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.
So I recently played with three friends of mine in a 3,000-Point 2v2 match. I play Black Templars and will often employ one or more of the Formations from the Angels of Death Supplement, and I usually make it known this this may happen (I've done it so often now that my mates safely assume it haha). My mate who played as my ally in this game always takes Dark Angels and never takes units from outside the DA Codex. Same with one of my other mates in this game that plays only Necrons. Now, here's where it gets annoying and interesting:
The last player in this 2v2 match-up decided to bring a Superheavy Tank (I can't remember the name of it, now) as part of his Imperial Guard army without properly informing us (me and my team mate) that there was the possibility of him taking a unit from another codex. Now, given that we anticipated this and because we were playing a 3,000 Point game, we let it slide and played anyway (ended up winning by two Victory Points in 5 Turns).
But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?
I'm of the opinion that - as a general rule - you must inform your opponent which codeces, supplements, and other documents you will be drawing your army from. So, as aforementioned, I will always make sure my opponent knows that when I play Black Templars, there is the possibility that I will be drawing units and/or formations from both the Vanilla Space Marines Codex and the Angels of Death Supplement. What are your thoughts on this?
I think it's a general common courtesy to let your opponent know of any curve balls you might be throwing in. Not so much in competitive games, that seems to be a license to be a jerk; in friendly games is seems appropriate to say, oh by the way guys, there's a good chance you'll be coming up against X super heavy.
Not too worried about formations and supplements; there's so many and most are faction specific and all sense of clear cut what's what's is just so out the window now most people can't be bothered keeping up. If it's available to your faction and legal, yeah sure, whatever. Not like someone can field guard using necron decurion rules.
That said, it is polite to give a heads up if you're using formations just so people can mentally prepare for any possible cheese. No one cares if you bring CAD, it's cool. Anything else, give a polite heads up.
As far as your situation goes, it's my understanding that guard have ready access to baneblades and the like...unless you're talking about an imperial knight?
In pre arranged games I find it common courtesy to tell my opponent what army I will be playing and about any super heavies. I would say supplements and formations is taking it a bit far. You would know who you were going to war against after all and we just assume you have good enough recon to spot their big stuff before the fight.
I wouldn't have disallowed him from using it but I would have asked him to tell me in future and if he makes a habit of it I have other people I can play.
If its tournament practice though all bets are off, lists are a total surprise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 01:00:55
There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Peregrine wrote: There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.
This is 7th. TAC is all but dead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 01:04:25
I tend to assume any faction and it's supplements is fair game, ESPECIALLY if you;'re playing againSt a friend, as it's not unreasoanble to know "joe who plays Imperial Guard snagged the Cadia supplement, and has also been building and painting a bane blade for the last week"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Peregrine wrote: There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.
This is 7th. TAC is all but dead.
I mean sure you can list taylor but I don't think you should be complaining then once you get roflstomped by your hard counter.
IllumiNini wrote: ...But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?...
...It seems like a weird bar to be demanding someone tell you their Imperial Guard army uses Warzone Damocles content before playing. The burden ought to be on you to know that an army has supplements and can use them, rather than demanding an exact list of content in advance.
Peregrine wrote: There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.
This is 7th. TAC is all but dead.
I mean sure you can list taylor but I don't think you should be complaining then once you get roflstomped by your hard counter.
Both green tide and flying circus has won tournaments. Can you make an army that can defeat both?
In general, even with friends, we just show up with an army we want to play. We decide points ahead of time, show up with a list, and start setting up models. I have Astra Militarum and Space Marines available to me... I suppose Blood Angels as well... and my friend plays Eldar, IK, and Space Marines, though he will only play a full IK army if he lets me know, 'cause neither of us has fun if I'm not prepared.
I've got a friend that plays Necrons, another that plays Chaos Marines / Daemons, and another that plays Dark Angels, IK, and Tyranids. We all show up with whatever we feel like. If I want to play another army, I can ask when I get there, "Hey, can I use your Eldar tonight if you aren't playing them?".
As for declaring sources, there's so many of them now, I don't even check lists any more. I can't keep up, and I personally don't care anymore. I don't find much to be "fair" about 40k anymore anyway. Points are nothing more than a rough sketch of the size of an army. So it doesn't even matter to me when someone says,
"Yup, 2++ Rerollable, Invisible, FNP, Reroll Successful hits against them, and if I save, the model attacking them dies. Oh, and I basically drop 5 D-Blasts each turn that don't miss and ignore cover."
"How many points is that?"
"Oh, like, 450."
"Seems legit. I'll just start shoveling my models into the wood chipper now..."
Both green tide and flying circus has won tournaments. Can you make an army that can defeat both?
So how does that work in practice?
Does he tell you that he's taking flying circus before or after you've chosen your army? If its before then you got an advantage that he didn't. If it's after then what was the point?
Giantwalkingchair wrote: I think it's a general common courtesy to let your opponent know of any curve balls you might be throwing in. Not so much in competitive games, that seems to be a license to be a jerk; in friendly games is seems appropriate to say, oh by the way guys, there's a good chance you'll be coming up against X super heavy.
Not too worried about formations and supplements; there's so many and most are faction specific and all sense of clear cut what's what's is just so out the window now most people can't be bothered keeping up. If it's available to your faction and legal, yeah sure, whatever. Not like someone can field guard using necron decurion rules.
That said, it is polite to give a heads up if you're using formations just so people can mentally prepare for any possible cheese. No one cares if you bring CAD, it's cool. Anything else, give a polite heads up.
roflmajog wrote: In pre arranged games I find it common courtesy to tell my opponent what army I will be playing and about any super heavies. I would say supplements and formations is taking it a bit far. You would know who you were going to war against after all and we just assume you have good enough recon to spot their big stuff before the fight.
I wouldn't have disallowed him from using it but I would have asked him to tell me in future and if he makes a habit of it I have other people I can play.
^^ I think you guys have summed up my views pretty clearly. ^^
Giantwalkingchair wrote: As far as your situation goes, it's my understanding that guard have ready access to baneblades and the like...unless you're talking about an imperial knight?
The army was legal because he brought a Baneblade variant. If he'd brought an Imperial Knight, I would have kicked up more of a fuss because Imperial Knights =/= IG.
IllumiNini wrote: ...But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?...
...It seems like a weird bar to be demanding someone tell you their Imperial Guard army uses Warzone Damocles content before playing. The burden ought to be on you to know that an army has supplements and can use them, rather than demanding an exact list of content in advance.
I think you're missing my meaning, here. What I'm trying to say is that - as a general rule - Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit? What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)? In other words - How much burden should be on me and how much burden should be on them?
I'm not trying to demand that my opponents tell me exactly what's in their list or anything like that. I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
Peregrine wrote: There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.
I understand what you mean and - to an extent - I agree. My biggest disagreement comes with the curve balls that are inherent in what you're saying. One example is the aforementioned SHV's in Non-Apoc Games. Another is the fact that this IG player used Summoning in spite of the fact that a couple of us had an issue with him using it (since we disagree with the use of Summoning as a general rule).
IllumiNini wrote: The army was legal because he brought a Baneblade variant. If he'd brought an Imperial Knight, I would have kicked up more of a fuss because Imperial Knights =/= IG.
Its total non issue you ask me. I would be totally fine if an ork player brings some cool looking looted knights. Or if the IG player liked to bring an assassin or some fw stuff. If you would have kicked up fuss I would have just have mentally labelled you as "that kind of player" as the IG player. Why care at all what books the guy is using other than the dubious act of list tailoring.
But hey its your community, who are we to judge or approve your local way of playing the game.
Both green tide and flying circus has won tournaments. Can you make an army that can defeat both?
How is this even an issue or on topic. Both die from high volume mid str shots. Green tide is really bad, any army that mows down a flying circus without going crazy on skyfire can also evaporate a green tide.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 16:20:49
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
If my opponent declares what codex they are using I'll do the same. But it sounds kinda odd to declare what supplement you will be using, it opens up the door for list tailoring. But I don't understand how you can call it a general rule when its not even in the rules. Its not a bad idea to do it but either ask your opponent what books they are using or be upfront with your requirement. As a side note I really don't like super heavy's but at a 3000 point game you should expect one and shouldn't need for it to be declared for a friendly game (unless you guys had very specific call out for what type of game you will be doing).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 18:18:28
IllumiNini wrote: Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit?
Yes. It's 7th edition, superheavies are part of the standard game. This is like asking if a C:SM player needs to inform you in advance that they might be bringing a tactical squad.
What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)?
Anything that is legal 40k rules. In fact, you shouldn't even assume that they'll be playing IG at all.
I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
They have no obligation at all to tell you what they're using before the game. When both (all) players have finished writing their lists and it's time to start setting up the game obviously everyone needs to show their opponents their lists, but there's no obligation to say anything at all before that point.
Another is the fact that this IG player used Summoning in spite of the fact that a couple of us had an issue with him using it (since we disagree with the use of Summoning as a general rule).
Summoning is part of the game in 7th edition, and needs no special warnings. If you dislike it so much then you have the obligation to make an explicit "no summoning" house rule that everyone understands before they agree to a game with you. Expecting people to obey your unwritten "don't use summoning without asking" policy is not reasonable.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So I recently played with three friends of mine in a 3,000-Point 2v2 match. I play Black Templars and will often employ one or more of the Formations from the Angels of Death Supplement, and I usually make it known this this may happen (I've done it so often now that my mates safely assume it haha). My mate who played as my ally in this game always takes Dark Angels and never takes units from outside the DA Codex. Same with one of my other mates in this game that plays only Necrons. Now, here's where it gets annoying and interesting:
The last player in this 2v2 match-up decided to bring a Superheavy Tank (I can't remember the name of it, now) as part of his Imperial Guard army without properly informing us (me and my team mate) that there was the possibility of him taking a unit from another codex. Now, given that we anticipated this and because we were playing a 3,000 Point game, we let it slide and played anyway (ended up winning by two Victory Points in 5 Turns).
But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?
I'm of the opinion that - as a general rule - you must inform your opponent which codeces, supplements, and other documents you will be drawing your army from. So, as aforementioned, I will always make sure my opponent knows that when I play Black Templars, there is the possibility that I will be drawing units and/or formations from both the Vanilla Space Marines Codex and the Angels of Death Supplement. What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers guys
Around here, we say point value and whether the game is meant to be competitive practice or fun timey. That is all the info you are guaranteed pregame.
Both green tide and flying circus has won tournaments. Can you make an army that can defeat both?
So how does that work in practice?
Does he tell you that he's taking flying circus before or after you've chosen your army? If its before then you got an advantage that he didn't. If it's after then what was the point?
My point is that we see armies that are diverse on a whole different level to what we have seen before. What will stop a gladius will not necessarily stop a riptide wing. What will stop a flying circus will not necessary stop WK spam. What will stop a green tide will not necessary stop a Warhound (who can easily and legally be fit in games of 1000 points or even lower).
Accordingly, TAC, as in an army that stands a decent chance against the field, is all but dead because so many things hard counter one another. Only a few armies can muster something close to it (such as Eldar, since the Wraithknights efficiently murderize anything too tough for scatterbikes to tackle), but most factions cannot do this. Flying circus can murderize most things it encounters but Tau, thanks to the ability to stick skyfire on most of their firepower for a low cost, is a disproportionately harsh opponent.
Even if we exclude unbound, the presence of allies and formations means that we see armies so extreme it is all but impossible for most factions to feasibly counter both extremes.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 20:24:56
It is going to be based more on your community's inclinations than it will on random internet poster inclination what is most appropriate... but SHV/GMC in non-Apoc games has been reasonably expected for a year or two now. Allied forces (like your example of an Imperial Knight joining an AM detachment) has been reasonably expected for at least as long, if not longer.
Frankly, it shouldn't be considered a "curveball" after years of being a legal and standard option UNLESS your local community has made it clear that those sorts of legal and standard options are unexpected.
IllumiNini wrote: ...But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?...
...It seems like a weird bar to be demanding someone tell you their Imperial Guard army uses Warzone Damocles content before playing. The burden ought to be on you to know that an army has supplements and can use them, rather than demanding an exact list of content in advance.
I think you're missing my meaning, here. What I'm trying to say is that - as a general rule - Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit? What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)? In other words - How much burden should be on me and how much burden should be on them?
I'm not trying to demand that my opponents tell me exactly what's in their list or anything like that. I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
It seems to me like you're focusing on the wrong question here. You shouldn't be protesting or turning down games on basis that the other guy didn't warn you ahead of time what books he's using, you should be protesting on basis of what's in the list. If you're worried about the superheavy argue with using the superheavy, pulling out the question of what books are being used is deflecting the whole discussion into an irrelevant an unhelpful corner, especially given that two of the most broken superheavies in the game are printed in standard Codexes. Don't get hung up on what books are being used, get hung up on what units are being used.
(My view on the primary question is that you should tell the other guy what Codexes/factions you're using, but if a rule in a supplement or Imperial Armour book is written down as "may be taken in a Codex [X] army" you should assume it could appear. "Imperial Guard army" will include content from the AM book, but may just as easily include bits from Warzone Damocles, Gathering Storm, IA1, etc., but won't include an Inquisitor or any Space Marines, for instance, while "D-99 army with Space Marine allies" is going to be mostly the D-99 list in IA4 but will have Space Marine allies that could be using IA2, Angels of Death, random special characters scattered through other IA books...)
IllumiNini wrote: The army was legal because he brought a Baneblade variant. If he'd brought an Imperial Knight, I would have kicked up more of a fuss because Imperial Knights =/= IG.
Its total non issue you ask me. I would be totally fine if an ork player brings some cool looking looted knights. Or if the IG player liked to bring an assassin or some fw stuff.
If you would have kicked up fuss I would have just have mentally labelled you as "that kind of player" as the IG player. Why care at all what books the guy is using other than the dubious act of list tailoring.
I think this is where it comes down to how my group of gaming friends and a number of people at my FLGS's operate. Non-issue for you? Fair enough.
Peregrine wrote:
IllumiNini wrote: Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit?
Yes. It's 7th edition, superheavies are part of the standard game. This is like asking if a C:SM player needs to inform you in advance that they might be bringing a tactical squad.
I disagree, bit I see little value in arguing this point. As above, I think this may come down to my community.
Peregrine wrote:
What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)?
Anything that is legal 40k rules. In fact, you shouldn't even assume that they'll be playing IG at all.
That seems a little ridiculous. If my opponent says "I'm going to play IG", I expect them to build an army that possesses at least a majority of units drawn from IG-legal sources. It may not be a written rule for them to do this, but I think it's almost certainly common courtesy.
Peregrine wrote:
I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
They have no obligation at all to tell you what they're using before the game. When both (all) players have finished writing their lists and it's time to start setting up the game obviously everyone needs to show their opponents their lists, but there's no obligation to say anything at all before that point.
Fair call. If that works for you and your gaming community, power to you.
Peregrine wrote:
Another is the fact that this IG player used Summoning in spite of the fact that a couple of us had an issue with him using it (since we disagree with the use of Summoning as a general rule).
Summoning is part of the game in 7th edition, and needs no special warnings. If you dislike it so much then you have the obligation to make an explicit "no summoning" house rule that everyone understands before they agree to a game with you. Expecting people to obey your unwritten "don't use summoning without asking" policy is not reasonable.
I may have been over-zealous about this particular point. Like a few things now, it comes down to my community. For example, my friend who plays Dark Angels, myself, and a couple of others in my group have a Gentlemen's Agreement about not using of Flyers because the Dark Angels player is the only one with Flyers and any dedicated AA outside Missile Launchers w/ Flakk. By the same sort of token, everybody except this particular IG player refuses to use Summoning because we all see it as giving an unfair advantage and is too time consuming.
Unusual Suspect wrote:It is going to be based more on your community's inclinations than it will on random internet poster inclination what is most appropriate... but SHV/GMC in non-Apoc games has been reasonably expected for a year or two now. Allied forces (like your example of an Imperial Knight joining an AM detachment) has been reasonably expected for at least as long, if not longer.
Frankly, it shouldn't be considered a "curveball" after years of being a legal and standard option UNLESS your local community has made it clear that those sorts of legal and standard options are unexpected.
In my gaming group, even Flyers are a curve-ball. In the GW store I game at, SHV's are still considered a curve-ball in most pickup games.
IllumiNini wrote: ...But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?...
...It seems like a weird bar to be demanding someone tell you their Imperial Guard army uses Warzone Damocles content before playing. The burden ought to be on you to know that an army has supplements and can use them, rather than demanding an exact list of content in advance.
I think you're missing my meaning, here. What I'm trying to say is that - as a general rule - Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit? What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)? In other words - How much burden should be on me and how much burden should be on them?
I'm not trying to demand that my opponents tell me exactly what's in their list or anything like that. I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
It seems to me like you're focusing on the wrong question here. You shouldn't be protesting or turning down games on basis that the other guy didn't warn you ahead of time what books he's using, you should be protesting on basis of what's in the list. If you're worried about the superheavy argue with using the superheavy, pulling out the question of what books are being used is deflecting the whole discussion into an irrelevant an unhelpful corner, especially given that two of the most broken superheavies in the game are printed in standard Codexes. Don't get hung up on what books are being used, get hung up on what units are being used.
(My view on the primary question is that you should tell the other guy what Codexes/factions you're using, but if a rule in a supplement or Imperial Armour book is written down as "may be taken in a Codex [X] army" you should assume it could appear. "Imperial Guard army" will include content from the AM book, but may just as easily include bits from Warzone Damocles, Gathering Storm, IA1, etc., but won't include an Inquisitor or any Space Marines, for instance, while "D-99 army with Space Marine allies" is going to be mostly the D-99 list in IA4 but will have Space Marine allies that could be using IA2, Angels of Death, random special characters scattered through other IA books...)
I see what you mean. And I'm not turning down games or anything like that because "Oh.... you didn't tell me you were using that Supplement.", it is more the SHV example that would make me turn down a game. My thoughts on the who Codeces/Supplements/Other Documents is to sort of avoid the conflicts and turning down of games that would arise from complete curve-ball list choices like SHV's that someone would find it impossible to deal with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 23:11:11
IllumiNini wrote: ...But here's the question: Would you have allowed this? Or would you have disallowed this because he didn't properly inform us as to the nature of the codeces and supplements he was using?...
...It seems like a weird bar to be demanding someone tell you their Imperial Guard army uses Warzone Damocles content before playing. The burden ought to be on you to know that an army has supplements and can use them, rather than demanding an exact list of content in advance.
I think you're missing my meaning, here. What I'm trying to say is that - as a general rule - Should I assume (using the example of my friend who plays IG) the potential for him to bring a SHV regardless of the Points Limit? What other Codeces and Supplements should I assume they're drawing from because they would be consistent with an IG army (e.g. Imperial Agents)? In other words - How much burden should be on me and how much burden should be on them?
I'm not trying to demand that my opponents tell me exactly what's in their list or anything like that. I'm simply asking where should my assumptions stop and the onus on them to tell me what documents they're using to form their army and/or any potential surprises (e.g. SHV in Non-Apoc Games) begin?
It seems to me like you're focusing on the wrong question here. You shouldn't be protesting or turning down games on basis that the other guy didn't warn you ahead of time what books he's using, you should be protesting on basis of what's in the list. If you're worried about the superheavy argue with using the superheavy, pulling out the question of what books are being used is deflecting the whole discussion into an irrelevant an unhelpful corner, especially given that two of the most broken superheavies in the game are printed in standard Codexes. Don't get hung up on what books are being used, get hung up on what units are being used.
(My view on the primary question is that you should tell the other guy what Codexes/factions you're using, but if a rule in a supplement or Imperial Armour book is written down as "may be taken in a Codex [X] army" you should assume it could appear. "Imperial Guard army" will include content from the AM book, but may just as easily include bits from Warzone Damocles, Gathering Storm, IA1, etc., but won't include an Inquisitor or any Space Marines, for instance, while "D-99 army with Space Marine allies" is going to be mostly the D-99 list in IA4 but will have Space Marine allies that could be using IA2, Angels of Death, random special characters scattered through other IA books...)
I see what you mean. And I'm not turning down games or anything like that because "Oh.... you didn't tell me you were using that Supplement.", it is more the SHV example that would make me turn down a game. My thoughts on the who Codeces/Supplements/Other Documents is to sort of avoid the conflicts and turning down of games that would arise from complete curve-ball list choices like SHV's that someone would find it impossible to deal with.
The problem with saying that you're going to turn down games if they use books superheavies are in is that you've declared you're turning down games against the Tau, the Eldar, and any army that uses any Imperial Armour content, just in case they use superheavies, instead of just asking the other guy if they're using a superheavy and would they mind not. Using the book the superheavy is in isn't the problem, the superheavy is the problem.
AnomanderRake wrote: The problem with saying that you're going to turn down games if they use books superheavies are in is that you've declared you're turning down games against the Tau, the Eldar, and any army that uses any Imperial Armour content, just in case they use superheavies, instead of just asking the other guy if they're using a superheavy and would they mind not. Using the book the superheavy is in isn't the problem, the superheavy is the problem.
Let me be clear: The only time I will turn down a game with respect to the use of SHV's is when my army either literally can't deal with it or would have so much trouble dealing with it that the game (for me) would be nothing but tedious.
If I know that they will be drawing their army from documents that allow them to bring SHV's, then I can think to myself "How can I form a list where I can either deal with a 'Normal' army effectively or deal with a SHV vehicle effectively should they decided to bring one?"
IllumiNini wrote: I disagree, bit I see little value in arguing this point. As above, I think this may come down to my community.
I don't see what there is to disagree with. The LoW slot is in the standard core-rulebook CAD, and the various superheavy units that go in the LoW slot have been published in the same books as the units that go in troops or heavy support or whatever. In the version of 40k published by GW they're just another unit type. The old days of Apocalypse/Escalation are over, and not relevant anymore.
Now, you're of course free to impose your own "no superheavies" house rule, but you aren't being reasonable if you expect everyone else to automatically follow it.
That seems a little ridiculous. If my opponent says "I'm going to play IG", I expect them to build an army that possesses at least a majority of units drawn from IG-legal sources. It may not be a written rule for them to do this, but I think it's almost certainly common courtesy.
What's ridiculous is that you seem to think you're entitled to "I'm going to play IG" in the first place. All you need to know is the point level of the game, and maybe an agreement on the casual vs. competitive scale. There is no reason to know in advance what army your opponent is bringing. It seems like the problem here is that you want to list tailor to counter your opponent's army and get an easier win, and you don't like the possibility that they might bring something your tailoring isn't effective against.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
IllumiNini wrote: I disagree, bit I see little value in arguing this point. As above, I think this may come down to my community.
I don't see what there is to disagree with. The LoW slot is in the standard core-rulebook CAD, and the various superheavy units that go in the LoW slot have been published in the same books as the units that go in troops or heavy support or whatever. In the version of 40k published by GW they're just another unit type. The old days of Apocalypse/Escalation are over, and not relevant anymore.
Now, you're of course free to impose your own "no superheavies" house rule, but you aren't being reasonable if you expect everyone else to automatically follow it.
I again disagree with you. You are correct in the sense the - according to the rules - it is legal to take them and my opponent has no official obligation to tell me, but in my community and among at least some of my friends, it has always be the practice to inform the opposition player. It has also been the practice - in pickup games where factions are not shared prior due to the nature of a pickup game - to not include things like SHV's.
Now, if I were to play you, it is unreasonable for me to expect you to do as my community does, therefore requiring me to initiate the making of agreements surrounding the match, the lists, etc etc etc. But if I were gaming somebody from my community, I do not think it's unreasonable for me to have these expectations and make these assumptions since that's how my community operates.
Peregrine wrote:
That seems a little ridiculous. If my opponent says "I'm going to play IG", I expect them to build an army that possesses at least a majority of units drawn from IG-legal sources. It may not be a written rule for them to do this, but I think it's almost certainly common courtesy.
What's ridiculous is that you seem to think you're entitled to "I'm going to play IG" in the first place. All you need to know is the point level of the game, and maybe an agreement on the casual vs. competitive scale. There is no reason to know in advance what army your opponent is bringing. It seems like the problem here is that you want to list tailor to counter your opponent's army and get an easier win, and you don't like the possibility that they might bring something your tailoring isn't effective against.
Every game I've ever, ever played - whether it be a pre-organised game at my FLGS or with my friends - we have always told each other two things:
(1) Points Limit;
(2) Which armies we will be using;
Now, your community/communities might be very different to mine, but in my community, this is how it works. How is it unreasonable?
If we're talking in a strictly competitive sense (e.g. Tournaments) then you would be right - all I can expect to know is the Points Limit.
Martel732 wrote:If I had more than one army (which I kinda do with IK I guess), I would absolutely not say which one I was bringing to a match.
Not that I'm necessarily arguing, but I'm curious as to why?
Because I don't want to be tailored against. Just as I wouldn't ask which army I'm facing. All I usually know is points. That's the best test of list building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 01:45:32
Martel732 wrote: Because I don't want to be tailored against. Just as I wouldn't ask which army I'm facing. All I usually know is points. That's the best test of list building.
Fair call. I usually find that people have enough units and formations to draw from in order to mitigate the effects of list tailoring to the point where trying to list tailor becomes effectively redundant, but each to their own.
Martel732 wrote: But just knowing marines vs Orks is going to slant your weapon selection heavily.
This is true. I'm more likely to take Flamer Weapons and Blast Weapons against Orks than I am against Marines, but for me, that's always not only made new challenges as far as List Building (since you can't simply throw them in there like you're making Marine Stew), but it also makes me think "OK - I know my opponent is bringing weapons that are going to be better at taking me out. How can I minimise the benefits of taking said weapons using tactics?"
Ulthwe: 7500 points 
20000+ points
