| Poll |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
2017/07/14 08:40:18
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Been Around the Block
|
Veteran gamer here:
No, redundancy spam is not healthy for the game. But not enough people wanted to play warhammer fantasy battle that requires you make decisions during a game in order to win.
The people that spend money want to play a list building game.
T9A exists people. If you want a sci-fi version then its completely possible to do so. ...although I'm sure there is ample competition in other sci fi games.
|
|
|
 |
|
2017/07/14 10:15:07
Subject: Re:Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
What is spam? Taking multiple of the same unit? Taking multiple of the same overpowered unit? Because the former is just making a cohesive list and the latter is simply an overpowered lists. I think it's pretty widely held that overpowered lists are bad. So... kind of?
|
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
 The Empire : ~60-70 models.
 1500 pts
 : My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far! |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 10:30:11
Subject: Re:Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
 TheCustomLime wrote:What is spam? Taking multiple of the same unit? Taking multiple of the same overpowered unit? Because the former is just making a cohesive list and the latter is simply an overpowered lists. I think it's pretty widely held that overpowered lists are bad. So... kind of?
I have asked for a definition of spam three or four times now and not received an answer. I get the feeling these decriers either think that all units should be unique, or are unable to understand the concept of redundancy being an actually sensible thing that is both realistic and fluffy.
Is 2 or 3 or 4 units of Guardians a "Guardian spam" list?
Is 2 units of Fire Prisms a "Fire Prism spam" list?
And if they were within the definition of spam, why would that even be a bad thing? It makes no sense to bring one of either of those units.
And how about transports? Are they part of spam?
If I bring three HS selections, am I now a HS-spam list?
I can understand not liking people just using the most OP thing over and over, but spam is not itself the problem here.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 11:12:29
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Been Around the Block
Zaandam Netherlands
|
Spam is unhealthy for the wallet who's spamming....I was wandering if these people spending 400 euro every new edition have other interest in life. 40k and miniature wargames in general are a great a funny hobby, but my way of enjoying it and collect an army is way different. Try the best setting for the unit you find useful and you like, paint them, if possible assemble them with magnets, find your tactic balancing your list against every possible enemy
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 11:18:23
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Douglas Bader
|
 Marfuzzo wrote:I was wandering if these people spending 400 euro every new edition have other interest in life.
That's really not that much money when spread out over the minimum of 2-3 years that an edition will be around for. TBH the time required to build and paint a new army is much more of an investment than the money to buy it.
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 16:38:22
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
The_Peacemaker wrote:Veteran gamer here:
No, redundancy spam is not healthy for the game. But not enough people wanted to play warhammer fantasy battle that requires you make decisions during a game in order to win.
The people that spend money want to play a list building game.
T9A exists people. If you want a sci-fi version then its completely possible to do so. ...although I'm sure there is ample competition in other sci fi games.
Does T9A thoughtfully address the spam issue?
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 16:46:50
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Pancakey wrote:The_Peacemaker wrote:Veteran gamer here:
No, redundancy spam is not healthy for the game. But not enough people wanted to play warhammer fantasy battle that requires you make decisions during a game in order to win.
The people that spend money want to play a list building game.
T9A exists people. If you want a sci-fi version then its completely possible to do so. ...although I'm sure there is ample competition in other sci fi games.
Does T9A thoughtfully address the spam issue?
You be the judge:
This is the only not "spammy" one out of the bunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is a pile of totally not spammy lists from the chosen ones:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BywUeEYMmY9jOHJ6c2wtRUZ2RUU/view
|
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/14 16:53:14
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 16:59:56
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Those lists look boring and unimaginative. Where's the list cohesion and the cores of the list?
"Spam" lists create a theme for your army that makes it much more interesting than crap like that.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/14 17:01:33
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 17:01:52
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
 Melissia wrote:Those lists look boring and unimaginative. Where's the list cohesion and the cores of the list?
Don't you know? Winning > Fluff. Winning > Fun. Winning > Sense.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/14 17:02:34
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 17:18:38
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Granted it's a daemon army so I'm not relaly a big fan to begin with, but the only one of those lists that actually appears to have something resembling a theme going on is the last one. Looks like random units thrown together to make a powerlist. Even then there's little variation between the lists here...
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/14 17:19:49
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 19:41:06
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
"Spam" seems to be a very subjective term in the 40k community!
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/14 19:41:25
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 20:03:13
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos
|
Pancakey wrote: "Spam" seems to be a very subjective term in the 40k community!
Right? Some people seem to think it means "more than two in the list". I still think this is a major overreaction to a couple tournaments in a new edition that people are still learning how to build lists for. Give the meta some time to settle before screaming "THISISSOFREAKINGBROKENNERF!!!!!!"
|
 2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
 1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/14 23:18:34
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Daedalus81 wrote:Pancakey wrote:The_Peacemaker wrote:Veteran gamer here:
No, redundancy spam is not healthy for the game. But not enough people wanted to play warhammer fantasy battle that requires you make decisions during a game in order to win.
The people that spend money want to play a list building game.
T9A exists people. If you want a sci-fi version then its completely possible to do so. ...although I'm sure there is ample competition in other sci fi games.
Does T9A thoughtfully address the spam issue?
You be the judge:
This is the only not "spammy" one out of the bunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is a pile of totally not spammy lists from the chosen ones:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BywUeEYMmY9jOHJ6c2wtRUZ2RUU/view
So we should never take more than 1 of any unit, not have a cohesive list either in the game or in a picture, and be punished for thinking otherwise. Got it Automatically Appended Next Post: The_Peacemaker wrote:Veteran gamer here:
No, redundancy spam is not healthy for the game. But not enough people wanted to play warhammer fantasy battle that requires you make decisions during a game in order to win.
The people that spend money want to play a list building game.
T9A exists people. If you want a sci-fi version then its completely possible to do so. ...although I'm sure there is ample competition in other sci fi games.
If you really WERE a veteran gamer you'd actually think otherwise. Sincerely, a starter from the very end of 3rd and beginning of 4th edition.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/14 23:21:25
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
 jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
 vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
 MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 00:23:25
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
I mean... my proposed list, for 1500 points was 3 characters (ancient, captain, and librarian all in termie armor-- and the librarian I'm only taking because sangpriests don't come in terminator armor), 3 terminator squads, 4 scout squads. For 2000 points, up that to five terminator squads, for 2500 points I could split this off in to two battalions if I wanted to some more scout squads and characters (another lib and a PA captain to support the scout snipers).
This is "spam". But frankly, I think it's also pretty fun and different. It's two groups of core units-- scouts as objective holders, terminators as forward damage dealers, and adding other kinds of units would actually kind of defeat the theme of the list even if those other units would be technically stronger. I don't think anyone would much react with shuddering fear upon seeing it on the table. But this would be made illegal or more expensive in points (and thus essentially illegal anyway) by the various "solutions" to this "problem" put out in this thread.
If you think "spam" lists are a problem in and of themselves, frankly, you're just flat out wrong to begin with-- "spam" lists are simply a tool, like any tool they can be used well or used poorly. If ultimately you're worried about overpowered lists, rather than "spam" lists, however, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to prevent "spam". You can "spam" most units all day without becoming overpowered. The problem isn't "spam", it's unbalanced units.
So fix those units instead of being lazy and and trying to justify a jackhammer when what you really need is a screwdriver.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 01:30:35
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Well I like the idea of troop spam and then elites and FA either being highlander or based on 1 troop type that 'unlocks' a HQ or heavy/elite or whatever.
ofc that would make it very unwieldy to make all the armies playable. Then again why have detachments since those are just arbitrary allocated units.
I still think points system works best.
max of 50% HQ/Elites
Min of 25% TROOPS
Max of 50 Heavy/Fast Attack
|
 koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 01:34:38
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
What a "wonderful" solution, so good in fact that it's in search of a problem to solve. And yet none exists. Just fix the damn overpowered units and stop fething with everyone's army in order to enforce your boring crap limitations and make everyone's list the goddamn same.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/15 01:36:22
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 01:48:32
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Melissia wrote:What a "wonderful" solution, so good in fact that it's in search of a problem to solve. And yet none exists.
Just fix the damn overpowered units and stop fething with everyone's army in order to enforce your boring crap limitations and make everyone's list the goddamn same.
Actually it is not a solution.....it was pretty much how you played 40k for a decade. And very few armies were 'bleep bleep' the same. Really that is how it was......really.
There will always be overpowered units. You and I both know that. 30 years track record has proven that.
40k decided to add flyers and super heavies into the game. Now they have to make them all playable. I never played a game of epic. I do think that units of infantry had a role different from tanks and titans. Every army had titans to take out titans and infantry to take objectives.
Now we have a game with all those pieces but every army don't have the same tools, ie: titans and infantry. You can but most don't build lists like that. Apoc Games is much more lenient for that since both sides expect that.
I love larger games with flyers and super heavies. It is just that some armies are not made to take out other armies. In epic they would be. In 40k they are not. It is simple.
|
koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 01:51:15
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
 admironheart wrote:Actually it is not a solution.....it was pretty much how you played 40k for a decade.
No it wasn't. For most of 40k's life, it was 0-2 HQ choices, 0-3 elites, 2-6 troops, 0-3 fast attack, and 0-3 heavy support. This setup had absolutely nothing to do with points, and did not prevent "spam", it just made people take the cheapest troops choice options they could find so they could get to making the list of units they actually wanted to use, because troops choices for most non-horde armies were often rather crappy or just didn't fit the theme of the list they wanted to make. Do not attempt your dishonest historical revisionism on me. I played back then.
|
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/15 01:56:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:05:22
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
I still play 2nd edition now.
25% min troops (which was elites/troops and some Fast Attack)
50% max support (which was vehicles and artillery)
50% max characters (which was Exarchs and apothacaries besides normal HQ choices.
That IS the HONEST historical record. Chill man
That was from Rogue Trader thru the release of 3rd in mid 1998.
Since 80% of all Lore, units, armies, etc were created in RT and 2nd (even if no models or rules) That is the foundation we all have to work from.
|
koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:07:40
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Nobody is talking about the unbalanced, broken mess that was 2nd edition except you, then. 2nd was just as bad as seventh edition competitively. The fact is, your "fix" is broke and unnecessary. There's no reason to have it when you could instead balance out the units and factions better. It creates massive limitations on list building without really solving the core problems.
|
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/15 02:13:19
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:18:35
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
That is your opinion of 2nd edition. I have a marine player that almost never loses with vanilla marines. He plays about 20 games a year.
Ive seen a bigger mess from other editions imo
After 3rd edition, I think Ive seen where 2nd edition was the next largest playerbase. So it had some popularity.
3rd was all about Tau and DE raider spam. Not much else was competitive short of the best caliber players. So that can be said of most editions.
And we are talking about how armies spam.
Is spam broken? depends seems the concensus.
All I know is there wasn't much spam in 2nd ed cause it is called HeroHammer for a reason. Over the top characters defined it.
8th is DiceHammer as rolling hundreds of dice is defining it.
So you noted how 3rd edition tried to fix 2nd edition, the spam of characters in 2nd (besides blanding them down)
Detachments tried to make a more balanced looking army list.
The results for the last 15+ years will show that hasn't worked the way they wished.
So Detachments may not be the best method to reign in spam (if indeed it is needed)
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/15 02:19:58
koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:20:14
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
admironheart wrote:That is your opinion of 2nd edition. I have a marine player that almost never loses with vanilla marines.
And this is supposed to impress upon me the idea that 2nd edition is balanced?
admironheart wrote:Is spam broken? depends seems the concensus.
All I know is there wasn't much spam in 2nd ed cause it is called HeroHammer for a reason. Over the top characters defined it.
Yeah it sucked a lot of ass.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:23:12
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
It actually was fun for a lot of people. sorry you had poor luck.
I read this winter that one area of Australia has a group of 37 active 2nd ed players. My city has about 10 to 20 that I know of.
It still is my fave 40k edition except it is a huge time monster and had tons of flaws
|
koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 02:56:52
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
I really don't care that you can find a few 2nd edition players out there. Again, none of that really helps here. Spam isn't the problem. Never was. The problem was unbalanced units.
Your stated "solution" (points percent minimums and maximums), which again is a "solution" for a "problem" that doesn't actually exist, would utterly screw over a lot of lists, and a lot of armies. It'd create massive limitations on what people can actually play, and it wouldn't even do anything to balance the game.
Hell, your "solution" (to a problem that doesn't exist) would basically mean that in your effort to try to reduce "spam", you'd CAUSE spam. Because if you're gonna force players to carry 50 battle sisters alongside the other more expensive (and useful) choices every goddamn time they go to play a 2k point game, they might as well take 10 squads of 5 sisters with 2 bolters and 3 storm bolters each. Ten completely identical units taken simply to fill up space. Even with more expensive upgrade, that's at least 6 to eight identical units.
Similarly, all Orks would need to be a minimum of 60 boyz every game, maybe you could throw in some grots in for a laugh I guess. Tau would need around 50 fire warriors with drone support, more without, maybe toss some kroot in but otherwise it's the exact same 500pts every single game. Necrons would need 50 warriors or 30 immortals, so they're in a better spot than a lot of these armies. Inquisition would be utterly screwed, having no troops choices to speak of. The various Eldar and Marine factions would be the least hit by this, because they have actual variety in their troops choices, but they'd still have their list variety be hit hard by only being able to spend 1000 points on heavy and fast attack in every 2k points game. And it's not really any better in smaller or larger games either.
Every single game, every single list, your "solution" would be to require people to bring the exact same things as everyone else. It severely limits player creativity, list variety, and for what purpose exactly-- when it doesn't even solve the goddamn problem of overpowered units! Hell, because you're limited in what points you can spend where, you actually have MORE incentive to take overpowered units than the current list building method!
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/15 03:07:57
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 04:30:28
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I mostly lurk but, as a vet Tau player from 3rd, I would like to thank all of the triptide players out there. You alone have done so much to sustain the hobby through your purchases.
I regret to inform you, however, that you were playing only a brief glimpse of the race that is Tau. Much like the original "Nidzilla" lists way back when, your playing style was based on shameful exploitation of the rules (I loved Nidzilla BTW). Blame GW for "imbalance" all you want, YOU chose to play that way and now you feel left out in the cold without you're gimmicks. Meanwhile, the competent players aren't too worried. They don't buy netlists. They bought and painted enough firewarriors long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 04:47:52
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
admironheart wrote:That is your opinion of 2nd edition. I have a marine player that almost never loses with vanilla marines. He plays about 20 games a year.
Ive seen a bigger mess from other editions imo
After 3rd edition, I think Ive seen where 2nd edition was the next largest playerbase. So it had some popularity.
3rd was all about Tau and DE raider spam. Not much else was competitive short of the best caliber players. So that can be said of most editions.
And we are talking about how armies spam.
Is spam broken? depends seems the concensus.
All I know is there wasn't much spam in 2nd ed cause it is called HeroHammer for a reason. Over the top characters defined it.
8th is DiceHammer as rolling hundreds of dice is defining it.
So you noted how 3rd edition tried to fix 2nd edition, the spam of characters in 2nd (besides blanding them down)
Detachments tried to make a more balanced looking army list.
The results for the last 15+ years will show that hasn't worked the way they wished.
So Detachments may not be the best method to reign in spam (if indeed it is needed)
Then he doesn't play anyone who knows what they are doing in 2nd. Vanilla marines were unplayably terrible. Herohammer was a misnomer. It was really about the 150 metal hormagaunts that you had to shoot because rules.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 04:51:48
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Seems Martel and Melissa have the correct idea of how 2nd edition works. Yeah it's a fun ruleset, but more unbalanced than 7th edition.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 05:00:37
Subject: Re:Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Auspicious Daemonic Herald
|
Yeah generally speaking rule sets that required the game to be completely rebooted to fix their problems aren't good rule sets
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 06:04:19
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Hellion Hitting and Running
|
admironheart wrote:Well I like the idea of troop spam and then elites and FA either being highlander or based on 1 troop type that 'unlocks' a HQ or heavy/elite or whatever.
ofc that would make it very unwieldy to make all the armies playable. Then again why have detachments since those are just arbitrary allocated units.
I still think points system works best.
max of 50% HQ/Elites
Min of 25% TROOPS
Max of 50 Heavy/Fast Attack
The point system would not fix spamming. It would just focus the spamming to specific units. Are you really more happy facing scatterlaser eldar jet bike spam than you are facing some other form of spam? Brimstone horror spam is not magically better than any other spam just because brimstone horrors are a troop choice.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/07/15 06:04:43
Subject: Is unit spam healthy for the game?
|
|
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
 CrownAxe wrote:Yeah generally speaking rule sets that required the game to be completely rebooted to fix their problems aren't good rule sets
It's never been the core rules that were issues in 40K. The problem has always come form codexes. New core rules are what refreshes the entire system though, and re-establishes armies at a baseline of sorts.
Martel732 wrote:
Then he doesn't play anyone who knows what they are doing in 2nd. Vanilla marines were unplayably terrible. Herohammer was a misnomer. It was really about the 150 metal hormagaunts that you had to shoot because rules.
I came in 1st in a tourney, and 2nd in a 2nd tourney using vanilla marines in 2nd Ed. So whoever was playing vanilla marines in your neighborhood clearly didn't know what they were doing.
But back to percentages. They're not a bad idea, but ideally there would just be mechanical reasons to make an all flyer list (or similar) untenable as a competitive army.
Melissia wrote: admironheart wrote:Actually it is not a solution.....it was pretty much how you played 40k for a decade.
No it wasn't.
For most of 40k's life, it was 0-2 HQ choices, 0-3 elites, 2-6 troops, 0-3 fast attack, and 0-3 heavy support.
This setup had absolutely nothing to do with points, and did not prevent "spam", it just made people take the cheapest troops choice options they could find so they could get to making the list of units they actually wanted to use, because troops choices for most non-horde armies were often rather crappy or just didn't fit the theme of the list they wanted to make.
Do not attempt your dishonest historical revisionism on me. I played back then.
No really. 2nd Edition really did use a points percentage based system. It wasn't played for a decade but that's what he's talking about.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/15 06:17:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
