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.

Matt.Kingsley wrote: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.

This doesn't follow from the OP.

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.

You mean, all of those infantry and their dedicated transports?

The kind of thing that I directly propose in my OP?

I'd hardly call an equal number of infantry unit to vehicles "infantry and some tanks" (Your "Normandy in Space" option that you harp on about being the 'correct' option), especially since such lists also consist of bike spam, battle wagon spam, deffkopta spam or warbuggy spam, all of which aren't infantry.

and I'm sorry, but the first point really does, because apparently anything bigger that a tactical marine or terminator is too power if taken more than 'a few times'. It might be a tad hyperbolic, but then so is your view that every Tau player is a TFG who creates lists where 'nothing happens' and try to beat their opponents face with a rulebook full of loopholes, or that all tanks all the time is a TFG move.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I'd hardly call an equal number of infantry unit to vehicles "infantry and some tanks" (Your "Normandy in Space" option that you harp on about being the 'correct' option),

I specifically said infantry and their dedicated transports.

especially since such lists also consist of bike spam, battle wagon spam, deffkopta spam or warbuggy spam, all of which aren't infantry.

Infantry being the thing that I said should be the vast majority of the list, yes?

and I'm sorry, but the first point really does, because apparently anything bigger that a tactical marine or terminator is too power if taken more than 'a few times'. It might be a tad hyperbolic, but then so is your view that every Tau player is a TFG who creates lists where 'nothing happens' and try to beat their opponents face with a rulebook full of loopholes, or that all tanks all the time is a TFG move.

Reread the OP. I simply don't believe that you've given it a fair reading, and even if you have, I don't believe that you've fully understood it.

You never make any mention of dedicated transports at all in your original post. I see now that you said later in a single post that "Normandy in Space" means "tons of infantry and dedicated transports". That's still not what a typical trukk-spam Speed Freakz/Evil Sunz list is.

Not really, considering at most they'll be 72 infantry models at most (6 units w/ ICs in them), and more likely than not only 4 units worth (maximum of 48 models). The rest of the units will all be bikes, jetbikes or vehicles (mostly vehicles). They'll most likely be as many if not more bikes/jetbike and vehicles combined (even bikes/jetbikes by themselves) than normal infantry.

I understand your original post completely. You think all games should be mostly infantry units with 1 or 2 non-dedicated transport vehicles or MCs on the side, and that everyone else is having fun the wrong way or is being a TFG player by cramping your style.

Traditio wrote:


The kind of thing that I directly propose in my OP?

Did you read your own post?

There is literally nothing in your OP that states a large number of DTs are acceptable. The only thing you mention in that regard actually runs counter to it by stating most of the army must have the infantry type (in points and model count), and another one liner that it should be mostly infantry and some vehicles. I don't know about you, but that to me (and by the sounds of it, most people in the thread) read 'some' vehicles as not being allowed to have every unit riding in a vehicle, which also fits with the idea of not spending the vast majority of your points on DTs. If you stated later that DTs are fine, then include it in the OP, or politely refer to it when someone points it out.

So before you try and belittle people about not reading your OP or not understanding it, maybe you should go and clarify exactly what it is you're proposing and hoist some of this feedback and learn something. Right now, you're doing your standard 'discussion' method of telling everyone they're wrong and that you're the only one who's right.

OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

kambien wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

According to traditio, yes. you're a bad person for spending lots of money on this hobby, as that was money that could have been spent on Charity. And you're a bad person for trying to get 'serious' about the game and trying to figure out what works.

Deadnight wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

i'm starting to believe its because its because the OP doesn't want to buy any new models hence the reasoning of nothing but infantry

According to traditio, yes. you're a bad person for spending lots of money on this hobby, as that was money that could have been spent on Charity. And you're a bad person for trying to get 'serious' about the game and trying to figure out what works.

Except 40k is probably the most expensive hobby ever (for normal people). Seriously, Fantasy LARPing is cheaper and i dropped like 300 dollars on my costume and weapons. I dropped that on CSM units for a Kill Team campaign!

So ya, if you dont want to spend money, this is the wrong hobby.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
OP states in his premise that those playing to win are in a negative endless cycle of painting models.

Then talks about the spectacle being more important than playing to win.

Does this spectacle preclude painted models? Those that enhance the enjoyment and immersion into the game?

Also, only those wanting to win buy lots of minis......

OP are you openly suggesting that under your premise no new models are brought with which to play?

You misunderstand me. I think that modeling/painting, etc. is part of the spectacle. A sea of gray plastic is anti-spectacle.

But if you are playing to win, then you are going to be forced to always keep on buying the new "best" stuff.

You played Chaos space marines in 3rd? Lulz. Enjoy Eldar in 4th. And now rhino rush in 5th. 6th ed? BACK TO ELDAR! BIG GIANT ROBOTS!

You basically would have to pick up an entirely different army pretty much every edition, at least once per edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:Did you read your own post?

Apparently I don't. I didn't say anything about DTs in the OP...that was in a later posting on my part.

There is literally nothing in your OP that states a large number of DTs are acceptable. The only thing you mention in that regard actually runs counter to it by stating most of the army must have the infantry type (in points and model count), and another one liner that it should be mostly infantry and some vehicles. I don't know about you, but that to me (and by the sounds of it, most people in the thread) read 'some' vehicles as not being allowed to have every unit riding in a vehicle, which also fits with the idea of not spending the vast majority of your points on DTs. If you stated later that DTs are fine, then include it in the OP, or politely refer to it when someone points it out.

If you run an army entirely of infantry and dedicated transports, the maximum number of vehicles you'll have is 1 out of every 6 models. That's over 80 percent infantry in terms of model numbers.

Traditio wrote:


If you run an army entirely of infantry and dedicated transports, the maximum number of vehicles you'll have is 1 out of every 6 models. That's over 80 percent infantry in terms of model numbers.

And as per your OP, in the post you quoted no less, you specifically mention that the vast majority also includes points.

In other words, according to you, having a Chimera for every infantry squad would be wrong, seeing as the Chimera is 65pts plus upgrades while an infantry squad is 50pts plus upgrades, making vehicles over half the total point investment.

Which, according to common sense, would mean it would not be the vast majority.

Unless of course you'd like to further clarify what you actually mean.

My point being that you need to be 100% clear. Vague notions like "stuff happens" can not be quantified and discussed as every single person will have a different idea of what that means. Terms like "vast majority" have some meaning, but again, are vague, especially the way you worded it. Without even getting into how absolutely absurd your proposals are, they are vague, poorly worded and explained, and offer even more abuse then the rules you're trying to avoid. Which units are undercosted? By how much? According to what standard? Define spamming, and then explain why spamming is inherently bad and should be avoided. Define unfair powers, or more importantly, define unfair. Then explain what minimize should be treated as. Should it be a 0-1 option? What about 0-2? Maybe 3? At what point limit? Which units in particular? Which armies?

Really though, don't actually bother trying to define or explain all those things because you'll never get anyone to agree to any majority of it. They're all far too nebulous or terrible band-aid universal applications when the real solution is the scalpel of fixing what's actually broken.

Like anything in life, you get out of something based on what you put in. Simple and easy 'fixes' like NO TAU will get you poor end results because no effort was made to fix any of the underlying issues. If you go in and re-evaluate every unit and adjust their points, abilities and general role, you'll get a much better end result. One in which players don't feel alienated, insulted, and generally belittled.

Want to fix the game? Then fix the game, don't resort to easy fixes that do more harm then good. Roll up your sleeves and fix the broken nonsense and bring up the terrible garbage. Adjust the core rules as necessary.

Or just nuke the whole thing and start over.

*Edit* To be clear, I don't disagree with every one of your proposals. I've long been a proponent of minizming superheavies in standard 40k, but the solution is elegant; grab 30k's structure for list building, which has appropriate limits and even a detachment for all superheavies with balancing considerations built in. Same with flyers, as frankly, they feel awkward at this scale. That said, the solution can be far more elegant than just some nebulous concept of minimizing their use.

Blacksails:

I hold the following truths to be self-evident:

1. We, the players, are not the GW design studio. Sure, we can throw around ideas, but ultimately, we are not in charge of what the rules are.

2. Though we are not in charge of the rules, we are in charge of how we can play within the confines of those rules. There's nothing in the rules that tells us that we have to take advantage of the rules (whether fair or unfair) for unfair advantage.

Complain about GW rules writers all you want, but it's not the GW rules writers who are making people bring the riptide wing to the game table. That's a personal player decision.

3. If your sole goal is not to win, my assumption is that you are challenging me to a game (or the other way around) because we both want a roughly 3 hour spectacle in which both of us actually having something to do for 3 hours.

Thus the reason I refuse to play Tau, wraithknights, imperial knights, ravenwing, etc.

I don't want to stand around for 3 hours doing virtually nothing.

Ultimately, it's not up to us what the rules are. How we play within the confines of those rules, however, is within our power.

That's the reason I'm recommending self-imposed blanket bans.

My assumption is that you don't want your army shut down, and your assumption is that I don't want my army shut down. My assumption is that you wish to fight fair, and your assumption should be that I wish to fight fair.

GW is not responsible for cheese and power gaming. The players are.

My recommendation? Stop fething power gaming.

Do not use summons, for example. Summon spells are patently unfair. There is no justification for them.

You'll protest, of course, but ultimately, I'll answer you in the following way:

Either fight fair and give me something to do, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours rather than just standing around playing a veritable three hour game of hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

Traditio wrote:
Either fight my way and by my arbitrary rules that I will not modify for anyone else, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours.

I think this rather sums up your ethos very well.

We're all giving you critique. If you don't want to hear that - fine by you. Genuine question: how many games do you get, OP? Using these rules?

Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

Summon powers take several warp charges to cast successfully, require lists to be built around them, and aren't even entirely successful with that.

You also have YET to still tackle my original point of why buffs are necessary. You could make Wraiths only have two attacks and be 50 points, and I'd STILL take them over C'Tan because C'Tan are garbage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Summon powers take several warp charges to cast successfully, require lists to be built around them, and aren't even entirely successful with that.

A bloodthirster is a 250 point model. An 11 man squad of pink horrors is 99 points.

I don't care what your justifications are. No summons. You want a bloodthirster? Then you pay for a bloodthirster.

Or, at the very least, you plan on using summoning powers? Then you take a hit to the number of points you can use. If you plan on sacrificing a unit of pink horrors for a bloodthirster, you only get 1700 points to play with in an 1850 points game.

You also have YET to still tackle my original point of why buffs are necessary. You could make Wraiths only have two attacks and be 50 points, and I'd STILL take them over C'Tan because C'Tan are garbage.

Some things need minor buffs. Other things need nerfs.

As I said before, I'm not wholesale against all buffs. What I'm against is buffing everything up to play this Keep Up With the Jones game of power creep. I'm in favor of rebalancing. Most of this can be accomplished by nerfs, albeit a select few buffs may be necessary (e.g., reduce flakk missiles to 5 ppm for SM missile launchers).

But ultimately, none of that matters for the average game.

I don't get to pick and choose what the codex says and what the rulebook says.

What does matter is what you and I choose to put in our lists.

No summoning for you, and no free razorbacks for 5 man squads for me.

No rules changes necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.

No thanks.

I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

BossJakadakk wrote:
I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

I generally just ask what army is going to be played. If the answer is Tau, Eldar, Dark Angels, etc. then I'd simply turn down the game.

Unless it's a friend of mine, at which point I'd be willing to be specific: "You play this? Ok. I don't want to see this, this or that on the table."

I have a friend of mine who plays Eldar. I absolutely won't play him if he runs scatter bikes or wraithknights, and he's been made quite aware of this.

Does this result in less games for me? Probably.

It also results in less frustration.

Because not playing is better than beating my head against a wall for 3 hours.

And this is something that 40k players should keep in mind.

Do you want to win? Or do you want to play games?

If you want to win, I can't be the only person who's put off by it.

Between the massive cost of entry into the game AND the general mentality of the players, you really only have yourselves to blame that 40k is dying.

I'm quite willing to play a re-enactment of the battle of normandy IN SPAAAAAACE!

I am not willing to play hide and seek or 78 model pickup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wish to add:

This conversation shouldn't even have to occur in the first place. All players should be able to figure out what constitutes a fair fight and what constitutes shenanigans.

Basically, all my OP says is this:

NO SHENANIGANS!

Traditio wrote:


1. We, the players, are not the GW design studio. Sure, we can throw around ideas, but ultimately, we are not in charge of what the rules are.

Thanks Captain Obvious!

2. Though we are not in charge of the rules, we are in charge of how we can play within the confines of those rules. There's nothing in the rules that tells us that we have to take advantage of the rules (whether fair or unfair) for unfair advantage.

Complain about GW rules writers all you want, but it's not the GW rules writers who are making people bring the riptide wing to the game table. That's a personal player decision.

And a player decision they are not only allowed to make, but should not be judged for solely by the list they bring. If you have a problem with their list, then don't play them. Its that simple. But judging, banning, and otherwise belittling others for not subscribing your limited views on how to play a game is the toxic attitiude here.

Taking advantage of the rules is such an arbitrary standard to uphold. It reeks of self-entitlement in that you expect everyone to play at exactly your level while you make zero effort to keep up with changes.

3. If your sole goal is not to win, my assumption is that you are challenging me to a game (or the other way around) because we both want a roughly 3 hour spectacle in which both of us actually having something to do for 3 hours.

Thus the reason I refuse to play Tau, wraithknights, imperial knights, ravenwing, etc.

I don't want to stand around for 3 hours doing virtually nothing.

Why would anyone's sole goal for a competitive game be not winning? I don't even know what you're trying to say here as it doesn't make sense.

Ultimately, it's not up to us what the rules are. How we play within the confines of those rules, however, is within our power.

That's the reason I'm recommending self-imposed blanket bans.

Which, as anyone with any understanding of general game design and this game in particular, can rapidly realize that blanket bans don't fix the problems, they simply get shifted. Not to mention the less than desirable effect of telling players to go feth themselves because they like a faction or unit you don't. Which is not only childish, but just about the most toxic thing you could do to a game group.

My assumption is that you don't want your army shut down, and your assumption is that I don't want my army shut down. My assumption is that you wish to fight fair, and your assumption should be that I wish to fight fair.

Sure. As I've explained, the solution is to, you know, fix the problems. Roll up your sleeves and address the problematic rules and units.

GW is not responsible for cheese and power gaming. The players are.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh that's rich.

Blaming the players.

Classic.

*wipes a tear from my eye*

GW is ultimately responsible for anything within the confines of the rules. Anything else, like poor attitudes, hygiene problems, and cheating are the realm of player issues. But balance problems and murky rules are 100% GW's fault and responsibility. Frankly, if you don't accept this, there's no point in myself continuing this, nor anyone who seriously aims to help you or provide feedback. Blaming the players for playing within the rules is utter and complete nonsense.

My recommendation? Stop fething power gaming.

Define power gaming. As in, every single instance in which one is power gaming that has no relevance to the player's attitude, but entirely within the realms of the rules as written. I want a clear definition that covers all possible scenarios in which someone is considered power gaming.

Good luck.

Its impossible, if you couldn't figure that out

Do not use summons, for example. Summon spells are patently unfair. There is no justification for them.

Then fix summoning. Plenty of potentially fluffy and cool things the rules could do with such a system.

You'll protest, of course, but ultimately, I'll answer you in the following way:

Either fight fair and give me something to do, or I can just as easily find some other way to spend 3 hours rather than just standing around playing a veritable three hour game of hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

Then find someone else to play.

Well wasn't that fething gak simple. How about, instead of trying to ban entire factions and play styles, you fix the problems and be as inclusive as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

This conversation shouldn't even have to occur in the first place. All players should be able to figure out what constitutes a fair fight and what constitutes shenanigans.

Basically, all my OP says is this:

NO SHENANIGANS!

Which almost anyone immediately realizes that this varies from person to person.

In other words, you're shouting "USE COMMON SENSE" and everyone is telling you "WE KNOW, STOP YELLING" because you happen to have the most restrictive and least friendly notion of what that all entails.

Blacksails wrote:And a player decision they are not only allowed to make, but should not be judged for solely by the list they bring.

Why should I accept the bolded?

A player ABSOLUTELY should be judged for the list that he brings. That's the list that HE came up with and that HE chose to play. GW didn't hand him the list and say "YOU MUST PLAY THIS." That list is all him and is a reflection of his playing style, his personality, etc.

Why should I accept the bolded?

If you have a problem with their list, then don't play them. Its that simple. But judging, banning, and otherwise belittling others for not subscribing your limited views on how to play a game is the toxic attitiude here.

Taking advantage of the rules is such an arbitrary standard to uphold. It reeks of self-entitlement in that you expect everyone to play at exactly your level while you make zero effort to keep up with changes.

IoW: "DON'T JUDGE ME FOR BEING A POWERGAMER! YOU SHOULD POWERGAME JUST AS HARD!!!!!!1111"

Is that about your intent?

Why would anyone's sole goal for a competitive game be not winning? I don't even know what you're trying to say here as it doesn't make sense.

Because it's not SOLELY a competitive game. It's also a spectacle. A spectacle which takes an enormous commitment of time, effort and funds to engage in. In addition to the hours upon hours of time and effort required to collect, construct and paint the miniatures, an average game takes 2 hours or more.

By all means, once the dice start rolling, you should play the win.

Before then? You should be constructing a list to be as thematic and fun as possible for both players. Why? Because it takes 2+ fething hours to play, for one thing.

Which, as anyone with any understanding of general game design and this game in particular, can rapidly realize that blanket bans don't fix the problems, they simply get shifted. Not to mention the less than desirable effect of telling players to go feth themselves because they like a faction or unit you don't. Which is not only childish, but just about the most toxic thing you could do to a game group.

Whether or not you consider it toxic is ultimately based on whether or not you think those players are worth playing in the first place. If you consider those players toxic to the game, gaming environment, etc., then it seems entirely appropriate to tell them go to feth themselves until they change their attitudes.

If you play a video game with your friend and he insists on activating a glitch over and over again which crashes the game, at some point, you are presumably going to tell him to go feth himself.

Sure. As I've explained, the solution is to, you know, fix the problems. Roll up your sleeves and address the problematic rules and units.

This simply cannot be done in most circumstances. Why should I expect my opponent to accept some random house rule?

It's much more reasonable for all players to have the mindset: "I WILL PLAY FAIR! NO SHENANIGANS!"

That can actually work.

Note that what I suggest in the OP requires ZERO house rules. It only requires that the players slightly adjust their attitudes.

GW is ultimately responsible for anything within the confines of the rules.

Only qua material cause. GW is as responsible for your list as a composer is for a fluteplayers choice to play his song.

Sure, GW facilitates the riptide wing. That doesn't mean that you have to use it.

Define power gaming. As in, every single instance in which one is power gaming that has no relevance to the player's attitude, but entirely within the realms of the rules as written. I want a clear definition that covers all possible scenarios in which someone is considered power gaming.

Loki's fallacy.

You know what power gaming is. Everyone, his brother and his mother knows what power gaming is. The only people who pretend not to know what power gaming is are power gamers, and that's only so that they can deflect attention away from their power gaming.

Then fix summoning. Plenty of potentially fluffy and cool things the rules could do with such a system.

I don't write the summoning rules. You don't write the summoning rules. What you do write, however, is your army list.

As such, you can't change the summoning rules.

You can't fix the summoning rules.

What you CAN do, however, is adjust your list to account for summoning. You want to summon a bloodthirster with pink horrors of tzeench? Then only take 1700 points in an 1850 points game. Easy enough.

Then find someone else to play.

Well wasn't that fething gak simple.

It's incredibly simple.

But again, ask yourself this question:

Am I really the only person who thinks as I do? Sure, plenty of people on Dakka fora disagree with me. But how many people aren't entering the game in the first place because of people like you? How many people are giving up on 40k because of people like you?

These facts speak for themselves:

1. 40k did well in 5th edition.
2. It's been dying since 6th edition.

How about, instead of trying to ban entire factions and play styles, you fix the problems and be as inclusive as possible.

No. I won't be inclusive of power gaming donkey caves. I won't be inclusive of people who refuse to fight fair and treat the game as the spectacle that it is. I won't be inclusive of rules lawyers who value winning over in-game immersion.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not to mention you haven't addressed my opponent's Tau list. Or many other points.

I saw a riptide, broadsides and crisis suits and passed it over.

No thanks.

You saw a single Riptide, a SINGLE sub-optimal Broadside (which died first turn to a missile launcher team) and three Crisis suits (and one commander)
God have mercy on our souls!
You're being serious? You think CRISIS SUITS alone, one of the only things in the game that can legitimately be fielded without weaponry of any kind, is OP?

I can see what you mean on a Riptide. They suck. Doubly so without any suicide sternguard in 30k to kill it. But it never made anywhere near it's points back because of my use of combat locking and LOS blockers to minimise it's damage. Much as I hate the statement, L2P. Seriously, Riptides could have a points increase, but I'll be damned if they should be banned.

Also, nice to see how something that warrants a buff from you is a MARINE unit. Not ironic at all.

Traditio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
I'm honestly curious. When offered a game, do you go through this stuff with your soon-to-be opponent? How do they react? How long does it take to iron everything out?

Or do you just change your mind when they pull out a thing you don't like?

It seems to me like this would take so long, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate saying yes to a game only to have my opponent need to vet my whole army before anything happens. If you want to play a game, play a game. I have no problem with someone saying a stipulation or two, like "Hey I've only got X, mind not playing any super heavies or gargantuans?" No problem.

"Hey I've got all these rules that are what everyone should play by so it's all I'll play by." Okay, let's hear a few, but if I don't like some of them, we either need to compromise or the game isn't happening.

I generally just ask what army is going to be played. If the answer is Tau, Eldar, Dark Angels, etc. then I'd simply turn down the game.

Unless it's a friend of mine, at which point I'd be willing to be specific: "You play this? Ok. I don't want to see this, this or that on the table."

I have a friend of mine who plays Eldar. I absolutely won't play him if he runs scatter bikes or wraithknights, and he's been made quite aware of this.

Does this result in less games for me? Probably.

It also results in less frustration.

Because not playing is better than beating my head against a wall for 3 hours.

And this is something that 40k players should keep in mind.

Do you want to win? Or do you want to play games?

If you want to win, I can't be the only person who's put off by it.

Between the massive cost of entry into the game AND the general mentality of the players, you really only have yourselves to blame that 40k is dying.

I'm quite willing to play a re-enactment of the battle of normandy IN SPAAAAAACE!

I am not willing to play hide and seek or 78 model pickup.

So, the codex itself, regardless of what list they take with it, is bad? Wow.
Are Guard on that list? Because I could take aircav meltavets, an artillery company, or an army full of Rough Riders or unsupported Infantry Platoons. Are you going to ban guard because of a few builds? Because that's what you're doing to these armies, ESPECIALLY the DA. But hey, just because Marines only have somemany widely regarded OP builds including Razorspam and CenturionStar, they're fine.

As a 40k player, I want to play games. I want to play games with all the cool models that cost me lots of money, as you put it. But you want me to waste that money by not letting me bring the cool models I want - Riptides and Knights. Because I actually saw these models before I even knew their rules, and I really liked them. Am I bad for liking a model which happens to be against your utopian ideals?
Or will you make me waste more money to buy stuff I don't want?

You say you want Normandy in space. Good for you. Other people might not. Good for them. That doesn't make you any more right, or morally superior. Now, you can decline as many games as you like, maybe turning down some great opponents in the search of your (frankly unrealistic) goal. Good on you. But don't chastise others for wanting different things to you and demanding everyone follow your infallible ruleset.

I know I'd certainly decline to play with you with my fluffy Ultramarine Second Company and take a game with those OH SO TERRIBLE Riptides and Broadsides.
But that's just my opinion.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You saw a single Riptide, a SINGLE sub-optimal Broadside (which died first turn to a missile launcher team) and three Crisis suits (and one commander)
God have mercy on our souls!
You're being serious? You think CRISIS SUITS alone, one of the only things in the game that can legitimately be fielded without weaponry of any kind, is OP?

I can see what you mean on a Riptide. They suck. Doubly so without any suicide sternguard in 30k to kill it. But it never made anywhere near it's points back because of my use of combat locking and LOS blockers to minimise it's damage. Much as I hate the statement, L2P. Seriously, Riptides could have a points increase, but I'll be damned if they should be banned.

Also, nice to see how something that warrants a buff from you is a MARINE unit. Not ironic at all.

1. I have yet to see anyone disagree with my assertion, xenos, imperial or chaos, who has disagreed with me that flakk missile launchers should be 20 ppm.

2. It's not simply a matter of being OP. There is nothing fun about playing against a model that's 1. almost impossible to kill and 2. consistently can stay too far out of range to touch.

But you want to use a riptide? Fine. Adjust your points cost accordingly (you only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game, e.g.) and nerf it to timbuktu via your choice (or lack thereof) of weapons and upgrades.

Don't couple it with psychic shenanigans.

3. When's the last time you've seen a crisis suit taken without weapons?

So, the codex itself, regardless of what list they take with it, is bad? Wow.

There is nothing fun about the tau codex. This should be obvious to most people.

Are Guard on that list?

The most popular guard lists are. There' s nothing fun about WWI in space, nor is there anything fun about playing a Tienanmen square re-enactment. Nor is there anything fun about playing "hide from the airplanes."

But hey, just because Marines only have somemany widely regarded OP builds including Razorspam and CenturionStar, they're fine.

Razorspam and centurion star are covered by the general rules of the OP. No unfair shenanigans.

As a 40k player, I want to play games. I want to play games with all the cool models that cost me lots of money, as you put it. But you want me to waste that money by not letting me bring the cool models I want - Riptides and Knights. Because I actually saw these models before I even knew their rules, and I really liked them. Am I bad for liking a model which happens to be against your utopian ideals?

By all means. Bring a wraithknight. Adjust your points costs accordingly when you construct the list.

You want to use that cool looking wraithknight? You only get 1725 points in an 1850 points game. Upgrades cost extra as normal.

Don't couple it with psychic shenanigans.

You say you want Normandy in space. Good for you. Other people might not. Good for them. That doesn't make you any more right, or morally superior. Now, you can decline as many games as you like, maybe turning down some great opponents in the search of your (frankly unrealistic) goal.

What's so unrealistic about it? It was basically common fare before 6th ed, no?

I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

Necessarily, any list which includes underpriced/OP units, assuming none of the other units are overcosted or underpowered, is itself OP for its points value.

Unless it plays at a points disadvantage.

And then, there's the matter, not so much of being OP, but of being not fun to play against.

An army of nothing but drop pods is not OP. It doesn't strike me as much fun to play against.

You talk about judging people by the list they bring. And then you judge someone for using a Riptide, Crisis Suits, and Broadsides. Ya know, regular Tau units...

Traditio wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I still haven't seen a reply to my opponent's list. I guess its OP though based on the sole fact it has a Riptide.

Necessarily, any list which includes underpriced/OP units, assuming none of the other units are overcosted or underpowered, is itself OP for its points value.

I have never seen that Riptide pay its points back. Never. Well, I don't let it pay its points back. That being said, my opponent has tactics, something that you lack considering you refuse tailor your list to face your opponent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You talk about judging people by the list they bring.

I didn't say that a person should be judged by the list that he brings. I said the opposite.

And then you judge someone for using a Riptide, Crisis Suits, and Broadsides. Ya know, regular Tau units...

Yes. I also said, in so many words, "No Tau."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:I have never seen that Riptide pay its points back. Never. Well, I don't let it pay its points back. That being said, my opponent has tactics, something that you lack considering you refuse tailor your list to face your opponent.

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

Traditio wrote:

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Traditio wrote:

If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

I wanna see him face the Blitz Brigade filled with MANz. It should be hilarious.

Tactical_Spam wrote:

That's humour right there. Change my list? Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wait, you were serious... Why should I be forced to change my triple Land Raider/Armoured Company List because you REFUSE to bring any anti-tank weapons?

I have anti-tank weapons galore. 8 missile launchers, 2 multimeltas, 1 plasma gun and 3 plasma cannons. Not to mention meltabombs, power fists, etc.

Expecting me to bring enough anti-tank weapons to deal with a list composed ENTIRELY of vehicles, many of them AV 14, is just unreasonable.

Traditio wrote:
If I have to tailor my list to face yours, then its your list, not mine, that needs changing.

I have to step in here and tell you that that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read with regards to 40k. Even more than wanting to eliminate Tau from the game.