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.

Or maybe some people are just pissed off that their competitve stategy has been ruined? You know some people really do play 40k competitively and *gasp* have fun?? Yeah, it might not be your personal bag but you don't have to piss on others cause they don't share your concept of a good time...

Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nudibranch wrote:
Or maybe some people are just pissed off that their competitve stategy has been ruined? You know some people really do play 40k competitively and *gasp* have fun?? Yeah, it might not be your personal bag but you don't have to piss on others cause they don't share your concept of a good time...

I find it both apalling and intriguing you used the words 'competitive' and '40k' in the same sentence.
Topics closed, open up a thread if you want.

Neronoxx wrote:
Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?

Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?

Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.

Oh, they might actually FAQ those huh? I would hope they couple those with the actual codexes they are relevant to.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?

Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.

Oh, they might actually FAQ those huh? I would hope they couple those with the actual codexes they are relevant to.

Well, they didn't do Militarum Tempestus alongside Astra Militarum, thought I guess that is a more "complete" codex than a supplement. Just have to wait a week to find out!

Neronoxx wrote:
[And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.

How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?

So what is really baffling you?

Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.

As a Tyranid/Dark Eldar player, FAQs hurt...

I understand that a lot of the rulings in the FAQ were decided because they 'make sense', but I feel GW is missing the forest for the trees. I'm glad GW responded to the high demand for FAQs, but the ultimate reason behind this demand is that players want a better game. I'm grateful that GW is attempting to duct tape some of the leaks on this sinking ship, but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

I get that it may be a bit unfluffy to have a Venomthrope provide cover to a Cultist, but from a gaming perspective, it's really frustrating that Tyranids keep getting the short end of the stick because 'it makes sense'. The army-wide handicap known as Synapse is bad enough, and I can live with Tyranids never having models with an AV value, but now GW has declared that Tyranids will never have a true ally, either.

I'll stop there since this is starting to get a bit rant-y, but I really do love this game, and it pains me to see 40k slip further and further down this rabbit hole of sacrificing gameplay for cool models and fluff.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.

Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.

Davor wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
[And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.

How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?

So what is really baffling you?

What is baffling me is how you literally ask a question i have answered twice now. Seriously, read all of my posts before calling me out on something.
IF you had read all of them, you would see that I admit GW has not handled the fluff 100% correctly, but it shouldn't be a bad thing when they do.
That being said, the discussion is closed. But I guess you missed that too. By chance, do you wear white armor and work for a sith lord? Cuz you're 0 for 2 right now buddy.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.

Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.

After the invasion, aren't all ground forces including the invading tyranid army devoured? GSC are controlled by the hive mind during the time of the invasion, and afterwards are treated no differently to any other ground force. The difference is pre-invasion, which has no in-game impact here.

Guys, there's already been one mod warning, move the discussion to the general or background forums...

 nudibranch wrote:
Guys, there's already been one mod warning, move the discussion to the general or background forums...

I know right. Is it that hard to read?

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.

 TheMostSlyFox wrote:
Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.

Honestly, I can't wait to see how they handle my Blood Angels.
"Blood Angels are like Ultramarines, but worse, so they are losing 'ATSKNF' and their dreadnoughts lose 2 attacks. Stop whining, this is fair.'

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
[And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.

How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?

So what is really baffling you?

What is baffling me is how you literally ask a question i have answered twice now. Seriously, read all of my posts before calling me out on something.
IF you had read all of them, you would see that I admit GW has not handled the fluff 100% correctly, but it shouldn't be a bad thing when they do.
That being said, the discussion is closed. But I guess you missed that too. By chance, do you wear white armor and work for a sith lord? Cuz you're 0 for 2 right now buddy.

Oh I am sorry. What makes you so special that I will remember reading your comments that will stand out after reading so many other ones?

What is this 0 for 2 right now? This is not a contest. There is no need to win or loose. You asked a question, I answered it.

Why ask a question if you don't want it answered? Now that is baffling.

Can we get back on topic please?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Yeah, there are cases where sacrificing your soldiers is a good thing.
Which is stupid when you try to apply logic, as one would think that a soldier would try to keep himself alive, and bad things tend to happen to commanders who deliberately put their soldiers in harm's way for minor reasons.
The wording should really be "which ever is best for ignoring the wound"
Which means that mathematically 4+ rerollable would be better than a 3+ (75% as opposed to 66%, if my math checks out)

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.

no, but there are plenty of examples of troops being told to push on, keep moving, don't just drop into cover and hide

(with or without the threat of being shot by your own side if you did)

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

Uhhh....Have you ever heard of this cool faction called the Imperial Guard? They totally don't do that thousands of times everyday, all across the imperium. Yessir, only legitimate tactics there....

Neronoxx wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

Uhhh....Have you ever heard of this cool faction called the Imperial Guard? They totally don't do that thousands of times everyday, all across the imperium. Yessir, only legitimate tactics there....

They really don't. If a general tries to pull that sort of thing with the Catachans he gets fragged. Look up what happens to commissars who outstay their welcome in a Catachan regiment.
Also, there's a difference between "take this heavily defended enemy point" and "commit mass suicide to make the enemy look silly for trying to charge you. We'll die before they kill us! That'll show em"

Requizen wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.

"Incoming fire! Go to ground for cover! But strip off all your armor first!"

 Telly wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.

"Incoming fire! Go to ground for cover! But strip off all your armor first!"

"Jokes on you! I stabbed myself before you could stab me! You didn't win, you didn't win!

Enemy squad :

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

ok so that's two factions that it works for...... I really do think you are thinking about this way way too much

Humans did odd things - even in warfare - in the Napoleonic period armies walked towards each other, dying in their hundreds and thousands and might not even get to fire back............

lastly have you not heard of :

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is stupid when you try to apply logic, as one would think that a soldier would try to keep himself alive, and bad things tend to happen to commanders who deliberately put their soldiers in harm's way for minor reasons.

It makes perfect sense because raargh grimdark.