes, then you need to tell us exactly what issues these address, how they fix them, and (if possible) provide results from play-testing them. I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to think that before they implement these changes, they need to see that you're genuinely interesting in seeking out and identifying problems, finding at least one solution (because there's always more than one), and then implementing it with an explanation of how it fixes the problem.

They're really not "subjective." If the goal is to make the game into normandy in space, then my proposals accomplish that. What do I mean by normandy in space? Tons of stuff happens every turn because all or most of the units are basically expendable.

If you can't reroll your saves, then your guy is more likely to die, and not only that, but die faster.

From personal experience, I find that the funnest games are when both players pick up lots of models.

I think the concept you're looking for is an "Overall Nerf" rather than "No Buffs Whatsoever".

Yes, I completely agree with this.

Again, I think that a missile launcher with flakk should cost 20, not 25, points. It should be points equivalent to a lascannon.

Overall Nerfing is a hell of a lot better than Straight Up Nerfing (with No Buffs), especially from a balancing perspective.

My rationale is that more, not fewer, things should actually be relevant and able to do things in game. If you make a stormbolter S5, then tactical marines and guardsmen become weaker/more fragile overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IN:

I also wish to point out that you should be very congenial to the proposals I'm expressing.

You play Black Templar.

Traditio wrote:
Unless, of course, it's Godzilla vs. Godzilla or Super Saiyan Goku vs. Super Saiyan Vegeta.

And that's not the game I signed up for.

And, as I keep telling you, your way of having fun is not the only way. You're of course entitled to ask to play a game with lots of low-power infantry on both sides, but please stop acting like you've found some morally superior way to play the game and everyone else is Doing It Wrong.

The problem isn't GW. The problem is the player base. GW is in the business of selling models to be used basically for spectacular re-enactments/role-playing games.

No, GW is in the business of selling, period. They don't care what you do with the models as long as you keep buying them. Their rules are utter garbage for spectacular re-enactments and roleplaying, just like they're utter garbage for competitive tournament play. In fact, GW seems to be rather explicitly saying "the game is about tanks and giant monsters" by continuing to release tank and giant monster models along with formations for using multiple copies of those units.

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound". A re-rollable 5++ is really just a 4++, after all, and I don't think any reasonable person can argue that a 4++ is overpowered or not fun.

2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.

IOW, "don't bring your fluffy tank-heavy army, change your fluff to suit my preferences".

3. Don't use Tau.

This is a terrible rule, even by your standards. Tau have some balance issues but excluding an entire faction, no matter how its lists are constructed, is absolutely insane.

4. No Decurion.

Another terrible rule. Use of alternative FOCs has absolutely nothing to do with power level or fun level. Imposing blanket bans on whole categories of armies, regardless of how fun or powerful they are, is lazy game design and ruins everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Yeah, I'll just keep those awesome models on the shelf, because you don't approve of them. Good to know you're so opposed to fluff and awesome models in your narrative/roleplaying game.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

IOW:

"I don't like losing to these things. Take them out of your army so I don't have to figure out any of the many ways to beat them."

Honestly the "No Tau" proposal is just shocking. Eldar are a worse abuser of the mechanics you are talking about by far. I've had fun playing against Tau and Eldar. It's all in the mindset of thier players. Tau and Eldae players are more likely to be WAAC than ork or guard players, but disallowing them outright seems petty. Some people honestly have fun with their playstyles.

I mainly play tyranids. The armies theme is pretty much godzilla.
Sure there are infantry, but they exist only to eat bullets and distract the enemy, while the big monsters get stuff done. There's not really any getting away from it.

Clearly the entire concept of the army is un-fun. You should add it to your Do Not Play list along with Tau. They could use some company.

Traditio wrote:

Catnipaddict wrote:
Frankly, just based on what I've read here. It honestly sounds like what you really want to be doing. Is not playing 40k.

Edit: To clarify, what I mean is that you seem to want to drastically change the game (remove an entire army) to increase YOUR enjoyment of the game. But in doing so you would VASTLY inhibit the enjoyment of the majority of the players. Honestly it's selfish. The best option for you may just be to look into a different game.

You are disagreeing with a conclusion. If you wish to disagree with my conclusion, then I'll ask you:

1. Which of my principles you disagree with.
2. What part of my reasoning you disagree with.

If you simply tell me that your fun consists in winning, then I'll point out that I say in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.

My disagreement is that you want to drastically change the way the game plays, removing enjoyment from OTHER people, IE people who play Tau, or people that play the game for a thousand other reasons you haven't listed.

I can assure you I don't get my fun from winning, I'm a purely casual player. I honestly can only remember one time I've ever won! And it was a game where I was trying to teach someone how to play. I get my enjoyment out of the list building, number crunching and theory crafting. On top of just the 'cool factor'. Sure I know hammer heads suck, but they are SO cool. So you could say, I play for the spectacle.

My disagreement with your conclusion, is that your conclusion is "The game doesn't play the way I want to, so I want to change it away from how everyone else wants it to be played". Decurians for example is one of thee reasons I got BACK into 40k. I loved the new style of take certain combinations of units get cool thing. The changes you're asking, would turn the game into a game I don't think myself or, and I may be stretching here, the majority of the current player-base would want to play.

So I reiterate my orginal point, harsh as it may be. Maybe 40k isn't the game you want to be playing.

Traditio wrote:
I also wish to point out that you should be very congenial to the proposals I'm expressing.

You play Black Templar.

I don't think me playing Black Templars should have any bearing on whether or not I should agree with you on anything. Yes, it might afford me some bias for or against certain changes, but the army that somebody plays should ultimately not affect their opinions on game balance and rules changes.

And I can honestly agree with the four immediately preceding posts.

A person's main army will certainly make them biased. As an ork player, I think overwatch is dumb, you should be able to hit on a 2+ in CC, and charging should give a bonus to initiative.

Granted, there are non-ork related things I think are dumb, like so many MCs that should just be walkers, but in most gaming circles, players will find things that hurt their side dumb.

Ironically, it is competitive players who are more honest about balance because it is purely a numbers game for them. A competitive Falco or Marth player in Melee will readily admit that their characters can do dumb things, whereas more casual players more often defend their characters with more gusto.

Peregrine wrote:And, as I keep telling you, your way of having fun is not the only way. You're of course entitled to ask to play a game with lots of low-power infantry on both sides, but please stop acting like you've found some morally superior way to play the game and everyone else is Doing It Wrong.

Read the OP.

I very clearly asserted that the proposals in this thread isn't for everyone.

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound".

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

IOW, "don't bring your fluffy tank-heavy army, change your fluff to suit my preferences".

Yes. If you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, don't bring the mech list. If I'm playing an infantry heavy list and you're playing nothing but leeman russes, I won't be doing much.

My assumption is that you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

This assumption doesn't hold true for you. You play to win.

Which makes me wonder: Why bother posting in this thread to start with?

This is a terrible rule, even by your standards. Tau have some balance issues but excluding an entire faction, no matter how its lists are constructed, is absolutely insane.

It's not a matter of balance. It's a matter of wanting to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

It's not the case that STUFF HAPPENS in a game against tau. Unless you're the Tau player.

Another terrible rule. Use of alternative FOCs has absolutely nothing to do with power level or fun level. Imposing blanket bans on whole categories of armies, regardless of how fun or powerful they are, is lazy game design and ruins everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

You've misunderstood me. I'm specifically referring to the Necron Decurion. A basic warrior basically gets a 4+ rerollable. 4+ for armor and 4+ FNP which can't be negated by the ID rule.

]Yeah, I'll just keep those awesome models on the shelf, because you don't approve of them. Good to know you're so opposed to fluff and awesome models in your narrative/roleplaying game.

As I said. If you don't want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, then ignore these rules.

Personally, I don't want to play a game of sit on the objective and do nothing for 5 turns.

You might. I don't.

"I don't like losing to these things. Take them out of your army so I don't have to figure out any of the many ways to beat them."

Rule 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
I mainly play tyranids. The armies theme is pretty much godzilla.
Sure there are infantry, but they exist only to eat bullets and distract the enemy, while the big monsters get stuff done. There's not really any getting away from it.

Clearly the entire concept of the army is un-fun. You should add it to your Do Not Play list along with Tau. They could use some company.

Don't run flyrants, minimize the use of monstrous creatures, and we've got a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to point out that, so far, 2 people have asserted, in the poll, that they like playing AS Godzilla. NOBODY has voted for the option of playing AGAINST Godzilla.

Just pointing that out.

Traditio wrote:

This is a terrible rule. The concept is a reasonable one, but a much better way to put it would be "do not use anything that gives more than an X% chance of preventing a wound".

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Do you realize that you've gone against every single convention of a discussion?

1: If you don't agree with my point, don't speak.

2: If you have points that run counter to me, it's because you are bad, so I don't have to regard your opinions as valid.


You've essentially decreed that no other opinions are acceptable, other than your own. You're attempting to establish yourself as an unopposed authority, so that the only acceptable responses are an echo-chamber.

Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

This is either the worst form of cultism, or a bad joke. I mean, it can be both, I suppose, but really it's nothing but a throw-away opinion piece with little-to-no substance.

Don't get me wrong, 7th edition is pushing me out the door, but like other people have pointed out, if you don't like the game, try something else.

IllumiNini wrote:Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

It raises all kinds of silly questions.

Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

Simplest solution is best. No rerollable saves.

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Yes. BOTH players removing models over the course of the game, and the game ultimately being decided on based on who made the best in game tactical decisions.

Shocking. I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

I think that's ridiculous. There's nothing reasonable about a 2+ invuln with a 4+ reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for those who mentioned the ITC "No rerollables over 4+," I wish to point out that this breaks down. Consider the Necron Decurion:

Warrior gets 4+ armor. He then gets 4+ RP. Depending on the circumstances, if he rolls a 1 on the RP, he gets a 4+ reroll.

So, to kill that warrior, you have to beat a 4+ armor, a 4+ RP and probably a 4+ reroll to that RP.

That's ridiculous.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Not really complex maths at all. I wouldn't describe anything in Warhammer 40K to involve complex maths.

It raises all kinds of silly questions.

Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

Simplest solution is best. No rerollable saves.

Sounds to me like you still think that's somehow complicated maths and/or a complicated concept.

Traditio wrote:

Also, you seem to have a very narrow view of "Stuff Happening" in 40K.

Yes. BOTH players removing models over the course of the game, and the game ultimately being decided on based on who made the best in game tactical decisions.

Shocking. I know.

From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

TLDR? It's all about how you play, not what's in your army - a concept you can't seem to grasp.

Traditio wrote:

greatbigtree wrote:Math isn't complicated. The ITC fixes it by establishing a "no better than 4+ on your re-roll."

I think that's ridiculous. There's nothing reasonable about a 2+ invuln with a 4+ reroll.

If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Traditio wrote:
I very clearly asserted that the proposals in this thread isn't for everyone.

Sure, you asserted it, but this goes beyond "if you only care about winning this isn't for you". Not only are you attempting to limit the discussion to casual/fluff players, you're attempting to limit it to people who like the exact same kinds of units/armies that you like. IOW, people who love the fluff and spectacle of giant Tau robots fighting giant Tyranid monsters are not welcome. And that's a pretty clear concession that your proposed rules are worthless as a general "how you should play 40k" guide that other people can benefit from.

That requires complex maths. The easier thing to do is just say "No rerollable saves."

No, it requires basic math that can be done with a trivial amount of effort. And I think doing a trivial amount of basic math is a small price to pay for making rules that only exclude the problem units, not everything in a whole general category. I think we can all see the absurdity of allowing a unit with a 3++ but banning a unit with a re-rollable 5++ which has a lower chance of saving a wound than the unit with the 3++

Yes. If you want to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS, don't bring the mech list. If I'm playing an infantry heavy list and you're playing nothing but leeman russes, I won't be doing much.

And this is why we should have a house rule that infantry-only lists are banned, and you must bring anti-tank units. The fact that stuff isn't dying is entirely your fault.

This assumption doesn't hold true for you. You play to win.

Remember what happened last time you said this about my tank-heavy army? You had to apologize for your ridiculous stereotypes after looking at my painting thread and realizing that I do in fact care about more than just winning efficiently.

It's not a matter of balance. It's a matter of wanting to play a game in which STUFF HAPPENS.

It's not the case that STUFF HAPPENS in a game against tau. Unless you're the Tau player.

And this is just demonstrating a complete ignorance of the Tau faction and 40k in general. Stuff happens with Tau on one or both sides of the battle, period. No amount of ridiculous arguments otherwise will change this fact.

Rule 1.

There is nothing rude about what I said. You are blatantly excluding stuff based on "I don't like this" rather than its actual power.

Don't run flyrants, minimize the use of monstrous creatures, and we've got a game.

IOW, don't play Tyranids. MCs are a fundamental part of the Tyranid army, we might as well tell you to leave all of your tactical squads at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Can I reroll my 5+ invuln? What if I also have a 5+ FNP? Can I reroll both? Just one?

That depends on what the maximum chance of negating a wound is. A 5++ re-rollable is a 55% chance, and 5+ FNP is a 33% chance. Is a 30% chance of taking an unsaved wound ok? This roughly translates to a 3+ save (33.333%), so it pretty clearly should be allowed.

IllumiNini wrote:From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

And you don't believe even for a second that it would be fun.

My evidence? I'll take my infantry list and you take your predator list and let's play that game.

But you get to play with my armor, and I yours.

You up for that?

[If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Assuming T4 and the model firing is a space marine with bolters, it would take:

2/3 X 1/2 X 1/6 X 1/2 = 2/72 = 1/36

It would take 36 bolter shots to do even a single wound.

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

And what if it's a ravenwing 2+ rerollable jink? Then it's T5 and the odds are worse.

Traditio wrote:

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

So you never fought the Deff Rolla Blitzkrieg last edition? It was a staple of Orks for some time. Hell Orks did a fair chunk of their Vehicle killing by ramming vehicles with Deff Rollas into other vehicles.

Traditio wrote:

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

Flamers, the Div power that gives Ignores Cover (i dont recall off hand what it is), various other template weapons. Invulns are Invulns, thats why you pay for them. Getting a re-rollable Invuln is not easy.

Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

With what? Assaulting a unit that wants to be within 12" of you to shoot rapid fire weapon? Or do you assume that people can only use infantry so don't realize some units can move 12"?

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:From what you've said previously in this thread, you seem to think that running lists that aren't infantry-heavy immediately means that not a lot can happen during the game. This is 100% false. It all depends on the capabilities of the list and how the player chooses to play said list. For example, I could take a list of predominantly Predator Tanks all equipped with Lasconnons. This list would allow me to sit at the back of the board and do nothing but shoot which would be boring. I could also move them closer and try to ram my opponent's army as well as shoot, which is a lot more exciting.

That would be strategically ridiculous. I have yet to see anyone do this. The example is smoke and mirrors and unrealistic.

And you don't believe even for a second that it would be fun.

My evidence? I'll take my infantry list and you take your predator list and let's play that game.

Really? This is your response? Clearly you've completely glazed over the point. That or you simply don't want to be wrong.

Traditio wrote:

[If this is really how you feel, then 40K definitely isn't for you.

Assuming T4 and the model firing is a space marine with bolters, it would take:

2/3 X 1/2 X 1/6 X 1/2 = 2/72 = 1/36

It would take 36 bolter shots to do even a single wound.

Of course, this isn't so bad if it's 2+ armor, at which point it can simply be ignored. Cover and invuln saves? Different story.

And what if it's a ravenwing 2+ rerollable jink? Then it's T5 and the odds are worse.

Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Shooting bolters isn't the only way to deal damage to a unit. Did you know that if you assault ravenwing that they don't get 2+ rerollable jink saves?

Good luck with that.

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

CrownAxe wrote:With what? Assaulting a unit that wants to be within 12" of you to shoot rapid fire weapon?

You don't have to be within 12 inches to shoot a rapidfire weapon. You can fire a single shot at 24 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

What weapon in the SM codex strips a 2+ invuln?

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

Ravenwing bikes move 12 and can boost another 12.

As I said. Good luck.

Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

Reread the OP.

You don't seem to be getting my point.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh boy, a single bolter shot for 20 something points That is really terrifying. They are clearly broken

And if they turbo boost for 12" then they aren't shooting at all. Man no shooting is so broken

Reread the OP.

You're clearly not getting my point.

How about you learn how to play the game? You claim all this stuff is broken and ruins the game but you continue to show you have no idea how to deal with units that aren't even broken

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Only a problem if the only weapons you take are Bolters...

What weapon in the SM codex strips a 2+ invuln?

Obviously nothing can strip it, but a high number of shots will cause it to fail eventually. For example, a model with a 2+ Invulnerable will fail at least one if three Dreadnoughts shoot Assault Cannons or a 10-man Tactical with Bolters shoots at it.

Traditio wrote:

You really don't have a very good grasp on this game, do you?

Ravenwing bikes move 12 and can boost another 12.

As I said. Good luck.

I got nothing - absolutely nothing - for you.