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.
Amishprn86 wrote: AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
40k is screwed. We know that. It has the tactical depth of half filled saucer.
But the option between 40k suckiness and AoS suckiness isn't really appealing to me. There's a whole world of options beyond "it can be like AoS or it can be like 40k".
AoS's morale system is a way of hand waving the complexities of morale in to "well.... more models are removed". Morale could be so many things and we are left with either AoS's casualty based morale system or 40k's terrible excuse for a morale system..... urgh.
I don't think 40k's morale system is so bad.
What's bad is ATSKNF, Fearless across the board, and many other things that make morale-based play anecdotal at best.
don_mondo wrote: Besides, how many times have we heard GW tell us "We're not a game company, we're a model company."? Usually as an excuse for sloppy/poor rules writing...
That was the mantra during the tenure of the previous CEO, who led GW in that direction, which they are no longer doing anymore (how many borad games and specialty games have they released recently?) . That emphasis on models over games gave us some amazing models though, and now that phase is over, and GW is focusing on the game aspect as much as the model aspect, listening to and engaging with its customers, and making things better overall.
I am convinced that, if enough players are vocal about it, any negative changes will be changed and made better. Just remember that they can't make everyone happy, as some players want things to work one way, and others another way.
I just hope that it affects the games and competitive scene to tone down the local WAACTFG players that make the game a chore.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 13:52:15
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
What are you even talking about dude. If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it. Why don't you actually read what I said again and then watch the video I cited for you.
Unless you shot the exact same place twice in rapid succession, as with an AN-94 in two-shot burst mode with steel core munition or something against level III, but that's just as easily modeled by the current rending USR and D6 roll system, where 1 is always modeled as a catastrophic failure.
It's actually a genius RP system, and there's not a whole lot of good things to say about the core ruleset of 40k.
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
Mother earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, but I was not offended. For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own gak.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Edit: He had a 10man (he could make it into 2x mans) with good saves that are re-rolling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 13:54:33
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them. Seeing the top lists, I can assure you they could have gone down a far nastier path. ALL of them, except the khorne bloodbound.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 13:59:52
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
What are you even talking about dude. If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it. Why don't you actually read what I said again and then watch the video I cited for you.
Unless you shot the exact same place twice in rapid succession, as with an AN-94 in two-shot burst mode with steel core munition or something against level III, but that's just as easily modeled by the current rending USR and D6 roll system, where 1 is always modeled as a catastrophic failure.
It's actually a genius RP system, and there's not a whole lot of good things to say about the core ruleset of 40k.
This sounds like a discussion that should have it's own Off Topic thread or go to PM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 13:55:28
Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices. Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights. If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it. This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 13:58:24
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Edit: He had a 10man (he could make it into 2x mans) with good saves that are re-rolling.
How was he splitting the squad? I'm not aware of anything that lets you do that, but i don't know stormcasts that well.
Also deathstaring is impossible in AoS because independent characters cant join units, so you can't hide them in wounds. They can just be shot separately or melee attacks allocated to them.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
It's literally a week before April fools, in fact, April fools is literally next Saturday.
At worst, they are just putting those ideas out there to see how the community likes it, and if we don't then they brush it off as an April fools joke.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:12:02
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
They act just like DS tho.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:15:33
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all. If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off. No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:14:34
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
This would make a lot of sense. It would shut down some weird combos too.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
So what happens with things like Inquisitors or Techpriest Dominii in the SC formation?
No. Just no. "Getting rid of Battle Brothers" wouldn't fix anything in terms of death stars. Fixing the problem units(like they did with White Scars Librarius Conclave in TWC/Ravenwing, for example--they made it so Chapter Tactics go away as soon as any other Marine army book units are present even if they don't have CT) would fix death stars.
Fixing the cause of death stars(the need for a hard-hitting, virtually unkillable unit for imperial armies that aren't just knights) would fix death stars.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
So what happens with things like Inquisitors or Techpriest Dominii in the SC formation?
No. Just no. "Getting rid of Battle Brothers" wouldn't fix anything in terms of death stars. Fixing the problem units(like they did with White Scars Librarius Conclave in TWC/Ravenwing, for example--they made it so Chapter Tactics go away as soon as any other Marine army book units are present even if they don't have CT) would fix death stars.
Fixing the cause of death stars(the need for a hard-hitting, virtually unkillable unit for imperial armies that aren't just knights) would fix death stars.
Etc etc etc.
I feel the rules and proper costing of units may layer on to help that as well. Especially if they are going with the AoS rend idea.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
They act just like DS tho.
Please post the actual quote, then we can have the actual argument.
He had a mid-tier list AT BEST. He won the tournament because no one in the top 5 except the khorne player (who, being khorne had it pretty difficult from the get-go since most of their forces are pretty lackluster) was nowhere close to an optimal list.
Please stop flaunting your ignorance, these lists are nowhere close to strong:
-Tomb Kings. What is this? Where are the necrosphinxes and the necropolis knights. What the hell is doing Arkhan and a necromancer there? OUT WITH THEM. Literally a quarter of the army is a weight that drags the list.
-Sylvaneth. 6 scytes? Alarielle in a list with just one more behemoth? 2 units of revenants but just one unit of driads? You telling me this made it to top 5?
-Khorne: good job sir, you know how to build proper armies, and your arms must be built like an olympic gymnast from moving that horde of models.
-Ironjawz. Okay, this bloke must be some god-of-war because with that list he wasn't even trying and got second. No ironfist? Goregruntas? TWO WEIRDNOB SHAMANS AND NO BALEWIND VORTEX? 3 separate units of brutes and no one carries gore-hackas? A)Drop the crusha and goregruntas, bring two footslogging megabosses and twenty ardboyz, drop one weridnob and get a balewind and weirdfist. Get a frigging a ironfist, merge one unit of brutes and give them gore-hackas. B) Drop the weirnob shaman and the goregruntas. Get an ironfist and a balewind vortex. THEN we can start talking of an actual ironjaw list, though I'd not really take the weirdnob. But that's personal preference.
You may want to hear about something called mortal wounds, multiple wounds, and rend. Or actually use quotes if you want to cite someone. I don't know what requizen said in that podcast nor I want to waste an hour dissecting a tournament I already dissected a month ago with the people on The Grand Alliance where most people agreed those were baby lists and I almost got another anneurism upon seeing the ironjaw list. This tournament was relaxed as hell and these lists show it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 17:07:57
I feel the rules and proper costing of units may layer on to help that as well. Especially if they are going with the AoS rend idea.
Proper costing of units is (no pun intended) pointless without setting in place a structure or guidelines that encourage people to not be toolbags.
Them adding points to AoS was one of the most disappointing things they could have done in my opinion. It shifted the impetus for self-policing back to GW and the points themselves. I can only hope that since they're purportedly aiming from the ground up for all three game types that points will be done better here, but I'm not holding my breath.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:31:28
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:31:13
Kanluwen wrote: Proper costing of units is (no pun intended) pointless.
Them adding points to AoS was one of the most disappointing things they could have done in my opinion. It shifted the impetus for self-policing back to GW and the points themselves.
Agreed too. But it makes it easier for pick up games, so I guess it can be as a necessary evil.
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points: Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:35:28
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points:
Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
What did you wind up using to make sure both sides were somewhat even?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:39:14
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:45:00
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
This would make a lot of sense. It would shut down some weird combos too.
6000 World Eaters/Khorne 
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 