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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 20:14:29
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch
|
And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.
|
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 20:33:57
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
BoomWolf wrote:And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.
Uh, hi.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 20:49:42
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
BoomWolf wrote:And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.
Silent majority, reporting in.
Ontopic though, I dont really see what the fuss is about. The guard has always been pictured as one of the most varied fighting forces in the galaxy. The way a model looks has very little to do with its fighting style.
In any case, as a Steel Legion player, Im not really a huge fan of the SL trait. Not because its weak (though its not exactly the strongest), but because it urges the player into a playstyle that I find unappealing - I play a mechanised force to be mobile, not to hide in my unmoving chimera bunkers. As such, Im seriously considering to play them as tallarn, who *are* mobile. Moving the chimera suddenly doesnt mean I can effectively give up on shooting, instead I can focus on getting where I want. Of course, I do lose out on the reasonably good SL infantry trait and gain the one for Tallarn, which isnt actually all that great for mech infantry - but Im fine with that.
So yeah. Why exactly is using my models with a different trait "powergaming"? Especially if that trait actually has a couple of downsides for my army as well?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 20:59:31
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
xeen wrote:What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.
If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 21:59:16
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
BoomWolf wrote:And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.
Wait, proving your statement wrong was insulting you?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 23:03:54
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
BoomWolf wrote:And, seeing that there is nobody in the supposed "play what we want regardless of looks" camp who has yet to throw a personal insult at me, I'm out.
Pretty sure I didn't insult you. It seems its easier to play the victim card though.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/02 23:52:49
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
Canada
|
JohnHwangDD wrote: xeen wrote:What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.
If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.
There are lots of Cadian paint schemes in the various Codex. If I have a detachment of Cadian models painted a certain play and played as Cadians and another detachment of Cadian models painted in a different scheme with a different doctrine I am not seeing the problem. You can tell what's what and its still nice and fluffy.
|
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 01:29:47
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Tail Gunner
|
How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 01:36:51
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I love their models. If I owned them, I'd use them as whichever Regiment I chose to play.
I want my guard in longcoats with night vision goggles with a lot of grey and black colors. My guard were always from a perpeutual dark planet and I liked the imagery. No idea what doctrines I'd use for them if I rebuilt them, but I'd likely have one for vehicles and one for infantry.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 01:38:06
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
JohnHwangDD wrote: xeen wrote:What if someone wants to play using the Mordian Regiment, yet all their models are Cadian and painted as such. Then they want the tanks, which are in a separate FOC to all be Catachan Regiment, but the too a printed Cadian.
If they are painted as canonical Cadians, then they would play as Cadians. If there painted with more of a "Parade Dress" scheme, etc. then I might accept as Mordian. If the tanks have a Catachan scheme, then I'd expect them as Catachan. They would have to be separte FOCs, of course.
Define "Catachan scheme" for those tanks. Oh wait, you can't, because no such thing exists. IG tanks use different schemes for different terrain.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 01:40:46
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
I say go for it, the adminastratum isn’t exactly known for its great precision, who’s to say your regiment was supposed to get cadian equipment but a decimal error leads to a shipment of Kreig suplies instead? There’s literally tons of ways to explain why a unit with x tactics can have y gear instead in the fluff.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 02:05:11
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine
Oz
|
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 07:10:44
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Dispassionate Imperial Judge
|
Torga_DW wrote:
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
I'd much prefer to play against a real DKoK army, partly because of the reasons above but also because how often do you get a chance to play a against DKoK??!! Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(
However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 07:11:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 07:36:07
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Fully-charged Electropriest
|
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
No problem at all, seeing as using standard Codex: IG was what DKoK players used to do a lot when Forge World was rarely allowed at tournaments and such. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbitorIan wrote: Torga_DW wrote:
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.
Do you even know what the Krieg rules are to be able to be confused? I don't. Remembering "these Guardsmen are Guardsmen, even if their coats are different" doesn't seem exceptionally difficult.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 07:38:00
“Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. I am Rogal Dorn, Imperial Fist, Space Marine, Emperor’s Champion. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me.”
-Rogal Dorn
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 07:59:38
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
ArbitorIan wrote:Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(
Which is a nice thought but the difference here is on GWs weird segregation of FW. Why is FW treated as an entirely different company to them? 8th was a great moment to merge the data and get al the rules writers working on the same page. WTF GW. As long as DKoK have crapy rules you won't see them anywhere. If GW would have just included the FW chapters/regiments/etc all in the codexes or at least acknowledged their existence and given some errata on the way they should be treated in conjunction with the codexes we would see those armies far more often.
However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!
I agree with this. At the very least in a HIWPI way if not officially. I would have to see the RAW in that book that isn't out yet. What I don't agree with is people saying DKoK and Elysians getting regiment doctrines or whatever they are called. It doesn't work. RAW forbids it so far. But if the doctrines are what is going to put DKoK onto the table I would be happy to see the DKoK proxied as Cadians or whatever and have a ball.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 08:06:03
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
This is madness. I can't believe people get so riled up over toy soldiers.
|
A Song of Ice and Fire - House Greyjoy.
AoS - Maggotkin of Nurgle, Ossiarch Bonereapers & Seraphon.
Bloodbowl - Lizardmen.
Horus Heresy - World Eaters.
Marvel Crisis Protocol - Avengers, Brotherhood of Mutants & Cabal.
Middle Earth Strategy Battle game - Rivendell & The Easterlings.
The Ninth Age - Beast Herds & Highborn Elves.
Warhammer 40k - Tyranids.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 08:27:06
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
I'd almost prefer it. In my opinion, FW brings too much to the table that I don't know how it works. I think GW on its own in 40k has a little too many different units that basically do the same, with very little variance, and FW only makes that worse.
I don't like when people bring FW, and not because "it's illegal" or "it's unbalanced" but because I just think it continues to bloat an already bloated unit count unnecessarily, and I have no idea what the things do.
Some of the people here are saying that the wrong paintjob "confuses and therefore creates an advantage" but will happily bring in Forgeworld units that most people will never have played against before. It's incredibly arbitrary.
Like I said, I prefer to play against GW rules, but I would *never* turn down a DKoK player just because I don't understand his army.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 08:30:28
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
ArbitorIan wrote: Torga_DW wrote:
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
I'd much prefer to play against a real DKoK army, partly because of the reasons above but also because how often do you get a chance to play a against DKoK??!! Having DKoK players always playing counts-as because the rules are better just narrows the field of potential armies even further :(
However, I don't know why you wouldn't have access to Stratagems and Relics - all DKoK have the Astra Militarum keyword and I'm sure the book will say that they're available to Battle forged AM armies. I know you don't get the specific trait, order and relic but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!
While I understand the flamers and plasma issue, this is fundamentally different in two distinct ways. WYSIWYG-wise in this case is not violated, the troopers have las guns, flak armor, etc. DKOK especially are not count as in a literal sense, they literally have las guns and flak armor from FW, so there should be no confusion if the player uses all such models as the same regiment. They are the same idea as someone converting models, if you can remember what regiment converted model X is then there’s no excuse for remembering the regiment of a player who tells you my DK are Mordians or something else. You can gleam as much information from a converted regiment as someone using DK models in the same hypothetical situation so to object to one but be fine with another is odd to me.
The other issue is a matter of properties regarding the flamer/plasma gun and regimental outfit. A plasma gun and a flamer are intrinsically different where as the armor is extrinsically different in this case. A flamer will never shoot plasma because intrinsically it can’t, it was designed in a way that, upon pulling the trigger, it will shoot flammable liquid. Under no circumstances will it be able to shoot plasma. Give it to a million people and this will be true, so you would be correct to raise an issue. Armor and people are different, rather the armor has its own intrinsic properties but that has no significant impact on regimental doctrine which is what you are comparing. I could give a DK soldier the DK outfit, or a Catachan outfit and they in no way will impact broader regimental doctrine. It may appear it does but like an extrinsic value applying the armor to one regiment leads to one application and a different regiment a different application. Similarly I could wear navy seal equipment and I’d still count as a conscript in game and the opposite being true for a Veteran.
These two are distinct cases, one is a different physical weapon while another is how the equipment is applied- ie it’s the user that determines the traits we are seeking. In my previous posts I have given several suggestions on how in universe equipment can be given to the wrong regiment or have different training, and since it is viable fluff wise and is WYSIWYG (guardsman with lasguns, flak armor, melta gun etc.) then I have to disagree on your approach to the matter. I understand it can restrict variety but there is nothing objectively wrong with using DK models with a different doctrine as the two are not related.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 08:49:26
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
mtcwalker wrote:How would you guys feel about a DKoK player, using this models as regular AM (maybe choose which doctrine?), considering we only have an index, and the community appears to be leaning towards us not utilizing any of the stratagems/relics or even Leman Russ buffs.
Confusing as always
BTW I think anyone telling you you cannot use the unit profiles from the codex are out of their mind, You use the most recent profile and costs. Which at the time of the printing was index, but is now the codex. DKoK absolutely get to use the codex profiles for the units.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 08:59:47
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
IG get the shaft here unlike any other army, simply because every other army you're only talking about a paint job between doctrines. For IG tho it's not only different models, but different models where over half of them are OOP and impossible to get. I'm not going to arbitrarily punish someone who wants to run a Valhallen army with Cadian models when they literally have no other choice for all of the models available to them except "dude with lasgun".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 09:21:38
Subject: Re:Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I'd prefer that they did use the same rules as the models described. However I will not object to someone doing otherwise. As long as they are consistent in doing so - if all models in the army use the Catachan rules, it makes no difference to me. If people start mixing the rules up in different detachments then I will object, but that is an edge case.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 10:47:52
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
MaxT wrote:IG get the shaft here unlike any other army, simply because every other army you're only talking about a paint job between doctrines. For IG tho it's not only different models, but different models where over half of them are OOP and impossible to get. I'm not going to arbitrarily punish someone who wants to run a Valhallen army with Cadian models when they literally have no other choice for all of the models available to them except "dude with lasgun".
To be fair, there are several high quality 3rd party alternate IG bits and full regiments compatible with GW bits (so same scale/proportions), many of which are heavily inspired by the OOP Guard lines.
I sold my all metal Mordians for all resin, modular not-Mordians from Vic Minis and I couldn't be happier with the decision.
But yeah, don't punish people for painting their models or expect them to buy a whole different army to use a slightly different doctrine. Just let people play what they want, and if that doesn't jive with your immersion, just make up your own fluff in your head about how those Cadians are currently posted on a frozen tundra world awaiting re-supply and have taken up the tactics of the locals (Valhallans-esque). Done.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 11:38:57
Subject: Re:Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
Canada
|
CassianSol wrote:
I'd prefer that they did use the same rules as the models described. However I will not object to someone doing otherwise. As long as they are consistent in doing so - if all models in the army use the Catachan rules, it makes no difference to me. If people start mixing the rules up in different detachments then I will object, but that is an edge case.
This is a very sensible and reasonable approach.
Cheers
|
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 14:22:12
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Even if they were all cadian models I'd be ok with different regiments as detachments as long as I could tell them apart.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 14:53:22
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
|
ArbitorIan wrote: Torga_DW wrote:
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.
So what's the difference between playing against an army you haven't faced before and an army that changes rules between games? In both cases you have to ask your opponent what they do?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 16:12:11
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
Just something that might be relevant:
Some models, like Valhallans, are modeled in a way that makes them very obviously suited to a specific environment - icy tundras in the valhallans case. So, they wear huge, heavy coats and furry hats to keep themselves warm.
But what happens if they go to a planet that *isnt* an icy deathworld? Well, weve got fluff for that: The Ciaphas Cain books (admittedly, they do have their own issues as a source, but still).
In them, were told that valhallans tend to strip down in warmer climes. Which could make them look closer to cadians, or even catachans in terms of uniform.
Similarly, we know that at least some guard regiments adapt their colours to the environment theyre fighting in. A cadian wouldnt wear green on an ice world, or in an urban environment. The standard cadian scheme is also pretty non-specific - greens and browns are always going to feature heavily in lots of warzones. So saying that a cadian-equipped army in cadian colours has to be cadian doesnt really make much sense, even if you were to subscribe to the idea that *every* regiment from a particular planet fights in exactly the same way.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 16:13:23
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
ArbitorIan wrote: Torga_DW wrote:
Well, obviously, there'll be 2 schools of thought. 1 school of thought is just interested in playing a game, and doesn't care what rules/models you use. The other school of thought is very 'focused' on winning, and will call you a powergamer and refuse to play you if you don't use your dkok as anything but dkok. The question is, which school of thought would *you* prefer?
And, of course, the third school of thought, which doesn't want to look up at the table all game and constantly be reminding themselves that those DKoK aren't actually DKoK this game (just like if all your flamers were actually counts-as plasmaguns today) and so would prefer people just played the rules for the models they have.
See, this is where I have a hard time believing this. Do you mean to honestly tell me that in a game where you need to bring several rulebooks and have a good understanding of play, that the point where it becomes overwhelming is remembering that DKOK are using Cadian rules? Whats the difference between that and me having to remember what your converted guard play as? Or someone else's third party stuff?
This is the problem. Noone is arguing that 100 cadian models all painted the same, yet representing five different regiments wouldn't be confusing. What you're saying is that if you have Cadian models painted brown and green then they have to use Cadian doctrines, otherwise the game would just be too confusing. HOWEVER, if you painted their pants purple, why things are clear as day. That's preposterous.
You're judging people for liking the GW models, and even example paint schemes in the codex under the guise of confusion and power-gaming. Yet at the same time, you're pushing all of these "difficulties" on other people making them remember the same thing about converted and third party models.
It's amazing how gate-keepers always make sure the rules and guidelines they make up still allow them to do what they want.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 16:58:14
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
AaronWilson wrote:This is madness. I can't believe people get so riled up over toy soldiers.
You're new here.
THIS IS DAKKA!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 17:27:26
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Stockholm
|
ArbitorIan wrote:... but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!
Not really. The DKoK trait (Cult of Sacrifice) is comparable to the Valhallan one, but you pay for it, whereas the Elysian one has always been silly strong (and still is). What might make it balanced for the former is the fact that Krieg has not suffered from any rebalancing of points (e.g. more expensive HWT's) and that Krieg can freely add whatever units it wants to its detachments without losing rules.
Then again, I played them when they were terrible and I'll play them if they become the greatest thing since sliced bread.
|
~5000 points of IG and DKoK
I'm awful at reading private messages, so just reply to the threads I'm visiting. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/03 18:27:57
Subject: Regiment Doctrines and models.......are people going to be strict or not strict
|
 |
Dispassionate Imperial Judge
|
Aenarian wrote: ArbitorIan wrote:... but the special rules they get in the Index book pretty much balance that out!
Not really. The DKoK trait (Cult of Sacrifice) is comparable to the Valhallan one, but you pay for it, whereas the Elysian one has always been silly strong (and still is). What might make it balanced for the former is the fact that Krieg has not suffered from any rebalancing of points (e.g. more expensive HWT's) and that Krieg can freely add whatever units it wants to its detachments without losing rules.
Then again, I played them when they were terrible and I'll play them if they become the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Yeah, bear in mind that their points cost is also higher because of the increased WS. Either way, I'd expect he next FW update to change both their rules to doctrines, which would be pretty easy to do...
|
|
|
 |
 |
|