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.

CrownAxe wrote:How about you learn how to play the game?

Rule 1.

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

I didn't say that they are broken.

Ultimately, I would say that they're not fun to play against.

Why?

Because a 2+ rerollable cover save means that they won't be picking up models very often. That's too hard to kill.

if you wish to assert that the cover save can be stripped by assaulting, I'll tell you that bikes move fast. It's hard to catch a bike if they don't want to be caught.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:How about you learn how to play the game?

Rule 1.

I still stand by what I said. You should learn how to play the game before you keep insisting you know how to fix it

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

I didn't say that they are broken.

Ultimately, I would say that they're not fun to play against.

Why?

Because a 2+ rerollable cover save means that they won't be picking up models very often. That's too hard to kill.

if you wish to assert that the cover save can be stripped by assaulting, I'll tell you that bikes move fast. It's hard to catch a bike if they don't want to be caught.

Its only hard to catch them if you insist on only using infantry. There are plenty of units that are as fast if not faster then regular bikes

Not only that but if they are turbo boosting then they aren't shooting you or assaulting you so you can just ignore them because they aren't doing anything.

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 don't seem to be getting my point.

I think the larger issue is that you are so stuck on your point that you're not listening to the arguments people are saying.

Enough people have countered your points in this thread enough that I'm not going to waste the time repeating whats been said. What I WILL say is that, it looks like you have NO support here. The rule changes you proposed seem pretty universally panned. And saying, well if you are playing to win then this isn't for you doesn't work. You are proposing a rule change to the ENTIRE game. That includes even those that are only playing to win. You lost the right to omit those people when you made the thread.

I'll reiterate what I and many other people have said. Perhaps 40k is not the right game for you. And I am trying to be helpful here. Please don't take this as a GTFO comment. I legitimately mean you might want to consider looking into other table tops. There might be a better fit for what you are looking for.

Traditio wrote:

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

I couldn't disagree more with this. The fact that stuff dies so quickly is entirely the problem with 40k. You spend hours building and painting models, you design a list around units that you want to use... And then as often as not, they die before you actually get to do anything with them.

I bought and assembled a vindicator when the kit was released in 2nd edition. It was 5th edition before I actually got to shoot with it, or have it survive past turn 2.

40k is at its best when the game is won through manouvering and achieving objectives, rather than when both players at just picking up all of their models.

I can basically sum up my response to this in one word.

No.

OP, your view on this issue is basically "My way is right, and if you don't agree with me, you're a WAAC TFG who shouldn't be allowed to play."

That's cool. But you won't get many positive responses if you don't accommodate opposing views.

I think your main problem here is your, excuse my tone here, lack of experience. You seem to have only experienced players whose goals may have been to win at all costs, by using the most powerful weapons for them. And you might dislike that. You're welcome to deny them a game. But that doesn't make them wrong. They are playing the game right, according to them, and you're playing it wrong instead by not adapting to the new meta. They are having fun though - and that's not bad. Just don't play against them, and don't force people to play your way because of your (personally) unreasonable preferences. GW doesn't care, so long as you buy their kits and play their game. They don't care if you RP a game or if you bring a literal chunk of cheddar to the table. If you're playing their game, they don't care.

And let's face it - according to you, how does a Tau player have fun? Or a fluffy mechanised army? A Leman Russ tank brigade, perchance? How about an artillery company? Oh wait - they don't conform to your restrictive ruleset. I fail to see how you can claim fluff rules at all, given your predisposition against anything larger than an infantryman.

Here's better advice for you - talk to your opponent about what you want, and what they want. If you want on infantry game, ask for it. If they want to bring their Carnifex wall against you, they'll ask for it. And they might be fine with this. But if you don't like that? Go get another game, because they shouldn't have to change for your expectations. And in this situation, I'd gladly give the Nid player a game.

Your logic of no-rerolling is also fundamentally flawed. So, a 6++ rerollable invuln is bad, but a flat 2++ is a-okay? Cool beans. Such complex maths.

Stuff being supposed to happen - by what rule? It's your opinion that stuff should happen, nowhere does it say that must be the case. Models are killed far too easily now, with elites heavy infantry being removed by handfuls. It's not pleasant to see your centuries old veterans of warfare swept off the table, or your fear-striking battle tank plinked to death, or your leviathan MC being riddled with bullets before it can even get two feet in.
A balance of killing and durability is needed, and your rules do not foster this.

My response on your poll - I voted on your third option. I played Legion Astartes against Tau, no transports, all infantry on the table. The Tau had a Crisis Deathstar, several buffed Fire Warrior squads in Devilfish, Hammerheads, and markerlights buffing a Riptide throughout the game. I loved the game, seeing my infantry storm up the cityscape, swarming the Riptide and bringing it down, my missile teams covering the advance of the Legionaries, the Tau forces fighting a retreat against the implacable blue wave.
It was a close game - one VP difference, IIRC. And although you may have hated seeing your Tactical Squads wiped out by Tau fire, I loved every moment.

But of course, there was nothing fun about fighting that deathstar. /sarcasm
And god forbid I had fun in a way you didn't personally enjoy.

Tl;dr answer: Scrub.

Traditio wrote:

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).

Do you wear glasses? I think you should, because you are remarkably shortsighted. It's not binary, because:

3. Both of the above.

Traditio wrote:

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

You know how you go about making broad, sweeping statements like this thst try to lay claim to some allusion of your own authority on things? Yeah, well stop it. Please. I'll even hold your high horses reins while you come down from it. Your selfishness, entitlement, inertia and lack of empathy and lack of accommodation towards other viewpoints is astonishing.

Trying to define 'the main source of fun' is pointless, because it's a different answer for everyone. Especially so since you shrug off any other viewpoints thst are different to your own as wrong tfg nonsense.

Traditio wrote:

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.

Doesn't matter. This is a discussion forum, where things get discussed. You don't get to decide you is allowed to post. You don't get To don't get to swing on to your high horse,cdemand an echo chamber and demand that all alternative viewpoints are either silenced or not made welcome. That's censorship. And I believe there is a wee thing in the constitution about folks being able to have their say.

Traditio wrote:

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?

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?

1: this works with tons of tanks too. Last few games of flames of war I played were almost entirely tank-company based and it was great fun. It's just the same in 40k. Armoured warfare is a thing, and offers some amazing 'spectacle'.

2: no mention of nidzilla? 'the tyranids are coming. Hold out as long as you can men, while we try and evacuate the...[static]'
Those infantry don't need to touch those Knights or other gargs - I have my tanks and artillery to take the Knights down. My infantry can hold the line. And this might come as a shock to you, but they're not helpless. My marines go into battle with the full support of their chapter. Armour. Drop pods. Grav. Weapons other than bolters. You know, things that stop them being helpless. You should try it some time.

3: sounds like a space marine drop pod assault, and yes, I am game for that. The whole point of the guard is plucky soldiers with a bayonet and some guts behind it, up against all the monsters in the universe. So yes. Sounds great. And again, see above. If all you equip your guys with is basic weapons,cont expect them to hold out when something bigger come knocking. Marines have more in their armouries than bolters and the single formation you insist on. Gulliman would be proud of using options. It's right there in that wee book that he wrote.

So at the end of the day, all three of your scenarios could be great fun, if they're constructed right. So yeah, count me in.

Traditio wrote:

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.

Well, if nothing happens, maybe you should look into how you've built your army and maybe think about expanding its capabilities? You know, drop pods, grav, psykers. If 'Nothing happens' quite so often it boils down to you not using the tools available to you.

Assume nothing. Think outside of that little fish bowl you live in. That right there is at the core of most of the reasons why you find yourself banging your head off the wall. 2 and 3 can be spectacular. Your broad strokes answers show nothing more than your lack of intent to building truly interesting scenarios or stepping out of your scrub mentality and insistence on defining forty-k through a single narrow viewpoint.

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.

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.

and yet, the warhammer you signed up for is nothing more than a myopic skew that has no interest for people. Insisting that that defines what 40k should be misses the forest for the trees and does nothing more than show up your own contempt and lack of empathy for your fellows as well as colossal arrogance.

Traditio wrote:

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

How about 'no'.

Traditio wrote:

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.

1: meh.
2: why? Nidzilla is a thing. Tank companies and armour are a thing. Airborne spec-ops are visually very appealing. And frankly, as an anime fan the idea of a mech heavy, Jet pack equipped 'mech' is awesome.
3: lol. Don't use marines then either. Considering how rare they are, they should never turn up, and guardsmen, orks and tyranids should represent 90% of what gets fielded.
4: it's fluffy as hell.
5. Unless you like flyers. Imperial guard airborne is a visually stunning 'spectacle' if you ask me.
6. Super heavies offer some of the greatest 'spectacles' of 40k. The lore is explicit here. They can stand in as some amazing centrepieces around which the game can pivot.

Traditio wrote:

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.

None of those things are necessarily 'unfair'.

1: what if I play daemons, or word bearers? The idea of a chaos coven opening a rift to the immaterium and summoning it's filth to cause the doom of worlds is one of the most iconic elements of 40k.
2. Lol. No. Teleportation is fine. Terminators 'warping in' to the enemy hq and gunning down everything in sight is iconic.
3. Isn't this one of the things gw needs to fix?
4. Spread out more.
5. L2p. And 'apparently unfair' is just a cop-out term for 'how dare they play with nice toys that I haven't tried to figure out yet'. Eldridge storm is fine.
6. No more telling people how they should be doing it to conform to your own narrow restrictive and myopic view of 'fun'.

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.

All nerfs to is turn the game into a 'race to the bottom'. It's neither harder not easier to balance that way. Nerfing everything accomplishes nothing.The truth is that some nerfs are requires, along with some buffs. 2 or 3 aren't necessarily an issue, despite your claims. They don't need to be 'nerfed' at all.

Your crusade against buffs is misinformed and misplaced. So much of what you consider overpowered is nothing more than a direct result of you not bothering to equip your troops better, and loudly insisting that everyone else is being wrong when you fall short because of your own (lack of) efforts. Scrub. L2p. Git Gud. Self empowerment and self -improvement and using all your options will get you further in game and in life.

Oh, the temptation to take one on the chin for plainly expressing my disgust.

The best games I've played were tough. Close. But stuff was still alive at the end of the game. I used to love playing my Guardsmen, they just don't hack it in 7th but I used to LOVE the fact that I was the Tokyo Soldiers vs the Godzillas of the galaxy. I liked the Fluff of men vs things greater than themselves.

SM are entirely capable of dealing with the myriad wickedness that 7th has brought. If you're willing to adapt your list to your metagame, you'll find that you have the tools to deal. Devs with a couple Grav Cannons can effectively deal with nearly any target, if you don't like Cents. Tougher to use, but still entirely capable.

No, I don't like that Grav has more-or-less become the go-to weapon in the SM arsenal. Truthfully, I despise how the game has become point-and-click destruction. I hate that D-Scythes are even a thing, no matter who has them or what the justification is. The game shouldn't allow the deletion of units without recourse.

But it does. The solution is to either find people that want to play by your heavily modified version of the rules, or to find a different game. I've been sorely tempted to try Warmahordes, myself, and I've been a GW supporter for 20 years. I'm finally getting to the point where I have fully painted armies [I hate painting] and I'm considering dropping it to try something different.

Quite frankly, all of the posts that I've seen you start indicate a complete disconnect from how 40k works. You should probably try Warmahordes out. From what I understand, it's almost entirely "Infantry and Dreadnoughts." I'm also told it's very well balanced. Maybe you should give it a shot.

insaniak wrote:I couldn't disagree more with this. The fact that stuff dies so quickly is entirely the problem with 40k. You spend hours building and painting models, you design a list around units that you want to use... And then as often as not, they die before you actually get to do anything with them.

I bought and assembled a vindicator when the kit was released in 2nd edition. It was 5th edition before I actually got to shoot with it, or have it survive past turn 2.

40k is at its best when the game is won through manouvering and achieving objectives, rather than when both players at just picking up all of their models.

I don't think that this necessarily conflicts with the main theses of the OP.

Saying that both sides should take casualties at roughly an equal rate, assuming identical player skill, is not the same thing as asserting that both sides should take heavy casualties.

I completely agree with you about a lot of the fun of 40k being about obtaining victory through manouvering, which, may I add, the things I mentioned in the OP actually work against.

The last really fun game I played was Crimson Fists vs. Gray Knights.

What ultimately clinched my victory in the game was my strategic placement of a wall of rhinos in between my forces and my opponent's death star and the subsequent successful tank shock.

Maneuvering and positioning matter more when you are playing with more infantry and fewer high RoF weapons. When you are running nothing but scatter bikes, or when you are running an untouchable deathstar/godzilla? Not quite so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:OP, your view on this issue is basically "My way is right, and if you don't agree with me, you're a WAAC TFG who shouldn't be allowed to play."

I didn't actually say that. If you review the OP, those words (nor even those sentiments) simply are not present.

I did present the dichotomy:

40k is fun primarily because:

1. Winning

or

2. Spectacle

I then argued that if 40k is fun because it is spectacular, then certain conclusions should follow.

I did assert that if the fun of 40k is primarily from winning, that you shouldn't post in this thread, but didn't explicitly attach any normative valuation to this.

That's cool. But you won't get many positive responses if you don't accommodate opposing views.

The arguments presuppose that you accept my premise: 40k is fun primarily because it is spectacular. If you don't accept the premise, then you won't accept the arguments or the conclusions; therefore, this thread simply isn't for you.

And let's face it - according to you, how does a Tau player have fun?

Or a fluffy mechanised army? A Leman Russ tank brigade, perchance? How about an artillery company? Oh wait - they don't conform to your restrictive ruleset. I fail to see how you can claim fluff rules at all, given your predisposition against anything larger than an infantryman.

If you've accepted my premises, there is nothing fun about any of those things.

There's nothing spectacular about playing against Tau.

There is nothing fun about having a Tiananmen square re-enactment.

And there was nothing spectacular about WWI. You doubt this? Then go watch a movie about WWI. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Enjoy 2 hours of mind-numbing boredom.

Here's better advice for you - talk to your opponent about what you want, and what they want. If you want on infantry game, ask for it. If they want to bring their Carnifex wall against you, they'll ask for it. And they might be fine with this. But if you don't like that? Go get another game, because they shouldn't have to change for your expectations. And in this situation, I'd gladly give the Nid player a game.

Actually, I very much propose something like the following:

You should assume that your opponent wants a spectacle. As such, you should assume that the standard is what I've presented in the OP. As such, every other army should come with a warning label.

"Just so you know, I'm running smashfether. Do you really want to waste the next 3 hours of your life?"

"Just so you know, I have 10 leeman russes. Are you ready for 3 hours of beating your head against a wall?"

"Just so you know; my army relies on psyker shenanigans/bull excrement. You ready for 3 hours of sheer frustration/annoyance?"

Your logic of no-rerolling is also fundamentally flawed. So, a 6++ rerollable invuln is bad, but a flat 2++ is a-okay? Cool beans. Such complex maths.

I don't like the slippery slope of where the permissive attitude to rerollable saves leads. You start at a 6++ rerollable, and then you're arguing for the 4+ armor save, the 4+ rerollable reanimation protocols.

My answer? No. No rerollable saves. Nip that in the bud from the start.

Stuff being supposed to happen - by what rule?

It follows almost trivially from the hypothesis of the OP, ie, that the fun of 40k is from the spectacle.

You are free to reject that hypothesis, but if you do, then I've already made clear in the OP that this isn't the thread for you.

Models are killed far too easily now, with elites heavy infantry being removed by handfuls.

Therefore the things that kill those things so easily need to be nerfed. Nerf grav, for starters, and super heavies.

It's not pleasant to see your centuries old veterans of warfare swept off the table, or your fear-striking battle tank plinked to death, or your leviathan MC being riddled with bullets before it can even get two feet in.

And a dangerous alternative is making those things too difficult to kill. If that centuries old veteran has a 2+ rerollable save and a rerollable FNP, then the opponent is going to have a bad time. If that leviathan MC is a flier with a rerollable invuln, the opponent is going to have a bad time.

A balance of killing and durability is needed, and your rules do not foster this.

Yes. They do.

If the vast majority of your army is infantry and dedicated transports, the "I am disappointed because my big scary expensive thing died on turn 1" isn't really a thing.

Everything is and should be expendable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those of you who disagree with the OP, I also wish to point out what the OP entails:

Playing against a SM battle company (without smashfether or fliers) is fun and spectacular.

Playing against orks is spectacular and fun.

Traditio wrote:
Saying that both sides should take casualties at roughly an equal rate, assuming identical player skill, is not the same thing as asserting that both sides should take heavy casualties.

However, you have very clearly stated that you expect both sides to take heavy casualties.

If you've accepted my premises, there is nothing fun about any of those things.

There's nothing spectacular about playing against Tau.

There is nothing fun about having a Tiananmen square re-enactment.

And there was nothing spectacular about WWI. You doubt this? Then go watch a movie about WWI. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Enjoy 2 hours of mind-numbing boredom.

IOW, "if you have accepted my premise that I am always right about everything and anything I don't enjoy can not be fun for anyone" then yeah, there's nothing fun about them. However, in the real world where the rest of us play, things like Tau, tank-heavy armies, etc, can be just as fun and spectacular as your tactical squad spam.

Actually, I very much propose something like the following:

You should assume that your opponent wants a spectacle. As such, you should assume that the standard is what I've presented in the OP. As such, every other army should come with a warning label.

Why should your method of playing be the default? Why not assume that competitive play and/or giant monsters are the default? Maybe it's your army that should come with a warning label:

"Just so you know, I'm taking nothing but tactical squads and can't deal with flyers/artillery/Tau/good saves/teleporting/psykers/death stars/Tyranids/etc, could you also play a bunch of tactical squads?"

I don't like the slippery slope of where the permissive attitude to rerollable saves leads. You start at a 6++ rerollable, and then you're arguing for the 4+ armor save, the 4+ rerollable reanimation protocols.

It's only a slippery slope because you refuse to acknowledge that your rule is bad. The rest of us have no problem saying "no unit can have more than an X% chance of negating a wound/vehicle damage", and it doesn't matter if the X% is obtained by re-rolling saves, stacking saves with non-save damage prevention, etc.

Peregrine wrote: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.

I'm limiting the discussion to people who think that the fun of 40k consists primarily from a spectacle in which stuff happens.

If that's not your idea of fun, then this isn't the thread for you.

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.

My underlying assumption is that you don't know what your opponent is running. If you plan in advance to play THIS vs. THAT, then my comments are irrelevant.

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++

Again, I don't like the slippery slope which this entails. Well if THIS is ok, why not THIS, etc, etc, etc.

No re-rollable saves. Period.

]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.

No. The patent absurdity of this statement should be self-evident.

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 has nothing to do with your list. I quote you:

"IMO take the most powerful options, paint your models well, and make up some appropriate fluff to justify it" (Peregrine, 2016/04/28 02:13:23).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688916.page#8618656

Your statement speaks for itself.

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.

The poll and commentary conducted in the general 40k discussion subforum speak for themselves. There was a thread about what the least favorite army to play against with is. The overwhelming answer was Tau. Why? Because it's a non-interactive army.

In other words: Because STUFF HAPPENS doesn't happen when you play against Tau.

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.

In just the same way that a SM player need not take only tactical squads, the tyrranids player need not spam flyrants.

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.

Fair enough. I'm willing to say that a 2+ save should be the maximum allowable save (i.e., a 1/6 chance of inflicting the wound).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:However, you have very clearly stated that you expect both sides to take heavy casualties.

In comparison to what happens against the so called "Godzilla" or "Supersaiyan" lists.

In comparison to what happens when you play against Necron decurion lists, both sides should take heavy casualties.

This is not the same thing as saying that both armies should be practically tabled by turn 5.

Traditio wrote:
I'm limiting the discussion to people who think that the fun of 40k consists primarily from a spectacle in which stuff happens.

If that's not your idea of fun, then this isn't the thread for you.

No, you're also excluding people who think that Tau giant robots vs. Tyranid giant monsters is a spectacle, or that "things happen" when Tau are in the game, etc. You are essentially declaring that anyone who doesn't play your specific army is not welcome in the discussion. You want an echo chamber for people to praise your ideas, not honest feedback and discussion.

Again, I don't like the slippery slope which this entails. Well if THIS is ok, why not THIS, etc, etc, etc.

No re-rollable saves. Period.

And, again, it's only a slippery slope if you insist on making it one to defend your argument. I'll just copy/paste my previous reply on this:

It's only a slippery slope because you refuse to acknowledge that your rule is bad. The rest of us have no problem saying "no unit can have more than an X% chance of negating a wound/vehicle damage", and it doesn't matter if the X% is obtained by re-rolling saves, stacking saves with non-save damage prevention, etc.

No. The patent absurdity of this statement should be self-evident.

Why? Because you don't agree with it? Why is it reasonable to say "don't bring lots of tanks", but not reasonable to say "don't bring lots of units that can't kill tanks"?

The poll and commentary conducted in the general 40k discussion subforum speak for themselves. There was a thread about what the least favorite army to play against with is. The overwhelming answer was Tau. Why? Because it's a non-interactive army.

In other words: Because STUFF HAPPENS doesn't happen when you play against Tau.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of Tau and the game in general. Tau have some major balance issues that can lead to non-interactive games, but they also have plenty of other stuff that is just fine. A blanket ban on Tau is absolutely insane.

Peregrine wrote:No, you're also excluding people who think that Tau giant robots vs. Tyranid giant monsters is a spectacle, or that "things happen" when Tau are in the game, etc.

Again, my underlying assumption is that each player doesn't know what the other player is bringing and has not made a previous agreement that THIS shall face off against THAT.

IK vs. IK might be spectacular. But you shouldn't assume that you'll be facing another IK list unless such an agreement has already been made.

Why? Because you don't agree with it? Why is it reasonable to say "don't bring lots of tanks", but not reasonable to say "don't bring lots of units that can't kill tanks"?

I'm not going to argue this point. Again, it should be self-evident to any reasonable observer.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of Tau and the game in general. Tau have some major balance issues that can lead to non-interactive games, but they also have plenty of other stuff that is just fine. A blanket ban on Tau is absolutely insane.

Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

Traditio wrote:


Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

Have you already set your goal posts up on wheels? I imagine constantly moving them around must be a pain otherwise.

Traditio wrote:


Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

I've got a buddy who runs Tau where stuff happens(!). I can give a rough estimate of what he runs:



Everything but the Hammerheads, the lone FW and the Broadside is in my face by turn two. Stuff Happens. I usually lose against this.

Traditio wrote:
Again, my underlying assumption is that each player doesn't know what the other player is bringing and has not made a previous agreement that THIS shall face off against THAT.

IK vs. IK might be spectacular. But you shouldn't assume that you'll be facing another IK list unless such an agreement has already been made.

Why shouldn't IK vs. IK be the default that everyone expects? Perhaps the real problem is that you're trying to play a non-standard list that doesn't have any giant robots/monsters to stomp around the city with, and you should have a warning label:

"Just so you know, I refuse to bring any giant monsters of my own, so I'm going to auto-lose to normal lists."

I'm not going to argue this point. Again, it should be self-evident to any reasonable observer.

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again.

Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

No, because no matter what I post you'll come back with "nobody would ever play that, Tau players are all WAAC TFGs (as you've said, that's the "Tau mentality") who always spam the most overpowered units".

Traditio wrote:
Ok. Construct a Tau list which:

1. People actually play

and in which

2. STUFF HAPPENS

I'll be waiting.

The list my opponent took. By which I had the enjoyable game in your OP.

(Not exact - but this is the basis of his units)

Points - 2k
Warlord Trait - Accurate Deep Strike (rolled for)

Crisis Commander - plasma rifle, fusion rifle, iridium armour, shield generator and some other stuff

3x Crisis Suit bodyguard, shield generators and plasma + fusion on each guy

Broadside with HRR and shield generator

Piranha with fusion rifle and all available upgrades

Hammerhead with HRR and all other upgrades, bar Longstrike

12 man Fire Warrior Strike Squad with bonding knives and Devilfish

11 man Fire Warrior Strike Squad with bonding knives and Devilfish

Cadre Fireblade

Full Pathfinder unit with 3x Rail Rifles

Riptide with IA, missile pod thing, Stimulant Injector and EWO.

I had a fun game, even by your standards. Things died, it was cinematic, spectacular and generally enjoyable. Yet, according to you, that's not fun.
Nice to see you can determine fun for me.

More bad form, old chum.

You're speaking in generalities, and then expecting others to speak in specifics so you can attack their individual cases with your own hypotheticals. Anyone here could say that, in general, there are non-tourney Tau lists that we've faced that were interactive. I can personally attest to that, though I don't recall the specifics of their construction. We were playing non-tourney competitive, because that's the game we enjoy. You need to envision 40k as something other than your "spectacle" of infantry splattering each other.

There are other forms of enjoyment that are not Win vs Spectacle [as you define it].

I like having a variety of opponents to face. I like being able to bring a variety of units to the table. Not all units can interact. That's the way it is. I enjoy the pitting of my wits against my opponent's. Previous editions of the game were better at this than things are now. There are ways to deal with units you can't harm / that can wipe you out without effort. That's the game now. It's not good, but it is the way it is. You have a problem with how the game plays. But it's clearly your problem. Your own internal resistance to playing the game any other way than the way you imagine.

I play to win. I prefer that to losing. I have a good time either way, because that's one of the ways my friends and I socialize. I'm not heart broken when I lose. I bust my buddies' balls a bit when I win, because that's the "prize." Bragging rights between buddies. But that's fading now, as we all realize how lop-sided our games are. So the fun is mostly in trying to overcome the Godzillas / Saiyans in the room with what I've got.

Look to tactics other than direct confrontation. You might have some fun that way.

PS: your poll should include the option to "Take whatever I want vs whatever my opponent wants to bring". Because that's my favourite way to play.

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.

No matter how much you nerf everything in the Necron codex, nobody will take C'Tan.

This is why buffs are the easiest method.

There's also the of point where it makes the game more varied to buff some units with special rules for example Wolf Scouts are much more interesting with a special rule for outflanking compared to just being SM Scouts +1.

Peregrine wrote:Why shouldn't IK vs. IK be the default that everyone expects?

Again, this is a ridiculous question and you're only asking it for rhetorical purposes.

The IK codex is one out of how many? The wraithknight is one option out of how many in the eldar codex?

How many models in the imperial guard codex has an AV value? How many do not?

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again.

If you legitimately cannot see why your initial claim, as presented, was purely sophistic, a mere rhetorical language game, then let's return to what you said:

"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."

That would be like telling someone: "Oh, you wanted to kill me with your handgun? You should have brought a high caliber rifle. I'm wearing body armor. It's your fault that you couldn't kill me."

While that's certainly true in some broad sense (i.e., had the shooter wished to bypass body armor, he should have used a high caliber rifle), it's strange to assign the responsibility for the failure of the shooter to kill his target to the shooter. The responsibility lies on the person wearing body armor: that's the whole reason he put it on in the first place.

Likewise in the case of tanks. That's the whole reason you use a tank in the first place, i.e., to confer immunity to small arms fire. You can't bring something specifically to invalidate at least part of my army and then assign blame to me that this part of my army has been invalidated.

That's the whole reason you brought a tank to begin with.

And here, you might launch on some sophistical oration about how tank are cool and fluffy and so forth and so on, but let's face the facts:

A tank is a heavily armored vehicle. The whole reason it's heavily armored is to stop bullets.

No, because no matter what I post you'll come back with "nobody would ever play that, Tau players are all WAAC TFGs (as you've said, that's the "Tau mentality") who always spam the most overpowered units".

Let me see, how did you phrase this earlier...? Oh yes:

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again

As much as I don't usually agree with Peregrine, he's pretty much on the dot. You do dismiss the notion of backing up your claims because you believe you are always right and everyone thinks you are always right.

Traditio wrote:
The IK codex is one out of how many? The wraithknight is one option out of how many in the eldar codex?

And now you're missing the point, I suspect deliberately. The IK codex is just one of many, but there are a lot of different "big monster" units: Stormsurges, Tyranid GMCs, Wraithknights, etc. Plus then there's all the various superheavy tanks, if you expand "big monster" to include huge units of all types, not literal Godzilla vs. giant robot fights. And you may have noticed that GW keeps making more big models, formations with multiple big models, etc. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that these are a normal and important part of the game.

While that's certainly true in some broad sense (i.e., had the shooter wished to bypass body armor, he should have used a high caliber rifle), it's strange to assign the responsibility for the failure of the shooter to kill his target to the shooter. The responsibility lies on the person wearing body armor: that's the whole reason he put it on in the first place.

I honestly have no idea what your intent with this analogy is. It makes absolutely no sense, and I don't think I'm the only one who is going to feel that way about it.

Likewise in the case of tanks. That's the whole reason you use a tank in the first place, i.e., to confer immunity to small arms fire. You can't bring something specifically to invalidate at least part of my army and then assign blame to me that this part of my army has been invalidated.

Uh, no. There are a great many reasons to bring tanks that are not "immunity to small arms fire". Just stop with this absurd argument.

Let me see, how did you phrase this earlier...? Oh yes:

IOW, "I AM RIGHT, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT I AM RIGHT, I WILL NOT DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I AM RIGHT."

I'll take this as your concession of defeat on this point, that you have no better argument than repeating "I am right" over and over again

Oh FFS, what is this, yelling "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" like a child? You know perfectly well that there's a difference between "I'm self-evidently right" and "I could provide an example, but I know you're going to reject it based on absurd stereotypes about Tau players". You and I both know that your first requirement ("people actually play") is so you can dismiss any example of a Tau list where stuff happens with "Tau players are all TFGs and don't use lists like that".

Peregrine wrote:And now you're missing the point, I suspect deliberately. The IK codex is just one of many, but there are a lot of different "big monster" units: Stormsurges, Tyranid GMCs, Wraithknights, etc. Plus then there's all the various superheavy tanks, if you expand "big monster" to include huge units of all types, not literal Godzilla vs. giant robot fights. And you may have noticed that GW keeps making more big models, formations with multiple big models, etc. It is pretty clear to everyone but you that these are a normal and important part of the game.

Lots of codices don't have big monsters. Where are the big monsters in the Skitari codex? The grey knights codex? The space marines codex? The imperial guard codex?

I honestly have no idea what your intent with this analogy is. It makes absolutely no sense, and I don't think I'm the only one who is going to feel that way about it.

My claim is that you shouldn't spam tanks. Your counterclaim is that I shouldn't bring things that can't kill tanks.

It would be like claiming that it's somehow A's fault that he can't kill B with his handgun because A decided to wear a bullet proof vest that day.

Uh, no. There are a great many reasons to bring tanks that are not "immunity to small arms fire". Just stop with this absurd argument.

No, there aren't. Historically, this is just true. The whole reason people started using tanks in the first place is to be able to cross WW I no-mans lands.

If you wanted the firepower, and didn't really care about the immunity to small arms, you'd just use mobile artillery (e.g., the eldar mobile artillery batteries).

Traditio wrote:
How many models in the imperial guard codex has an AV value? How many do not?

This is a stupid way of analyzing things, but even by your standard you are wrong. If you don't count HQ models that are always attached to other units IG have a total of 29 units. 14 of them are non-vehicle units, 15 are vehicles. And quite a few of those infantry units are just sub-units of infantry/stormtrooper platoons. So the "standard" IG unit is a tank of some kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Lots of codices don't have big monsters. Where are the big monsters in the Skitari codex? The grey knights codex? The space marines codex? The imperial guard codex?

Where are the infantry in the IK codex? The IG armored company list? Not every army has giant monsters, not every army has lots of infantry. Your continued attempts to establish "lots of infantry" as the default and "giant monsters" as some kind of weird exception are growing increasingly bizarre.

My claim is that you shouldn't spam tanks. Your counterclaim is that I shouldn't bring things that can't kill tanks.

It would be like claiming that it's somehow A's fault that he can't kill B with his handgun because A decided to wear a bullet proof vest that day.

Again, that analogy makes no sense at all. The things involved in it do not at all map to equivalent things in the 40k situation.

No, there aren't. Historically, this is just true. The whole reason people started using tanks in the first place is to be able to cross WW I no-mans lands.

What does this have to do with 40k? 40k is not real history, nor do 40k players make decisions for reasons that have anything to do with historical reasons for doing things.

If you wanted the firepower, and didn't really care about the immunity to small arms, you'd just use mobile artillery (e.g., the eldar mobile artillery batteries).

Oh, you mean the static FW guns which can't move, are pretty clearly overpowered, and trigger an endless flood of "FW isn't legal" whining if you try to use them? Or are you honestly suggesting that if I want firepower I should get rid of my IG and play Eldar instead, just because you don't like tanks?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

No matter how much you nerf everything in the Necron codex, nobody will take C'Tan.

This is why buffs are the easiest method.

You have yet to answer me.

Peregrine wrote:This is a stupid way of analyzing things, but even by your standard you are wrong. If you don't count HQ models that are always attached to other units IG have a total of 29 units. 14 of them are non-vehicle units, 15 are vehicles. And quite a few of those infantry units are just sub-units of infantry/stormtrooper platoons. So the "standard" IG unit is a tank of some kind.

Fair point.

It is, however, worthy of note that IG players are presented with two, and exactly two, basic troop selections: infantry platoons and veteran squads.

Where are the infantry in the IK codex?

There are no infantry in the IK codex. That said, it's a popular opinion that IK should be restricted to apocalypse games. So, there's that.

The IG armored company list?

List =/= codex.

Not every army has giant monsters, not every army has lots of infantry.

Leaving out IK, what army can you think of that doesn't have the capacity to field "lots of infantry"? Even granting you your leeman russes (we noting here, mind you, that there are many armored things in the IG codex which are not leeman russ tanks; there are walkers, for example), you could easily make an IG list with a neat mix of AV and basic infantry. It would be very WWII-ish.

Again, that analogy makes no sense at all. The things involved in it do not at all map to equivalent things in the 40k situation.

They're basically the same, if you understand the purpose of armored vehicles as relative to small arms fire. Just as bullet proof vests are used to stop hand guns, so armored tanks are used invalidate small arms.

What does this have to do with 40k? 40k is not real history, nor do 40k players make decisions for reasons that have anything to do with historical reasons for doing things.

Thought experiment:

Let us assume that GW made it so that leeman russ battle tanks stopped being vehicles. Instead, they became T6 monstrous creatures with 4 wounds and a 3+ armor save.

Would you continue to use them? Why or why not?

Oh, you mean the static FW guns which can't move, are pretty clearly overpowered, and trigger an endless flood of "FW isn't legal" whining if you try to use them? Or are you honestly suggesting that if I want firepower I should get rid of my IG and play Eldar instead, just because you don't like tanks?

Point noted. Nonetheless, my point is simply this. There are three key advantages to using a tank:

1. Immunity to small arms fire.
2. Mobility
3. The ability to carry heavy munitions.

If you were solely interested in 3, there are options other than tanks
If you were solely interested in 2, there are options other than tanks.

Even within the context of the IG codex, there are options other than leeman russ battle tanks. IG players like leeman russ battle tanks because the the front AV is a 14 and the side AV is a 13.

That's why leeman russes rock, whereas predators...not so much.

So this thread can be summoned up with

"I have no wish to change my list to include anti vehicle weapons and anti flyer weapons therefore no one is allowed to bring them , and if you basic troops are better at shooting , you can bring them either . If you do , your trying to win and thats not allowed.

is this a close TL: DR ?

kambien wrote:
So this thread can be summoned up with

"I have no wish to change my list to include anti vehicle weapons and anti flyer weapons therefore no one is allowed to bring them , and if you basic troops are better at shooting , you can bring them either . If you do , your trying to win and thats not allowed.

is this a close TL: DR ?

No.

That's not really the point that I was making at all.

My point could be summed up more as:

Don't run lists that invalidate other lists and force your opponent to play the "hide and seek" game.

Even more simply:

Don't run lists that give you an obvious, foreseeable and inordinate advantage over other lists or which reasonably could be considered obviously unfair.

Traditio wrote:
It is, however, worthy of note that IG players are presented with two, and exactly two, basic troop selections: infantry platoons and veteran squads.

So? Troops are just one FOC slot. You could just as relevantly point out that every IG heavy support slot is a vehicle, and all but one fast attack slot (rough riders, which are cavalry, not infantry) is a vehicle.

List =/= codex.

That's just nitpicking and you know it.

Leaving out IK, what army can you think of that doesn't have the capacity to field "lots of infantry"? Even granting you your leeman russes (we noting here, mind you, that there are many armored things in the IG codex which are not leeman russ tanks; there are walkers, for example), you could easily make an IG list with a neat mix of AV and basic infantry. It would be very WWII-ish.

I told you, IG armored company (using the ABG army list). The tanks are the core of the army, while the infantry are extremely limited and all require dedicated transports (AKA more tanks).

They're basically the same, if you understand the purpose of armored vehicles as relative to small arms fire. Just as bullet proof vests are used to stop hand guns, so armored tanks are used invalidate small arms.

And you're still not making any sense. Taking a gun to shoot someone is not the same as two players each picking their own things. Nor does your speculation about assigning fault to the shooter or the target make any sense.

Let us assume that GW made it so that leeman russ battle tanks stopped being vehicles. Instead, they became T6 monstrous creatures with 4 wounds and a 3+ armor save.

Would you continue to use them? Why or why not?

No, because that would be obviously stupid. They'd be more powerful, but they'd also bring in the stupidity of moving/assaulting like MCs. And I think it should be obvious why a heavy tank shouldn't be running forward to chop stuff apart in melee.

If you were solely interested in 3, there are options other than tanks
If you were solely interested in 2, there are options other than tanks.

There really aren't. If you're an IG player and want speed and firepower you have two choices: LRBTs, artillery, or flyers. Artillery tanks are still tanks, and are banned under your "minimum barrage weapons" rule. Flyers are often just as hard to kill, lack overall firepower because they spend half the game in reserve, and are banned under your "minimum flyers" rule. If you also want to exclude LRBTs then you've essentially told IG players "you can only bring infantry hordes for my marines to mow down by the handful".

Even within the context of the IG codex, there are options other than leeman russ battle tanks. IG players like leeman russ battle tanks because the the front AV is a 14 and the side AV is a 13.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

No, really, have you ever played with LRBTs? Their high AV isn't all that great against melta and D-weapons, and AV 10/11 in the back makes them incredibly vulnerable to deep striking and/or melee units. It does give you some ability to move away from LOS blocking terrain without instantly dying like a Basilisk, but it's far from the invulnerable defense you seem to think it is. Perhaps if you didn't have such a long list of units, many of which are good against LRBTs, that you refuse to take you wouldn't be so impressed by AV 14/13/10?

The real reason IG players take LRBTs is that they're mobile firepower. They have better guns than the Basilisk/Wyvern in most situations, and have much better mobility than any infantry options. Their high AV is useful for preventing them from instantly dying on turn 1, but it is not even close to the primary reason to take them.

That's why leeman russes rock, whereas predators...not so much.

No, Predators are bad because they're a 2nd edition unit. Back then a single autocannon was an appropriate gun for a tank. Now it isn't, and their firepower is mediocre at best. Give them 7th edition level firepower and they'd be a good unit.

Not only that, but many IG players use Leman Russes because they are one of the most iconic vehicles in 40k.


And honestly if your Tactical Marine list is entirely invalidated by every other list because they have a vehicle which you can't hurt with your boltguns, that's on you entirely. "Normandy/Saiyan/Godzilla in Space" are all valid playstyles, and 40k as a game in it's current form is a mixture of all 3, not one or the other. If we all thought like you people could only play "Basic Troop Spam and an Elite or 2" because apparently everything else is OP and makes you a TFG.


It's a sad day when a Trukk-spam Ork list (a terrible, uncompetitive but still often run list because it's fluffy as hell for Evil Sunz and can be a blast to play) is decried as OP asf with people who play it being labelled as TFGs.