"Just play Narrative..."

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.

**Verviedi**

Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

And what if my narrative is that we're floating in weghtless space so I get to set up anywhere on the map as our models have no control!
And what if my narrative is that I win the game and you lose it so we just set up and then you lose!

you don't get to restrict the narrative in matched play to only the exact storyline you want it to be. Unlike what you said from the start, it is fully supported by the fluff that you have half your army on the board so the "fluff"-argument is nonsensical.
And if you just have to have it be your specific narrative... then just play narrative play.

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

**Breng77**

[quote=Verviedi 726090 9370355 9187351146494ae05f776d6df9ac1224.jpgThat's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

**Darkagl1**

While I find just play narrative to be a trite response, at the same time just because you could do something in the past doesn't mean that it's a reasonable thing to expect in a more balanced match play game. That said in terms of null deploy lists, I hate them and I don't want them in the game, however I think there is a reasonable solution. The null deploy esque list could start with everything in reserve and be forces to deep strike in half their units pre turn 1.

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

This neat trick is fluffy.

You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

"DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

Let's be brutally honest here.
Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

**Verviedi**

Breng77 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

Right and what I am suggesting is that it is a poor role for fun games. What is your answer to Pod v pod games? Only one person gets the alpha strike in that case. Also if the strike is so powerful then the game ceases to be enjoyable after that. Almost all my games v pods are like this. either my opponent comes in and does great damage, or they immediately lose the game. That is a bad game.

That is high risk vs. high reward. Yes, it's brutal, but it's counterable.

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

This neat trick is fluffy.

You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

"DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.

That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

Let's be brutally honest here.
Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.

**Purifier**

Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

**Verviedi**

Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.

**Purifier**

Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all day.

Narrative play is made at its base to throw balance out the window in favour of the narrative. Exactly what you're advocating. Why the HELL would you need the granularity of points when you KNOW you're making unbalanced lists?

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

This neat trick is fluffy.

You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

"DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.

Nowhere does that say anything about "50% of your points"

It's "at least half the total number of units in your army".

That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

Let's be brutally honest here.
Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.

The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

**Verviedi**

Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all day.

Narrative play is made at its base to throw balance out the window in favour of the narrative. Exactly what you're advocating. Why the HELL would you need the granularity of points when you KNOW you're making unbalanced lists?

What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.

**Blacksails**

Did I miss the part where someone had an early release of all the rules and faction rules?

**BomBomHotdog**

Holy crap the whole point of Narrative is to play it the way YOU WANT TO. If you want to include Matched Play rules THEN DO IT. This argument is totally banal and meaningless. Heck you can even import 7th ed Reserve rules if you wanted

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

You wouldn't even try Age of Sigmar with no points.

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.

Power levels are for two game types, actually.

Open and Narrative.

Also, if you really think that Open or Narrative are going to be the de facto game modes you're deluding yourself. There's so many people in our environment who think they have what it takes to be "tournament" players.

**Verviedi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

This neat trick is fluffy.

You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

"DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.

Nowhere does that say anything about "50% of your points"

It's "at least half the total number of units in your army".

So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in. In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.

That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

Let's be brutally honest here.
Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.

The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

**Purifier**

Verviedi wrote:

What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.

Or maybe you are. You don't know. And even if you aren't, the tools you're asking for can potentially be used to do that.

Look, it's easy. Everything you're screaming for is what Narrative play is. The sentence quickly becoming meme "Just play Narrative play" was basically made for you.

**Verviedi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?

We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

You wouldn't even try Age of Sigmar with no points.

~~I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army,~~ except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.

Power levels are for two game types, actually.

Open and Narrative.

Also, if you really think that Open or Narrative are going to be the de facto game modes you're deluding yourself. There's so many people in our environment who think they have what it takes to be "tournament" players.

I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.

**MagicJuggler**

Breng77 wrote:
MagicJuggler wrote:
"Always alphastrike while denying alphastrike."

That sounds more like a function of certain units abilities/combos rather than "who gets to reserve". Be it Warp Spiders getting Battle Focus to mitigate Deepstrike and Flickerjump to defend against Intercept, Tau with Rapid Insertion forces and Interceptor, even the fringe Decurion list (Jon Camacho's Living Tomb + Deathmark support).

Rather than artificially restricting Reserve, perhaps rework Overwatch period?

No it is a reserves issue unless they are entirely random. If I can reserve my whole army giving you nothing to shoot at and then come on reliably and get my pick of shots, I always get the alpha strike while denying yours. It has nothing to do with combos of units. It has been this way for a long time. They tried to fix it in 6e with the must deploy unless special rules state other wise, and losing at the end of a game turn if nothing is on the table. Unless you limited reserves to only bad units can reserve then it or make it very random (like 5e or worse) it is always strong. Then things like pods mitigate that randomness, or bonuses to rolls, etc. So if you want full reserves lets have it be, if you have nothing on the table at the end of your turn you lose. Nothing auto arrives. Turn 1 your units come in on a 6+, Turn 2 5+, turn 3 4+ etc. super random, meaning you have no assurance of getting an alpha strike.

I played in 5th edition when you could start with the entire army off-table, and Blood Angels had army-wide Descent of Angels. I played Orks back then. This was also the edition where Snikrot was used to smuggle Bike Bosses behind enemy lines, or Eldar could do dual-Autarch null-Serpents.

Such armies could be defeated with castling 101 or counter-reserving for your own beta-strike. And as much as I'd rather say "real overwatch mechanics", those armies were not gamebreakers by a long shot.

Again, I'd probably promote an overwatch mechanic but that's me.

**Verviedi**

Purifier wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.

Or maybe you are. You don't know. And even if you aren't, the tools you're asking for can potentially be used to do that.

Look, it's easy. Everything you're screaming for is what Narrative play is. The sentence quickly becoming meme "Just play Narrative play" was basically made for you.

Two solutions:
• Play matched and import Narrative rules. That means I need to negotiate with an opponent, whenever I play a PUG.
• Play Narrative, with the weaker Power Level system instead of the Points system.

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:

So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in.

So your argument is a hypothetical.
If pods are units(we've seen that there is now a "Dedicated Transport" pool in the FOCs, so I kinda doubt they count towards the total but I'll play along)...then you'd need 12 units(nothing saying heroes don't count as "units" and you have 1-2 HQs available to you in the "Patrol" FOC) in order to do 3 units in 3 drop pods by your math.

How, exactly, does that affect your Crisis Suits again? Any time I've seen you run them, you have Drones on the board from the start. So what are your Drones, not units?

In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.

Uh, good?

We had that crap with the Flesh Tearers taxi pod service and Scions. Good fething riddance.

The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

(Query - in the context your using, does "full null-deploy" mean no units on the board, or just one or two tiny units on the boars?)

It means "full null-deploy".

The whole reason that Drop Pod lists like that worked was the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule.

Few armies could do it, but there were some.

**Luciferian**

If you try to play a full Deathwing army in 7th edition you automatically lose on the first turn. Soooo...

**Kanluwen**

Verviedi wrote:

~~I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army,~~ except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".

I remember you constantly arguing with me about the fact that AoS was "totally broken with no points" and how "points would have made it better".
Power levels are literally just a way to have points to shut up people who wouldn't even attempt a pointless game.

I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.

Yeah, well I'm upset that my way of building armies via Formations is effectively screwed.

You're allowed one meltdown...but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to say that it's not at least a bit powerful to have alpha striking Suit lists.

**Verviedi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in.

So your argument is a hypothetical.
If pods are units(we've seen that there is now a "Dedicated Transport" pool in the FOCs, so I kinda doubt they count towards the total but I'll play along)...then you'd need 12 units(nothing saying heroes don't count as "units" and you have 1-2 HQs available to you in the "Patrol" FOC) in order to do 3 units in 3 drop pods by your math.

How, exactly, does that affect your Crisis Suits again? Any time I've seen you run them, you have Drones on the board from the start. So what are your Drones, not units?

I have four units of Drones on the board (less in the future, because VX1-0 is dying, I'll probably use 2x5 Pathfinders instead). So 2 units... let's put a Broadside unit on the board because they can't deepstrike. So 3 final deepstrike units. My normal list is Commander, 3x3(or 4) Crisis, and 2x Hazard. So I have 5 deepstriking units, and 3 non-deep striking. Now, this is mitigable by adding more Pathfinders, or Drones, or a Riptide/Ghostkeel, but still a bit annoying (although not as bad as I thought, doing the listmaking right now)

In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.

Uh, good?

We had that crap with the Flesh Tearers taxi pod service and Scions. Good fething riddance.

Thankfully, Flesh Tearer Taxi Service is dead. And good riddance for that.

The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

(Query - in the context your using, does "full null-deploy" mean no units on the board, or just one or two tiny units on the boars?)

It means "full null-deploy".

The whole reason that Drop Pod lists like that worked was the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule.

Few armies could do it, but there were some.

Kill it. You should at least require some units on the board.

**AnomanderRake**

Kanluwen wrote:
...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?

**Verviedi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Verviedi wrote:

~~I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army,~~ except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".

I remember you constantly arguing with me about the fact that AoS was "totally broken with no points" and how "points would have made it better".
Power levels are literally just a way to have points to shut up people who wouldn't even attempt a pointless game.

I won't argue with that, because it's all true.

I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.

Yeah, well I'm upset that my way of building armies via Formations is effectively screwed.

You're allowed one meltdown...but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to say that it's not at least a bit powerful to have alpha striking Suit lists.

So am I! RIP retaliation cadre... and this isn't a meltdown, this is an expression of disappointment that turned into an unholy argument of doom.

**Kanluwen**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?

Not really.

There were very few actual full, null deploy alpha strike lists but they were the kinds of things that got constantly whined about. Inevitably they were almost all some variation of a Marine list with Skyhammer.

**BunkhouseBuster**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
First off, chasing the most powerful army list is always going to cost money after an edition change. Anyone that plays that way should know upfront that is how it works. Player that whine about their super powerful, netlist army becoming invalidated sound like someone who built the most powerful computer last year and now it is not. The best is always going to change and if you want that prepare to always put effort into it.

Secondly, I am actually going to do my best to stay away from matched play. I am still not convinced that 8th edition is going to a worthwhile venture for a challenging, hard choice on the actual tabletop game. I suspect 8th with be more accessible, but still offer limited actual decision points after the army lists have met and are actually on the table.

I am planning to mostly play narrative style. Which to me more of a player building army lists for both sides tailored to be as evenly matched to each other for the custom scenario that also tells a story. Which is quite common for historical gaming and works well since the outside variables are controlled better. It also makes the game more about the players decisions at the table rather than at the list building stage.

I know not every player wants play this way. In fact, few players do, but enough I can get in games. It takes extra work as the scenario designer, game master, has to have a list of both players lists (bonus points if they know what units the other player likes fielding) and very good knowledge of how the game works. I done it many times with other games to include full campaigns. It was some work but worth it to me. I want an interesting (read: close, action packed) game when I play. I also want the game to tell a story.

I think the OP has it in their mind that narrative play is just push dudes around the table making pew, pew sounds with the outcome pre-determined. Done right, that couldn't be further from the truth. When a narrative game has two balanced [-ish] forces for the scenario mission, it can be some the toughest, no holds barred gaming you can get as you know you and your opponent started the game on relatively equal footing.

^^ QUOTED FOR TRUTH ^^ My best games in 6th and 7th Edition were not pickup games or tournaments, but in custom games with an organizational structure made just for the mission. We had a short story about what was happening (a big campagin battle in several, and then a rematch later with the same players coming back). The fact that GW is encouraging this and openly supporting this is very heartwarming, and makes me eager and excited for the future of the game.

Verviedi wrote:
Two solutions:
• Play matched and import Narrative rules. That means I need to negotiate with an opponent, whenever I play a PUG.
• Play Narrative, with the weaker Power Level system instead of the Points system.

Third solution:
- Play a Narrative game using the Matched Play rules. Yes, it will require you to discuss the game with your opponent beforehand, but is that really so hard to do? Have a backup list in case they don't want to do that.

Having been playing Age of Sigmar for the past few months, I can tell you that having the 3 ways to play - Open, Matched, and Narrative - is a blessing. The rules are modular and can be picked up quickly. The pre-game discussions we have consist of asking:

- Relaxed or serious game?
- How many points?
- Are we following Battlefield roles? (Troops, HQ requirements, etc.)
- Which mission table are we rolling on?
- Are we using Allegiance abilities? (Warlord Traits, faction-specific rules)

The modular rules and how they are incorporated into the game through the General's Handbook is, to me, the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar. It works there, and I can see it working in 40K just as well without any problems.

**Vaktathi**

Editions come and go, and so do specific lists and strategies.

If you're married to a specific niche concept for an army, such as a null deployment drop pod army that engages in *every* game and battle as some pinpoint orbital drop, well, expect that it will have issues with edition changes, and I wouldnt expect many to be sympathetic given how absuive drop pods can be and how many other, far less powerful lists have been invalidated countless times in far harder ways.

That said, Space Marines usually get exceptions because Space Marines, they certainly did with 5th-7th for drop pods, so lets hold out until we see more.

I'm all for hating on GW for stuff, but we dont have enough information to freak out yet.

**Earth127**

If you have a NARRATIVE for your army in mind you want to work without restrictions or limitations. You are going to play the NARRATIVE game mode. I'm sorry no 2 ways about that.

If you care about "perfect" balance, that means you accept restrictions to everything: shooting, charging, reserves,summoning etc.. . The only way to have balance in a game the size of 40K is to reduce variables and outliers.

Can a null deploy list be countered? Yes
Can just about every list counter a full null deploy list? No
Matched play is supposed to work like this:
"So we playing a game on friday of 1850 points Gw rules?" "Yeah sure."
Both players have a fun time on friday and neither is so hard countered he stops having fun the moment he sees his opponents army.

Narrative is supposed to require a bit more pre-game discussion and friendlier, not optimised envirement and BOTH PLAYERS having a go at the story. Demanding your full drop elysian army catches mine by complete surpsrise in an organised fashion only Sherlock Holmes can pull off? Yeah you're going to have tell me how that narratively happened.

In a WAAC enviroment with anything but PERFECT balance ( never going to happen while allowing this variety in 40k). Some lists will dominate others

**AnomanderRake**

Kanluwen wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?

Not really.

There were very few actual full, null deploy alpha strike lists but they were the kinds of things that got constantly whined about. Things like Skyhammer formations alongside Gladius with Pods.

I'm trying to point out that allowing Drop Pods to be used for null-deploy alpha-strike lists and then banning null-deploy lists after the fact is a pretty dumb way to handle the situation.

The basic issue with Drop Pods (and Deep Strike in general) is that GW's trying to translate a strategic mechanic into a tactical game; if they were trying to be sensible or fluffy the Drop Pods would be landing over a fairly wide area and units would be linking up on foot and moving towards their objective (this is how paratroops work in the real world and this is how Drop Pods work in the novels). You'd pretty much never see the actual pod in a game of 40k, they wouldn't be appearing in the middle of random firefights to contribute controlled, efficient, and coordinated firepower to the battle from a precise and pre-planned angle, you'd be deploying dudes that arrived via pod.

To my mind a better solution for Deep Striking units that arrive in the middle of games would be to force them to land near locator beacons attached to models already on the table rather than letting them just go anywhere, to try and counteract the non-interactive alpha-strike-kills-everyone nature of Drop Pods today (more details in a thread over in Proposed Rules); the point is that you'd inhibit null-deploy lists and make Drop Pods less uncounterable by inhibiting null-deploy lists and making Drop Pods less uncounterable instead of making a null-deploy Drop Pod list an incredibly powerful thing to have and then saying "Oh, by the way you can't do that" after writing a set of rules that encourage you to. And still letting you deploy a bunch of plasma guns in rapid-fire range of the enemy turn one.

TL;DR: I don't like alpha-strike pod lists any more than anyone else who's ever been on the receiving end, I'm ranting at GW's incompetent/lazy writing in dealing with them.