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.
Your rules aren't explained, so he can't be expected to follow them. To use the murder analogy, he can't be accused if there's no written law against it.
By those rules, demanding what codex is one thing. You could know what codex someone is bringing, but not their units (lots of Valkyries, Leman Russ spam, blob guard etc etc). But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex? Just my primary detachment? The largest detachment? What if I'm unbound? And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
IllumiNini wrote: 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
Of course this allows your opponent to list-tailor. You play orks? Ok I don't need AP3 guns so can instead concentrate on weapons that are good against orks.
Especially easy if you have multiple smallish but different armies so you can't say bring in meganob horde to throw opponent off if he brought lots of flamers etc expecting your usual green tide etc.
I don't believe it's necessary to tell opponents anything about the source of your lists, or let them know you are bringing superheavies, or anything else for that matter. As long as your list is legal, it's fine.
Saying this as an extreme list-tinkerer - it's my job to prepare and not get stuck on a single playstyle. TAC is one of the worst things to happen to 40k and I am glad it is going out of fashion. What I bring to games is a binder with 30 or so lists that work as hard-counters to specific armies and players. None of them are auto-win, but they can accomplish a lot.
My army travels in 4 transport cases along with a small handtruck to make it easier to get through the door. If I know someone brings superheavies, great, I have Be'lakor, Maulerfields and Rapier Support Batteries to deal with them. You bring Scatterbikes, great, I bring a couple Cyclopean Cabals and use them against your own army. You bring a deathstar, great, I go heavy on psykers to deny your all-important buffs and assault you with bikers. You bring Orks, great, I bring 3 squads of Havoks and mow down everything in 36 inches. You bring White Scars, great, I bring a Spartan Assault Tank and a squad of 20 Berzerkers to multi-charge your bikes off the board.
Traitor Legions is making it easier to do this. I have viable Black Legion, World Eaters and Death Guard armies that cover most situations. Deep Strike against Tau, assault against Daemons and Marines, high toughness against Eldar and Tyrannids.
Your rules aren't explained, so he can't be expected to follow them. To use the murder analogy, he can't be accused if there's no written law against it.
Since he, myself and a number of other friends within my gaming group have not only played for a long time together, we've also been friends for a long time. Myself and another of my friends have made these rules and our views very clear on these points. So I'm afraid that you're mistaken - the rules and our views were made very clear and on no occasion that I can recall has he ever gone "Wait a minute... I don't agree."
Sgt_Smudge wrote: By those rules, demanding what codex is one thing. You could know what codex someone is bringing, but not their units (lots of Valkyries, Leman Russ spam, blob guard etc etc).
Seems to me that the misconception that I'm demanding this knowledge runs deep. I'll say again - I'm not demanding. This is a set of rules and understandings that me and the vast majority of other players I game with agree to and practice. On the instance that I described in the original post, the IG player decided that he was above these rules and understandings without bringing it up as a full group discussion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
Though it's not as common for myself and my friends to share which supplements we're using, I don't think it's a stretch to think that some group would have a similar arrangement to the one my group has whereby they share all the documents that the could potentially draw from.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex?
Most times, the allies that are taken are shared and very similar to the army they're allied to. So for example, my IG friend will often tell me if he takes Tyranids with Genestealer Allies (or vice versa). Even when I play at my FLGS, very few people play with allies outside of games with more than two players.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
My attitude towards SHV's and Knights is a matter of courtesy more than anything else. Most games I play these days, I prepare for someone bringing one SHV or one Knight (especially since I've recently bought the models to this), but I still maintain that - if nothing else - it is polite to inform your opponent. When I eventually get around to buying a Knight for my 40K Iron Warriors Army, I will always tell my opponent that I either intend to bring it or at least inform them that I might bring it.
2017/02/13 10:47:48
Subject: Re:Stance of Declaring Codeces Being Used
IllumiNini wrote: @kingobbito: Fair enough. I guess that me and my group are so used to doing it the way that we do it that we've got used to operating that way, not to mention that because we know each other's armies, we can both Codex Tailor. I have a scenario for you, though. Consider this:
The IG player I've been talking about also has Genestealer Cult, Tyranids, Imperial Agents, Deathwatch, a small Vanilla Space Marine force, and Chaos Daemons (yes, he has a lot of armies and yes, he buys it all for cheap on the internet haha). Now let's go with the system that most of the comment-ers here seem to use which is that this particular player doesn't have to tell their opposition which of these army/armies he will be using in a particular game. Now consider he was playing one of my other friends who only collects and has access to Dark Angels, so immediately my Dark Angel friend is at a disadvantage because his opponent knows which army he is taking but he doesn't know what he's up against.
In this situation, what would you do?
Build a decent Dark Angels army?
I think you may have a problem here because you've been using your unwritten rules for so long your group has problems building good lists. Your statement above shows that. The armies you list are all very different but it's not like a balanced DA army would have serious problems playing against them.
For example, I have a Dark Eldar army. It's not that big so I don't have a huge collection of extra models to draw from in order to adjust it. However, I'd be happy taking my regular list against any of those armies. It really doesn't make a difference to me because my army is pretty well balanced and has ways of dealing with most types of threats. From what we've seen in this thread the majority of players don't need to know what they're facing a head of time and the game is still playable so if that's not the case with you I think you need to look at your unwritten rules and ask if they're really helping at all?
In fact, I'd go further. I think your experiences would improve if you dropped your community restrictions. Your list building would improve but your playing would also improve because you'd have to face the possibility of using sub-optimal answers to some threats and improvising your way out of trouble. That makes for more interesting games, IMO.
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.
In my group we find declaring codexes gives better games, for example last month I was playing a guy who has a good marine collection and is also starting orks. He told me he was playing orks and I then built a less powerful list than I would have if I had just assumed marines or built a TAC. It makes the games more even and fun. IIRC I had a squad of storm guardians with fusion guns, because meltaing a trukk to charge the boyz inside is a great idea.
Of course you don't have to declare, but I would say in 95% of the games people do.
If my thread demonstrates this, then I never meant it to. All I meant it to demonstrate is 'This is how I do it. This is how most of my friends do it. This is how a vast majority of the community that I game with do it. This is how I'm used to playing. I wanted to gauge how many people agree with me and how many disagree with me. I wanted to know why people do it differently if they do it differently. I wanted to know if people had different reasons for doing something similar to me.
If this is not how all people operate and if agreeing not to share codeces, supplements and other such information will get me a fun game, then I'm all for it. All I meant to say in terms of what I do is not that I demand people share the aforementioned information, but more so that it was how I'm used to doing things.
roflmajog wrote: In my group we find declaring codexes gives better games, for example last month I was playing a guy who has a good marine collection and is also starting orks. He told me he was playing orks and I then built a less powerful list than I would have if I had just assumed marines or built a TAC. It makes the games more even and fun. IIRC I had a squad of storm guardians with fusion guns, because meltaing a trukk to charge the boyz inside is a great idea.
Of course you don't have to declare, but I would say in 95% of the games people do.
I think this demonstrates one of the benefits of declaring such information. This certainly doesn't always apply, but it can't hurt. I have a friend who is in a similar situation - they have relatively small collections of both Orks and Tau, so I know that it would be unfair of me to drop the Apoc Blast from a Linebreaker Squadron in our 1,000 Point Games because that would be ridiculously unfair (especially since I know they have nothing to counter that).
IllumiNini wrote: @kingobbito: Fair enough. I guess that me and my group are so used to doing it the way that we do it that we've got used to operating that way, not to mention that because we know each other's armies, we can both Codex Tailor. I have a scenario for you, though. Consider this:
The IG player I've been talking about also has Genestealer Cult, Tyranids, Imperial Agents, Deathwatch, a small Vanilla Space Marine force, and Chaos Daemons (yes, he has a lot of armies and yes, he buys it all for cheap on the internet haha). Now let's go with the system that most of the comment-ers here seem to use which is that this particular player doesn't have to tell their opposition which of these army/armies he will be using in a particular game. Now consider he was playing one of my other friends who only collects and has access to Dark Angels, so immediately my Dark Angel friend is at a disadvantage because his opponent knows which army he is taking but he doesn't know what he's up against.
In this situation, what would you do?
Build a decent Dark Angels army?
I think you may have a problem here because you've been using your unwritten rules for so long your group has problems building good lists. Your statement above shows that. The armies you list are all very different but it's not like a balanced DA army would have serious problems playing against them.
For example, I have a Dark Eldar army. It's not that big so I don't have a huge collection of extra models to draw from in order to adjust it. However, I'd be happy taking my regular list against any of those armies. It really doesn't make a difference to me because my army is pretty well balanced and has ways of dealing with most types of threats. From what we've seen in this thread the majority of players don't need to know what they're facing a head of time and the game is still playable so if that's not the case with you I think you need to look at your unwritten rules and ask if they're really helping at all?
In fact, I'd go further. I think your experiences would improve if you dropped your community restrictions. Your list building would improve but your playing would also improve because you'd have to face the possibility of using sub-optimal answers to some threats and improvising your way out of trouble. That makes for more interesting games, IMO.
Fair enough. I do honestly find this difficult sometimes since I always play Vanilla Space Marines, my mate always plays Dark Angels, and another mate always plays Necrons. A few of the regulars at my FLGS's include a guy who always plays Chaos, another who always plays either Iron Warriors or Tau, and another who always plays Ultramarines since these are the only armies the respective players own; not to mention I play these guys on a relatively regular basis. What happens in this broader sense? Because most people I game with, I know the armies they're likely (or in some cases guaranteed) to use. Do I refrain from telling them what I'll be using?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/13 11:59:32
Your rules aren't explained, so he can't be expected to follow them. To use the murder analogy, he can't be accused if there's no written law against it.
Since he, myself and a number of other friends within my gaming group have not only played for a long time together, we've also been friends for a long time. Myself and another of my friends have made these rules and our views very clear on these points. So I'm afraid that you're mistaken - the rules and our views were made very clear and on no occasion that I can recall has he ever gone "Wait a minute... I don't agree."
But they remain unwritten. You can't expect someone to go through with a house rule until it's written down and confirmed. Write the rule down, enforce it, and then you might stop that kind of stuff, if everyone supports it.
Let's go through your initial point. You ask us, members not in your group, to give our views. People not in your group, who are not aware of your group's dynamics. And then you use the argument that your group has their own unwritten rules, thereby justifying it. At the moment, the only argument you've offered is "people in my group have an unwritten rules saying X". It's a house rule, and not even enforced by writing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: By those rules, demanding what codex is one thing. You could know what codex someone is bringing, but not their units (lots of Valkyries, Leman Russ spam, blob guard etc etc).
Seems to me that the misconception that I'm demanding this knowledge runs deep. I'll say again - I'm not demanding. This is a set of rules and understandings that me and the vast majority of other players I game with agree to and practice. On the instance that I described in the original post, the IG player decided that he was above these rules and understandings without bringing it up as a full group discussion.
And I quote:
"you must inform your opponent which codeces, supplements, and other documents you will be drawing your army from"
Sounds a lot like a demand to me.
Not to mention that a Baneblade variant is still IG. He's listed all Codexes. Damocles isn't a Codex. Therefore, by your rules as (un)written, he has named all codexes.
And another case - Summoning.
"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"
So, because a few of you disagreed with it, and likely put it into these unwritten rules, you banned a section of the game? Did the IG player know this? Did they agree to the house rule?
Again - you invited us to make comments on this from our perspective. Many people disagree with your logic. Your only real reaction is "my group says we do this, but it's not confirmed and placed as an actual rule".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
Though it's not as common for myself and my friends to share which supplements we're using, I don't think it's a stretch to think that some group would have a similar arrangement to the one my group has whereby they share all the documents that the could potentially draw from.
Again, your group, your rules. If you're just going to say "my group does X" and disregard what other opposing views say, why did you put it on a worldwide forum?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex?
Most times, the allies that are taken are shared and very similar to the army they're allied to. So for example, my IG friend will often tell me if he takes Tyranids with Genestealer Allies (or vice versa). Even when I play at my FLGS, very few people play with allies outside of games with more than two players.
But what if I do go out and take Space Marines allies with Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Tyranids, Knights and Daemons, etc etc - your rules are unwritten, and therefore can't be enforced.
Or how about I go unbound, and take a unit from each army? Do I need to name every codex? Just my primary detachment? How much I'm bringing from each codex?
Sure, the people you game with might do a certain thing. But that is nothing but a house rule.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
My attitude towards SHV's and Knights is a matter of courtesy more than anything else. Most games I play these days, I prepare for someone bringing one SHV or one Knight (especially since I've recently bought the models to this), but I still maintain that - if nothing else - it is polite to inform your opponent. When I eventually get around to buying a Knight for my 40K Iron Warriors Army, I will always tell my opponent that I either intend to bring it or at least inform them that I might bring it.
But what about a Knight army? A full army just consisting of Imperial Knights? Are you going to ban an entire army?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And another case - Summoning.
"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"
So, because a few of you disagreed with it, and likely put it into these unwritten rules, you banned a section of the game? Did the IG player know this? Did they agree to the house rule?
Again - you invited us to make comments on this from our perspective. Many people disagree with your logic. Your only real reaction is "my group says we do this, but it's not confirmed and placed as an actual rule".
So verbally making a house rule clear cannot possibly be enough for people I call my friends? If they're my friends, do I really have to have it in writing for them to follow the rule? That seems incredibly silly to me. If it's a house rule (which in this case it obviously is), I don't see the need to write it down when the rule is being applied among friends.
As for whether or not the IG player knew and agreed, myself and at least one other friend of mine have at least tried to make it abundantly clear to him. Though he never explicitly voiced his agreement, my friend and I considered him accepting and playing the game as a form of his agreement to what was said. My argument for this is that if he didn't agree with our terms on how we play games, why would he accept to play the game in the first place? Why would he not say to us 'Oh wait.... I don't agree to this. I think this is unreasonable.'?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
Though it's not as common for myself and my friends to share which supplements we're using, I don't think it's a stretch to think that some group would have a similar arrangement to the one my group has whereby they share all the documents that the could potentially draw from.
Again, your group, your rules. If you're just going to say "my group does X" and disregard what other opposing views say, why did you put it on a worldwide forum?
Because as I said in an earlier post, I wanted to know what people thought and I wanted to know if more people id a similar thing to my group or if more people worked differently. It seems that the posts (in particular the apparently hostile ones that go as far as calling me a TFG) seem to vehemently disagree with hoe myself and my group do it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex?
Most times, the allies that are taken are shared and very similar to the army they're allied to. So for example, my IG friend will often tell me if he takes Tyranids with Genestealer Allies (or vice versa). Even when I play at my FLGS, very few people play with allies outside of games with more than two players.
But what if I do go out and take Space Marines allies with Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Tyranids, Knights and Daemons, etc etc - your rules are unwritten, and therefore can't be enforced.
Or how about I go unbound, and take a unit from each army? Do I need to name every codex? Just my primary detachment? How much I'm bringing from each codex?
Sure, the people you game with might do a certain thing. But that is nothing but a house rule.
You're right - it is, and as I've tried to say in previous posts: If somebody from outside my community/group wanted to have a game with me, I would like to discuss the terms of the game since the house rules of my group/community obviously don't apply.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
My attitude towards SHV's and Knights is a matter of courtesy more than anything else. Most games I play these days, I prepare for someone bringing one SHV or one Knight (especially since I've recently bought the models to this), but I still maintain that - if nothing else - it is polite to inform your opponent. When I eventually get around to buying a Knight for my 40K Iron Warriors Army, I will always tell my opponent that I either intend to bring it or at least inform them that I might bring it.
But what about a Knight army? A full army just consisting of Imperial Knights? Are you going to ban an entire army?
I'm not trying to say that such an army should be banned. Al I'm saying is that in my group, such an army isn't normal and even taking a single Knight as part of another army in a relatively casual game is rare without prior warning. This is why I hold the views that I do. This is why I think is extremely polite to inform your opponent that there is a chance that you at least might use something like a Knight or a SHV. This apparently doesn't apply in the groups/communities of many comment-ers here, but it does in mine.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And another case - Summoning.
"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"
So, because a few of you disagreed with it, and likely put it into these unwritten rules, you banned a section of the game? Did the IG player know this? Did they agree to the house rule?
Again - you invited us to make comments on this from our perspective. Many people disagree with your logic. Your only real reaction is "my group says we do this, but it's not confirmed and placed as an actual rule".
So verbally making a house rule clear cannot possibly be enough for people I call my friends? If they're my friends, do I really have to have it in writing for them to follow the rule? That seems incredibly silly to me. If it's a house rule (which in this case it obviously is), I don't see the need to write it down when the rule is being applied among friends.
Yes. How can you expect people to follow a rule you don't enforce via writing? It's not hard to write it down and have people sign it if they consent.
As for whether or not the IG player knew and agreed, myself and at least one other friend of mine have at least tried to make it abundantly clear to him. Though he never explicitly voiced his agreement, my friend and I considered him accepting and playing the game as a form of his agreement to what was said. My argument for this is that if he didn't agree with our terms on how we play games, why would he accept to play the game in the first place? Why would he not say to us 'Oh wait.... I don't agree to this. I think this is unreasonable.'?
You assumed they consented to your rules - that's a big issue. If they didn't confirm their agreement, then you should have confirmed it if it was that much of an issue.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
Though it's not as common for myself and my friends to share which supplements we're using, I don't think it's a stretch to think that some group would have a similar arrangement to the one my group has whereby they share all the documents that the could potentially draw from.
Again, your group, your rules. If you're just going to say "my group does X" and disregard what other opposing views say, why did you put it on a worldwide forum?
Because as I said in an earlier post, I wanted to know what people thought and I wanted to know if more people id a similar thing to my group or if more people worked differently. It seems that the posts (in particular the apparently hostile ones that go as far as calling me a TFG) seem to vehemently disagree with hoe myself and my group do it.
Is this thread going to change your view at all, or will your house rules remain - hopefully being put in writing and agreed/disputed amongst all it may affect?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex?
Most times, the allies that are taken are shared and very similar to the army they're allied to. So for example, my IG friend will often tell me if he takes Tyranids with Genestealer Allies (or vice versa). Even when I play at my FLGS, very few people play with allies outside of games with more than two players.
But what if I do go out and take Space Marines allies with Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Tyranids, Knights and Daemons, etc etc - your rules are unwritten, and therefore can't be enforced.
Or how about I go unbound, and take a unit from each army? Do I need to name every codex? Just my primary detachment? How much I'm bringing from each codex?
Sure, the people you game with might do a certain thing. But that is nothing but a house rule.
You're right - it is, and as I've tried to say in previous posts: If somebody from outside my community/group wanted to have a game with me, I would like to discuss the terms of the game since the house rules of my group/community obviously don't apply.
So why didn't you ensure all these rules were being followed? If you'd reaffirmed the rules and ensured an answer, then you may have avoided the situation in the OP.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
My attitude towards SHV's and Knights is a matter of courtesy more than anything else. Most games I play these days, I prepare for someone bringing one SHV or one Knight (especially since I've recently bought the models to this), but I still maintain that - if nothing else - it is polite to inform your opponent. When I eventually get around to buying a Knight for my 40K Iron Warriors Army, I will always tell my opponent that I either intend to bring it or at least inform them that I might bring it.
But what about a Knight army? A full army just consisting of Imperial Knights? Are you going to ban an entire army?
I'm not trying to say that such an army should be banned. Al I'm saying is that in my group, such an army isn't normal and even taking a single Knight as part of another army in a relatively casual game is rare without prior warning. This is why I hold the views that I do. This is why I think is extremely polite to inform your opponent that there is a chance that you at least might use something like a Knight or a SHV. This apparently doesn't apply in the groups/communities of many comment-ers here, but it does in mine.
So, doesn't that just nullify any argument anyone can make against you?
"Yes, you have your view, but my group doesn't have that, and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion"
Is there even a point to having a contrasting view to you in that case?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How can you expect people to follow a rule you don't enforce via writing? It's not hard to write it down and have people sign it if they consent.
If we're talking about people outside my friends group that plays 40K (e.g. people at my FLGS's) then yes, I agree: It's not so much of a stretch of the imagination to think that a written set of House Rules would be required of me to enforce. Luckily for me, it hasn't gotten to the point where that has been required. Unfortunately for me, it has been made apparent by the whole situation with the aforementioned IG player (who I've been friends with for over 10 years) that there are always people that think they are exceptions to the rules. There are players within my friends group that I have know for longer than this IG-playing friend and friends that I've known for shorter times, all of whom have had no issue. I think the thing to take away from this is that the issue is with the individual's agreements with the House Rules (or apparent lack thereof).
As for whether or not the IG player knew and agreed, myself and at least one other friend of mine have at least tried to make it abundantly clear to him. Though he never explicitly voiced his agreement, my friend and I considered him accepting and playing the game as a form of his agreement to what was said. My argument for this is that if he didn't agree with our terms on how we play games, why would he accept to play the game in the first place? Why would he not say to us 'Oh wait.... I don't agree to this. I think this is unreasonable.'?
You assumed they consented to your rules - that's a big issue. If they didn't confirm their agreement, then you should have confirmed it if it was that much of an issue.
Fair call, but as I said: They consented to a game with me and my friend knowing full well what our views and House Rules were. I don't know how you (or others) would treat that, but personally I treat that as an agreement by default to the House Rules that we set out in the same way that we agreed to any House Rules by default that he has set out for the games that he plays. If the IG player didn't agree with the House Rules, why would they accept a game with us? Why would he not try to come to a new agreement whereby he found the House Rules more agreeable?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But asking for supplements, SHV? That's not codex knowledge. That's unit specifics, and that is getting on the road to list tailoring.
Though it's not as common for myself and my friends to share which supplements we're using, I don't think it's a stretch to think that some group would have a similar arrangement to the one my group has whereby they share all the documents that the could potentially draw from.
Again, your group, your rules. If you're just going to say "my group does X" and disregard what other opposing views say, why did you put it on a worldwide forum?
Because as I said in an earlier post, I wanted to know what people thought and I wanted to know if more people id a similar thing to my group or if more people worked differently. It seems that the posts (in particular the apparently hostile ones that go as far as calling me a TFG) seem to vehemently disagree with hoe myself and my group do it.
Is this thread going to change your view at all, or will your house rules remain - hopefully being put in writing and agreed/disputed amongst all it may affect?
It already is, to be honest. Slipspace's point on Page 3 of this thread exemplifies at least part of why I'm willing to let go of this set of House Rules, but at the same time roflmajog's point on the same page of this thread exemplifies why it can - at least in some circumstances - be useful. So all in all, I went from my original view to at least a bit torn.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: How does your system work with allies too? Do I need to list every codex?
Most times, the allies that are taken are shared and very similar to the army they're allied to. So for example, my IG friend will often tell me if he takes Tyranids with Genestealer Allies (or vice versa). Even when I play at my FLGS, very few people play with allies outside of games with more than two players.
But what if I do go out and take Space Marines allies with Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Tyranids, Knights and Daemons, etc etc - your rules are unwritten, and therefore can't be enforced.
Or how about I go unbound, and take a unit from each army? Do I need to name every codex? Just my primary detachment? How much I'm bringing from each codex?
Sure, the people you game with might do a certain thing. But that is nothing but a house rule.
You're right - it is, and as I've tried to say in previous posts: If somebody from outside my community/group wanted to have a game with me, I would like to discuss the terms of the game since the house rules of my group/community obviously don't apply.
So why didn't you ensure all these rules were being followed? If you'd reaffirmed the rules and ensured an answer, then you may have avoided the situation in the OP.
You're right - I should have. And I didn't find out about the summoning until I rocked up at said ID player's house and saw the daemons and associated codex sitting on his tables. I honestly didn't even know he had daemons let alone their codex until the day we started, and by that time I though it wasn't worth cancelling the game (mainly because it was a 2v2 as opposed to a 1v1).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And how does your attitude to SHV allow players to play a Knight army? Is that banned?
My attitude towards SHV's and Knights is a matter of courtesy more than anything else. Most games I play these days, I prepare for someone bringing one SHV or one Knight (especially since I've recently bought the models to this), but I still maintain that - if nothing else - it is polite to inform your opponent. When I eventually get around to buying a Knight for my 40K Iron Warriors Army, I will always tell my opponent that I either intend to bring it or at least inform them that I might bring it.
But what about a Knight army? A full army just consisting of Imperial Knights? Are you going to ban an entire army?
I'm not trying to say that such an army should be banned. Al I'm saying is that in my group, such an army isn't normal and even taking a single Knight as part of another army in a relatively casual game is rare without prior warning. This is why I hold the views that I do. This is why I think is extremely polite to inform your opponent that there is a chance that you at least might use something like a Knight or a SHV. This apparently doesn't apply in the groups/communities of many comment-ers here, but it does in mine.
So, doesn't that just nullify any argument anyone can make against you?
"Yes, you have your view, but my group doesn't have that, and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion"
Is there even a point to having a contrasting view to you in that case?
Forgive me if it comes across that way, but it seems I'm being called a TFG (not necessarily by you) simply because I have a different view from everyone else. So that has become my default response in this thread haha. So assuming that people do not have to tell me the codeces their using and whatnot, I'm at a bit of a loss. Is it a simple case of "Buck up, princess. You need to get better at List Building."? or what?
I'm one of those old gits that hands my opponent a copy of my army list before we start the game. And I usually write the list with no idea who I'll be playing or what army my opponent will field.
'Nuff said!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 14:22:42
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD
So, doesn't that just nullify any argument anyone can make against you?
"Yes, you have your view, but my group doesn't have that, and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion"
Is there even a point to having a contrasting view to you in that case?
Forgive me if it comes across that way, but it seems I'm being called a TFG (not necessarily by you) simply because I have a different view from everyone else. So that has become my default response in this thread haha. So assuming that people do not have to tell me the codeces their using and whatnot, I'm at a bit of a loss. Is it a simple case of "Buck up, princess. You need to get better at List Building."? or what?
Yes! 100% this! Unfortunately I think your group will probably lack the ability to easily do this because you haven't had to develop the same list building skills as everyone else.
This seems to be a textbook example of a set of house rules getting out of hand to the point where you just can't see the issues you've created for yourself. You're so used to doing things your way it's completely changed your attitude towards more "normal" 40k concepts. The problem is you're arguing from a point of ignorance (not an insult, just an observation) because you haven't experienced the things you're arguing against.
I've seen it before in 40k and Warhammer. I remember some people I played against complaining that cannons were too good in WH, so they changed the rules. But then some armies couldn't deal with big monsters because of that, so then big monsters were a problem and the rules for those needed changing. You see where this is going?
I would strongly encourage you to try playing some games without these house rules. Build your armies with the knowledge you could be facing a wide range of opponents and don't panic the moment you see a SHV on the other side of the board or when someone starts summoning Daemons. Thinking critically about your own lists and tactics is the best way to get better at 40k but your house rules remove a lot of the possibilities for doing that.
So, doesn't that just nullify any argument anyone can make against you?
"Yes, you have your view, but my group doesn't have that, and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion"
Is there even a point to having a contrasting view to you in that case?
Forgive me if it comes across that way, but it seems I'm being called a TFG (not necessarily by you) simply because I have a different view from everyone else. So that has become my default response in this thread haha. So assuming that people do not have to tell me the codeces their using and whatnot, I'm at a bit of a loss. Is it a simple case of "Buck up, princess. You need to get better at List Building."? or what?
Yes! 100% this! Unfortunately I think your group will probably lack the ability to easily do this because you haven't had to develop the same list building skills as everyone else.
This seems to be a textbook example of a set of house rules getting out of hand to the point where you just can't see the issues you've created for yourself. You're so used to doing things your way it's completely changed your attitude towards more "normal" 40k concepts. The problem is you're arguing from a point of ignorance (not an insult, just an observation) because you haven't experienced the things you're arguing against.
I've seen it before in 40k and Warhammer. I remember some people I played against complaining that cannons were too good in WH, so they changed the rules. But then some armies couldn't deal with big monsters because of that, so then big monsters were a problem and the rules for those needed changing. You see where this is going?
I would strongly encourage you to try playing some games without these house rules. Build your armies with the knowledge you could be facing a wide range of opponents and don't panic the moment you see a SHV on the other side of the board or when someone starts summoning Daemons. Thinking critically about your own lists and tactics is the best way to get better at 40k but your house rules remove a lot of the possibilities for doing that.
I think you've summed it up pretty well in the sense that I have a relatively small pool of opponents (and thus armies) to face, especially in the sense that it's relatively unlikely that I'll be in a situation where I don't know what army I'm facing (especially given the House Rules that have caused so much controversy in this thread). I am keen to try playing without these House Rules to at least see how I go, but my aforementioned problem is the 'Pool of Players'. And then there's the whole scenario of 'I want to have a game with my mate who only plays Dark Angels. How do I separate List Building from Codex-Tailoring List Building?
I have a similar issue in my group. I play with 2 regular opponents, and one more very infrequently. Between them they play various space marine chapters, Eldar and Necrons. So my CSM list has generally grown in such a way as to be more effective against them - I don't bring things like flamers, for instance. But I try to avoid thinking about how I counter specific units that I know my opponents have. It also helps that they both have sufficiently large collections that there's no guarantee a specific unit will be fielded in a given battle.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Melissia wrote: Unfortunately, not all armies can bring TAC lists, or they are severely limited in what can be reasonably classified as TAC (Sisters for example are often considered to have exactly one list that can be reasonably called TAC).
Even calling that list TAC would be generous. Sisters meltarushing is surprisingly deadly and will take many off guard (especially considering how rare it is face Sisters). However, SoB's painfully small unit roster has no answer to flyers in their codex at all, forcing them to take allies specifically for the purpose of ensuring that flying circus won't just roll over you - and once you do, once you have the non-SoB units in your army doing the actual work, it just does not really feel like a 'sisters' army anymore, does it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 16:28:22
kingbobbito wrote: In what universe is tailoring your list based on the army you're facing an okay thing?
I agree with the OP; every game of 40k I've played has been arranged in advance with "Fancy a game next week? 2,000 points, I'm bringing Marines. What about you?"
That to me isn't "list tailoring"; at best it's getting the legs shortened, not properly bespoke. If I know my opponent plays Orks, then I'll likely bring more flamers than meltaguns. However, I don't actually have that many meltagun-armed marine models, so my options are limited, and for all I know he's going to turn up with a dreadmob, a stompa or a load of battlewagons - I can try to play the odds based on the typical army composition, but then again, my opponent is doing the same thing. And then "well, I know he's got orks, so I expect there to be lots of troops on the board, so I'll bring flamers and high-ROF weapons. But he knows that I know that, so will he instead bring lots of vehicles and armoured units? But I know he knows I know, so ...".
The only times we don't give each other advance notice is when I play close fiends - we all know what armies we all have anyway. There, the arms race is the surprise - I've just painted a new Land Raider - how will it do? (usually it'll get killed in turn 1, as is traditional for newly-painted units.)
List tailoring, to me, is knowing exactly what units my opponent will be bringing and being able to change my army list to counter that specifically without them having the same opportunity.
back to the OP, I assume that the IG player is a newcomer to your group - it's probably worth explaining your way of doing things. On the other hand, it might be worth doing it his way once in a while. A bit of variety can be fun. If nothing else, make sure you've got a few meltabombs stashed away in future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 17:00:26
What's more entertaining? Six nations, or watching (reading) OP get slapped around the proverbial ring of debate/argument? Well, I did pause the recording of England vs Wales to read through this, so I guess there's your answer.
While I don't game often, whenever I do it's a pick up game. Sometimes I come up against wraithknights with my vets. And ya know what? That's ok, I just rush my chimeras forwards and hope they get in range.
Stop being whiny about someone taking a legal superheavy when you hadn't pre-arranged explicitly, "Hey, if you're gonna bring a superheavy I'd like to know, and I'll tell you if I decide to bring one too."
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
For friendly games where I play, we don't explicitly say which codex/codices we're using before arriving (though most of us are quite familiar with one another and their armies), but we do tend to have a quick talk about anything that could present itself as controversial. This usually ends on some sort of agreement, or even "anti-tailoring" to an extent, if it means making the game fairer and thus more fun for both people. This is much to my delight.
Examples: "Well, my list has a Vendetta, but since your army doesn't have any anti-air or flyers, I'll just drop it and throw in another tank to even it up."
"I have drop pods, and I do open the doors when it arrives, but don't worry, I won't count the lowered doors towards LoS or cover saves or anything like that." (Said pre-FAQ)
"Hey, I brought an IK with me, is that alright?" "Yeah, no problem," "Okay, great."
Edit: Of course, I have yet to even see a Riptide or Wraithknight outside of a highly competitive Adepticon practice tournament held last weekend. I guess that speaks volumes about my community.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/13 17:26:41
Why should you drop your vendetta? Your opponent chose not to bring anti-air. Exploit that.
I have one ik in one of my 1850 lists. I might use that list without warning.It doesn't matter if my opponent is okay with it or not. I don't have to disclose i even own iks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/13 17:46:11
I do not think I was ever in a competive enough area. It tends to be bring your favourites. Like I said earlier after dow I had a serious love for flash gits, bought like 9 boxes of them. I seemed to do ok vs a friend who bought a start collecting box of chaos. The 250$ one with the difiler and stuff, he had it painted and added a termie sorcs.
We never really made a list to beat anyone just stuff we liked. I guess because there was not enough people to be super competive. We brough super heavies, swarms, flying and everything in between. Because it was cool and when spending 100$+ for a toy I will buy paint and look at for years and play with for hours. Looks are all that matter. Hence me making a aos army to play with mass megadroths I do not even own the book yet getting it on pay day but already ordered 3 megadroths lol.
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
I think in general you need to institute a "don't be a douche" rule, and just because something is legal doesn't mean you have free reign to pull from a dozen books (well you DO have free reign, but you also have free reign to be labeled TFG and denied games).
In general, my viewpoint is that if you're going to bring something that can skew the game, e.g. a lot of flyers or LoW, you should at least make it aware that you have/are planning to bring/might bring them, so its not "Hey surprise fethface I have 5 Wraithknights and a bunch of flyers get ready to be pwnd kid" on the day of the game. You don't have to disclose actual lists, but you should be like "Hey I might bring my Knight, heads up" so people can at least prepare on the chance you do, it won't be caught totally off guard.
Do you HAVE to? No, but it's often considered courtesy unless you're all cutthroat WAAC/rules lawyers type of players (which Peregrine seems to be, or at least acts like one) to not be a gak about it and do things just because you can do them. Especially if everyone else does it and one guy doesn't because "I don't have to by the rules" then that guy is being a bit of a prick.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/13 18:14:45
In my group we do it similarly to the OP. We always let each other know the points limit and for those that have multiple factions available, or are using someone else's army, they'll say which faction they're using for that game. It would be unusual for us to mention which sources or supplements we're using but i find these things often come up during a chat anyway or we're aware that someone's bought a new book recently and they'll likely use that. If we're using an old book, such as when I occasionally use the old IA Ork stuff, we'll talk about what's in it and if it's okay to use something with clunky rules. We also wouldn't usually mention any allies that are included, just the primary detachment I suppose. I guess it does count as list tailoring , I'll see many more power mauls used against me than our CSM player might, but our method has never resulted in a completely skewed game and if it did that would be spoken about. I try to build a TAC style list with my Orks anyway, and I wouldn't really know where to begin with cutthroat list tailoring. My codex has very few good units and those units seem to perform pretty much the same against any of the factions I see. It's not like I'm ever going to be leaving my power klaws at home!
However, my group is in the middle of expanding with new players beginning to collect and old players picking up new armies and I very much like the idea of turning up with a list and not knowing who you'll face. Due to the impulsive way we organise games and not having a set 'games day' this will probably never happen, but it's something I'm going to put forward.
I'm not sure why people have got so worked up about this topic, OP is just asking how others do it we haven't always got to change peoples minds - sometimes you can disagree and still have a conversation about it without needing to change opinions. The idea that OP needs to pin up a bit of paper with the generally agreed upon rules is quite silly, he's playing in a group of good friends. If you think a written agreement is more valid than a verbal one amongst friends then I disagree completely. The format of these house rules doesn't matter at all, it's not a tournament. Any disagreements or alterations to the norm can just be spoken about.
Just another reason why smaller games are fun. They end quickly, so if it's imbalanced, you're in and out fairly quick, and can adjust lists after the fact to make a more competitive game.
List building is fun. But playing is more fun, isn't it? At the end of the day, if your opponent isn't having fun, that's a loss regardless of the game's outcome.
Ever play pick-up sports games? Do you make an effort to balance the teams? Or do you attempt to stack the odds in your favor so the game isn't competitive in the slightest bit?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
So, doesn't that just nullify any argument anyone can make against you?
"Yes, you have your view, but my group doesn't have that, and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion"
Is there even a point to having a contrasting view to you in that case?
Forgive me if it comes across that way, but it seems I'm being called a TFG (not necessarily by you) simply because I have a different view from everyone else. So that has become my default response in this thread haha. So assuming that people do not have to tell me the codeces their using and whatnot, I'm at a bit of a loss. Is it a simple case of "Buck up, princess. You need to get better at List Building."? or what?
Yes! 100% this! Unfortunately I think your group will probably lack the ability to easily do this because you haven't had to develop the same list building skills as everyone else.
This seems to be a textbook example of a set of house rules getting out of hand to the point where you just can't see the issues you've created for yourself. You're so used to doing things your way it's completely changed your attitude towards more "normal" 40k concepts. The problem is you're arguing from a point of ignorance (not an insult, just an observation) because you haven't experienced the things you're arguing against.
I've seen it before in 40k and Warhammer. I remember some people I played against complaining that cannons were too good in WH, so they changed the rules. But then some armies couldn't deal with big monsters because of that, so then big monsters were a problem and the rules for those needed changing. You see where this is going?
I would strongly encourage you to try playing some games without these house rules. Build your armies with the knowledge you could be facing a wide range of opponents and don't panic the moment you see a SHV on the other side of the board or when someone starts summoning Daemons. Thinking critically about your own lists and tactics is the best way to get better at 40k but your house rules remove a lot of the possibilities for doing that.
I think you've summed it up pretty well in the sense that I have a relatively small pool of opponents (and thus armies) to face, especially in the sense that it's relatively unlikely that I'll be in a situation where I don't know what army I'm facing (especially given the House Rules that have caused so much controversy in this thread). I am keen to try playing without these House Rules to at least see how I go, but my aforementioned problem is the 'Pool of Players'. And then there's the whole scenario of 'I want to have a game with my mate who only plays Dark Angels. How do I separate List Building from Codex-Tailoring List Building?
Simple, make a bunch of lists that are fluffy or just out of things you want to try, say, three lists, and then pull one at random upon declaring a game. Or, make one for each friend, and then put them into the hat. That way, it's random if you get a possible MEQ one, removing any possible bias from the list tailor, even if subconscious.
I just have a standard list I throw at anything, or a bunch of lists at various point levels I can randomly select.
Ulthwe: 7500 points 
If I know my opponent plays Orks, then I'll likely bring more flamers than meltaguns. However, I don't actually have that many meltagun-armed marine models, so my options are limited, and for all I know he's going to turn up with a dreadmob, a stompa or a load of battlewagons - I can try to play the odds based on the typical army composition, but then again, my opponent is doing the same thing. And then "well, I know he's got orks, so I expect there to be lots of troops on the board, so I'll bring flamers and high-
