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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know what's ACTUALLY funny? You taking such grave offence at an innocent turn of phrase.

You would be salty as well if your wive forced you to go to Burger King

Sim-Life wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

Its funny you say that because one of the big complaints about Warmachine's LoW equivalent is that they don't feel powerful enough even because they're balanced.

It's funny you say that because I had a Bacon King sandwich from Burger King yesterday as my wife and children were out with me garage saling and we had to eat on the fly. My wife chose Burger King as my daughter wanted Chicken Fries, and as Burger King is my least favorite restaurant, I had to order the least bad thing on the menu.

It's funny I say that because my statement has the EXACT same relevance on 40K power level balance issues as your statement.

Which is funny.

What's NOT funny is that current players have become so desensitized to this skewed balance issue that they soldier on despite there being more balanced games readily available that are also cheaper to buy in to. They stick with modern GW despite the absolute destruction of balance and competitive pricing, and push through out of allegiance more than anything.

Which is funny.

And to be clear, I don't play Warmachine. I will NEVER play Warmachine. I don't like the system, and the models are... well, I'll just be diplomatic and say that they are not to my tastes. It's an accurate statement, and it would do no good to the conversation to slander models solely express intensity to my distaste. Cross comparisons don't work since it's comparable to debating the balance issues and power levels of euchre vs. canasta because they both use cards.

Which is funny.

You know what's ACTUALLY funny? You taking such grave offence at an innocent turn of phrase.

If I'm understanding you're rant you want a balanced game however you don't feel it's appropriate to compare 40k to Warmachine despite Warmachine being considered a very well balanced game (in comparison) with models analogous to LoW? If LoW were as balanced as Colossals you'd never see them because there would never be any reason to take them over smaller versions of similar units.

This is of course ignoring the fact that 40k never has and never will be balanced. People don't play 40k for balance generally. A vast majority of people will use models because they're cool or for fluff. Sure there are people for whom balance is the be all and end all but they aren't the majority of players. I'm not saying balanced 40k would be bad or undesireable. I'm saying it's a fools errand and if I'm being honest I would prefer LoW be slightly OP than the equivalent of two tanks stuck together with less guns and less flexibility.

As I said, as long as I know someone is bringing a LoW beforehand people can play what they want because it's a two player game and the end goal is for both players to have fun. If I have to sit and watch my Nid Swarm list get shot off the board and unable to retaliate for two hours then at least one player has failed to meet the goal and it wasn't me.

I disagree, for a couple years 40K was indeed balanced, Codex creep killed it, and rules changes to right the ship instead of revisiting those problem codices was the kick off of the imbalance. It never truly recovered.

If I don't like the way WMH plays, the mechanics of it, then I don't like it. Selling its balance isn't going to get me to suddenly see the light and sink tons more time and money into a system that doesn't function the way I want. I don't own Apple products because I don't like the operating system. Never have. Telling me that you think it operates better isn't going to change my preference.

Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You know what's ACTUALLY funny? You taking such grave offence at an innocent turn of phrase.

You would be salty as well if your wive forced you to go to Burger King

You think it'd kill her to go to White Castle every so often...

IN N OUT BURGERS, That's what a burger is all about...HEATHENS

JmOz01 wrote:
IN N OUT BURGERS, That's what a burger is all about...HEATHENS

Don't have those in my neck of Indiana. Not sure we have them in Indiana at all. We DID get a new Hardee's in town, so there's progress.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Mushkilla wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd expect to be told ahead of time, especially if you're running a pure knight army.

Despite what Slayer is saying pure super heavy armies are not the same as a fluff army. Super heavy armies reduce the game down to a math check of "do I have enough lascannons to kill the enemy?" and leads to boring games unless you're prepared for them. When I bring a fluffy army it doesn't invalidate 80% of the enemy units because their weapons are too weak to do anything. Despite what Dakka will tell you massed lasgun fire does not routinely kill baneblades.

I'll reiterate that ONE super heavy is probably okay. ONLY super heavies I would want to know ahead of time.

I'd agree with this.
I don't like Knights because it just reduces the game down to list building.
In a tournament fine, its a skew that impacts the meta, adds an element that players have to factor in. In a friendly game though I don't think its conducive to having a fun game.

What edition are you guys playing? The basic gun of a fire warrior wounds a knight on a 5+ (with the focus fire stratagem the entire Tau army's basic weapons will be wounding a knight on a 4+). Knights almost never benefit from cover, so will have a 3+ save at best and have a degrading profile. Knights haven't been a "do you have enough lascanons?" match up for a long time.

I mean sure if you have about 290 pulse rifle shots a turn.

Also I didn't literally mean lascannons. Tyranids are going to have a hard time with knights if the only thing I thought you could shoot knights with was lascannons. When I say lascannons I mean "heavy weapons capable of reliably wounding T8".

Of course that assumes you need to kill knight in one turn...Not like game has more than 1 turn and win conditions that don't require to kill all and that knights don't lose significant amount of their strength when under half strenght. Oh and fire warriors are obviously only thing you have in your list eh?

No one is trying to get you to play Warmachine. I don't know why you're so focussed on telling me you dislike it. I don't like iOS either but I still think it's fair to compare it to Windows and acknowledge that it's does a similar thing in a different way.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Mushkilla wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd expect to be told ahead of time, especially if you're running a pure knight army.

Despite what Slayer is saying pure super heavy armies are not the same as a fluff army. Super heavy armies reduce the game down to a math check of "do I have enough lascannons to kill the enemy?" and leads to boring games unless you're prepared for them. When I bring a fluffy army it doesn't invalidate 80% of the enemy units because their weapons are too weak to do anything. Despite what Dakka will tell you massed lasgun fire does not routinely kill baneblades.

I'll reiterate that ONE super heavy is probably okay. ONLY super heavies I would want to know ahead of time.

I'd agree with this.
I don't like Knights because it just reduces the game down to list building.
In a tournament fine, its a skew that impacts the meta, adds an element that players have to factor in. In a friendly game though I don't think its conducive to having a fun game.

What edition are you guys playing? The basic gun of a fire warrior wounds a knight on a 5+ (with the focus fire stratagem the entire Tau army's basic weapons will be wounding a knight on a 4+). Knights almost never benefit from cover, so will have a 3+ save at best and have a degrading profile. Knights haven't been a "do you have enough lascanons?" match up for a long time.

I mean sure if you have about 290 pulse rifle shots a turn.

Also I didn't literally mean lascannons. Tyranids are going to have a hard time with knights if the only thing I thought you could shoot knights with was lascannons. When I say lascannons I mean "heavy weapons capable of reliably wounding T8".

Of course that assumes you need to kill knight in one turn...Not like game has more than 1 turn and win conditions that don't require to kill all and that knights don't lose significant amount of their strength when under half strenght. Oh and fire warriors are obviously only thing you have in your list eh?

No it doesn't. A knight will still take 290 shots to kill over 5 turns. You were the one that brought up Fire Warriors. I just pointed out that massed small arms fire is an inefficient way to deal with a knight.

Also it might be. Maybe the person likes playing an infantry heavy Tau list and the Knight army manages to damage/degrade the heavy weapons the Tau player has in the first turn. Which was exactly my original point before you decided to take everything I say literally.

 Sim-Life wrote:
No it doesn't. A knight will still take 290 shots to kill over 5 turns. You were the one that brought up Fire Warriors. I just pointed out that massed small arms fire is an inefficient way to deal with a knight.

Also it might be. Maybe the person likes playing an infantry heavy Tau list and the Knight army manages to damage/degrade the heavy weapons the Tau player has in the first turn. Which was exactly my original point before you decided to take everything I say literally.

Seeing I replied to your post which mentions fire warrior...No you were the one saying it before me. How can I reply your post mentioning them first? You claiming you replied to my future post? Well okay. you mentioned pulse shots. What are shooting those if not fire warriors

And yes they arent' dealing all wounds but a) it takes up wounds from them b) you have more than 1 turn to deal with the knights c) you don't even need to kill all to win d) merely taking them to half damage will help you a lot.

And if tau player has only fire warriors...Well then he'll have good time on scenarios. The 4-5 knights(to get 5 he needs h2h only knights. Not useful knights vs tau fire warriors to begin with). Taking 1 or 2 knights to dead or crippled state isn't that hard. They aren't that much tougher than Mortarion that was yesterday taken down by massed ranks of fire warriors.

 Just Tony wrote:
I disagree, for a couple years 40K was indeed balanced, Codex creep killed it, and rules changes to right the ship instead of revisiting those problem codices was the kick off of the imbalance. It never truly recovered.

I disagree, 40k has never been more balanced than it currently is.

You can't make Knight lists balanced, in the same way you can't make a Russ spam list balanced, the list is really good against some and really bad against others, the only way to prevent these things is to force people to play varied lists. Make 5 grades of units, horde (Termagants/Orks), medium infantry (Firewarriors, Guardsmen), heavy infantry (MEQ), light vehicle (TEQ or 4+ Sv vehicles), heavy vehicle (3+ Sv vehicles), no more than 50% in any one category. 40k is a rock papers scissors game, as it should be, and if people choose entirely rock or entirely scissors then they'll have imbalanced games, but GW is actually trying to limit this with the new anti-spam rule.

I'm sure that you get WarmaHordes games where one player has the perfect counter for the other guy's army, that's just wargaming. But as a whole, the game is pretty balanced. The amount of games I've had that were decided before the game began have been very low compared to previous editions. I'm not a GW fanboy, I'm actually a hater most of the time, but I think the core rules of 8th are perfect and I while some codices miss the ball on design choices (Iyanden spams Guardians!?), all the balance issues will slowly get ironed out through CA (Dark Reapers).

I think 1 LoW at 1750 or 2000 points is fine and dandy. 2 is okay too, as long as I know I'll be playing a skew list - in fact I welcome it. But why it's *nice to be told* is that I too might be trying out a new list design, having some fun with kooky listbuilding, dusting off my underpowered but beloved army from yesteryear, etc etc. In such situations it would be nice to be told that 'no, this game we're going to have is not that kind of game, bring something with teeth.'

So there's a gentlemen's agreement in place - if you're skewing in a friendly game, give your opponent a vague heads up.

However, if your unsaid standing agreement with a friend is 'come at me bro', then of course you should bring whatever list is legal: whether that agreement is in the spirit of a standing rivalry, or in active prep for a tournament, or at an actual tournament.

 Sim-Life wrote:
No it doesn't. A knight will still take 290 shots to kill over 5 turns. You were the one that brought up Fire Warriors. I just pointed out that massed small arms fire is an inefficient way to deal with a knight.

I think you are missing his point here. You don't need to kill the knight with pulse rifles alone (or any other weapon not meant to kill T8 high wound models). They still chip a non-trivial number of wounds off them each turn, similar to smite. If a good chunk of your army opens fire on a knight, it will be able to down it and usually take out at least as many points as if they had been shooting regular models, since the points per wound are quite high on all LoW.

Is the LOW list at or under the points limit?
Is it battleforged?
Does it follow any other criteria we set beforehand?

If all those are yes, game on. All knights is just as legal an army choice as all cheap infantry, (and arguably not as good.)

Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
No it doesn't. A knight will still take 290 shots to kill over 5 turns. You were the one that brought up Fire Warriors. I just pointed out that massed small arms fire is an inefficient way to deal with a knight.

I think you are missing his point here. You don't need to kill the knight with pulse rifles alone (or any other weapon not meant to kill T8 high wound models). They still chip a non-trivial number of wounds off them each turn, similar to smite. If a good chunk of your army opens fire on a knight, it will be able to down it and usually take out at least as many points as if they had been shooting regular models, since the points per wound are quite high on all LoW.

No, I get what he's saying. But what he said is irrelevant because we're talking about playing a skew into casual games. The OP asked about pure IK armies. Not one and some normal sized friends. His opinion also hinges on the opponent being clinically stupid and not understanding target priority or possibly not shooting back at all.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Is the LOW list at or under the points limit?
Is it battleforged?
Does it follow any other criteria we set beforehand?

If all those are yes, game on. All knights is just as legal an army choice as all cheap infantry, (and arguably not as good.)

Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

No. If it's not a tournament, but a casual game, you should be polite enough to give your opponent a heads-up if you bring something potentially unfun. This is true for 120 Plaguebearers as well as for 4 Knights. Lists like these just don't make fun games if the opposing list doesn't have the tools to potentially deal with it.

Sure, it's legal to bring it, just as it's legal to take a half-hour post-beer-and-taco-bell dump at your friends house, but it's still polite to ask and/or give people a heads' up.

And if I see a list that is mismatched and there're no tournament points on the line, just whether I have fun on my Saturday afternoon at the store or waste precious hours of my free time, it's just as legal to "refuse" the game or "concede" before I bother unpacking to spend my time doing more useful/fun things.

And honestly, if you are a competitive player, you probably want to tell your opponent what you bring and ask him to bring some more lascannons or something to deal with your knights. Or allow your opponent 200 points extra, if you know he's less experienced, etc.. . You wanna challenge yourself for tough possible match-ups, no?

I've never met a an even semi-competitive player who would want or have fun playing a "free win" in a non-tournament setting where they get no points for it anyhow. What'd be the purpose of that for a person looking for a challenge in their 40K?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Is the LOW list at or under the points limit?
Is it battleforged?
Does it follow any other criteria we set beforehand?

If all those are yes, game on. All knights is just as legal an army choice as all cheap infantry, (and arguably not as good.)

Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

No. If it's not a tournament, but a casual game, you should be polite enough to give your opponent a heads-up if you bring something potentially unfun. This is true for 120 Plaguebearers as well as for 4 Knights. Lists like these just don't make fun games if the opposing list doesn't have the tools to potentially deal with it.

Sure, it's legal to bring it, just as it's legal to take a half-hour post-beer-and-taco-bell dump at your friends house, but it's still polite to ask and/or give people a heads' up.

And if I see a list that is mismatched and there're no tournament points on the line, just whether I have fun on my Saturday afternoon at the store or waste precious hours of my free time, it's just as legal to "refuse" the game or "concede" before I bother unpacking to spend my time doing more useful/fun things.

And honestly, if you are a competitive player, you probably want to tell your opponent what you bring and ask him to bring some more lascannons or something to deal with your knights. Or allow your opponent 200 points extra, if you know he's less experienced, etc.. . You wanna challenge yourself for tough possible match-ups, no?

I've never met a an even semi-competitive player who would want or have fun playing a "free win" in a non-tournament setting where they get no points for it anyhow. What'd be the purpose of that for a person looking for a challenge in their 40K?

Again, if there are things that you won't play against, the onus is on you to tell the opponent that, not on them to let you know they might be there. If you let him unpack his 120 plaguebearers and then walk away because you never told him not to bring 'certain' legal lists, you're the TFG, not him.

Now yeah I'll agree, if you get to that point and realize you should've said something earlier, you could say "hey, I really wasn't expecting this kind of list and I should've said something during our scheduling, but would you mind if I threw in some points or changed some loadouts to make my army a bit more of a challenge for you?" That would be fine, and if I were him I'd totally say "go ahead."

I just want people to stop "shaming" the guy bringing the legal list for not magically knowing what they find acceptable, and start taking accountability for the fact that they need to communicate what they find acceptable in the first place.

 niv-mizzet wrote:


Again, if there are things that you won't play against, the onus is on you to tell the opponent that, not on them to let you know they might be there. If you let him unpack his 120 plaguebearers and then walk away because you never told him not to bring 'certain' legal lists, you're the TFG, not him.

Now yeah I'll agree, if you get to that point and realize you should've said something earlier, you could say "hey, I really wasn't expecting this kind of list and I should've said something during our scheduling, but would you mind if I threw in some points or changed some loadouts to make my army a bit more of a challenge for you?" That would be fine, and if I were him I'd totally say "go ahead."

I just want people to stop "shaming" the guy bringing the legal list for not magically knowing what they find acceptable, and start taking accountability for the fact that they need to communicate what they find acceptable in the first place.

No. People who think a social game works strictly on the basis of "legal" and refuse to acknowledge politeness, etiquette, mutual respect and a million other things that go into (preparing/setting up) a game of 40K deserve all the shaming they get and more.

If you think there is any onus on me/your opponent to play you just because your list is "legal", than, sorry, it's also perfectly "legal" to not play for any reason, whether I don't like your paint job or your list or don't like playing against people born on a Monday or whatever.

The only way to get out of this is acknowledging a) that "legal" doesn't exist in 40K because there's no enforcement or punishment as in actual legislation and b) that just because million ingredients are possible, in theory available and "legal", still not all of them should go into ever meal at all time if you actually wanna taste something, so to speak.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

The criteria is a casual game. The game stops being casual when you bring a game that's doesn't help create a fun game, the onus is on you to create a casual list if you agree to a casual game, if you don't want to play casual games all you have to do is ask if he wants to do a competitive game instead.

It's really not any more or less skew than fielding an army made of dreads, eldar hovertanks, wraith constructs or dinobot lists. All of them have been around since forever and no one has ever had an issue with them unless they were the current best thing.

So the point is very relevant. Skew implies that a regular army which is equipped to handle all sorts of enemies cannot handle it. We no longer have armor values that make vehicles immune to small arms. Most knights can be wounded reliably with S5+ weaponry, so unless you didn't bring any of those, you should be able to handle even three knights. Not shoot them dead in one turn, win games against them.

Most of them cannot contest objectives, none of them can be in two places at once and all of them must declare targets of all their weapons at once. Playing a game of maelstrom is a knightmare for them.

So blanket calling all lists which focus on some hard to kill units "skew" is nonsense. Casual doesn't mean that you need to bring an optimal choice to shoot for each of your opponent's weapons.

An army that only has T8 targets is just as skewed in 8th as one that has just an AV13 wall was in 6th or 7th. Or an 8th Edition army that does the opposite with 200 bodies and no valid target for your anti-tank.

Those are not casual lists.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:


Again, if there are things that you won't play against, the onus is on you to tell the opponent that, not on them to let you know they might be there. If you let him unpack his 120 plaguebearers and then walk away because you never told him not to bring 'certain' legal lists, you're the TFG, not him.

Now yeah I'll agree, if you get to that point and realize you should've said something earlier, you could say "hey, I really wasn't expecting this kind of list and I should've said something during our scheduling, but would you mind if I threw in some points or changed some loadouts to make my army a bit more of a challenge for you?" That would be fine, and if I were him I'd totally say "go ahead."

I just want people to stop "shaming" the guy bringing the legal list for not magically knowing what they find acceptable, and start taking accountability for the fact that they need to communicate what they find acceptable in the first place.

No. People who think a social game works strictly on the basis of "legal" and refuse to acknowledge politeness, etiquette, mutual respect and a million other things that go into (preparing/setting up) a game of 40K deserve all the shaming they get and more

So what you're saying is you think he needs to magically know what you find acceptable without you having to say anything. No that's not how the social contract works. The rules are the baseline. If you want to deviate from the baseline, you are the one that needs to say something, or you are the one that deserves the shaming.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to deviate from the base rules. But making unspoken rules and then getting miffed when they're broken because you didn't communicate them is on you, not the guy following the written rules.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
An army that only has T8 targets is just as skewed in 8th as one that has just an AV13 wall was in 6th or 7th. Or an 8th Edition army that does the opposite with 200 bodies and no valid target for your anti-tank.

Those are not casual lists.

A lascannon can reliably kill an ork. A lagun cannot reliably kill a knight.

 vict0988 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

The criteria is a casual game. The game stops being casual when you bring a game that's doesn't help create a fun game, the onus is on you to create a casual list if you agree to a casual game, if you don't want to play casual games all you have to do is ask if he wants to do a competitive game instead.

Okay, where's your detailed-down-to-the-smallest-detail guide of what is casual/fun and what isn't? We don't have one here. So rather than make the baseline something completely ambiguous and up to interpretation, we just say "the rules are the baseline, ask if you want something different."

Putting the onus on the other guy to magically match your opinion of what is and isn't a fun list without communication is what makes all these "Dude dared to bring X unit so I walked from the table, shame him internet!!!1!" threads. If you don't want to theoretically face anything legal in the game, use your words and say that.

 vict0988 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

The criteria is a casual game. The game stops being casual when you bring a game that's doesn't help create a fun game, the onus is on you to create a casual list if you agree to a casual game, if you don't want to play casual games all you have to do is ask if he wants to do a competitive game instead.

You do realize that both fun and casual are not well defined right?

According to what multiple different people posted here on dakka during 8th editon, the following things are not casual and/or unfun:
- Forgeworld
- LoW
- Primarchs
- Named characters
- T8 units
- Fielding two battalions
- Eldar
- Grey Knights
- Khorne berzerkers
- World Eaters
- Skull cannons
- Daemon princes
- Painboyz
- IG guardsmen
- LRBT of any load-out
- Basilisks
- Putting infantry in front of tanks
- Using transports
- TS cultists
- Using anything more than twice
- Using anything more than once
- All horde units
- Snipers
- Smite
- Denying powers
- Deploying in ruins
- Tabling your opponent
- Not tabling your opponent
- Trying to win the game

I hope you never did any of those you sleazy neckbeard WAAC TFG

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

The criteria is a casual game. The game stops being casual when you bring a game that's doesn't help create a fun game, the onus is on you to create a casual list if you agree to a casual game, if you don't want to play casual games all you have to do is ask if he wants to do a competitive game instead.

You do realize that both fun and casual are not well defined right?

According to what multiple different people posted here on dakka during 8th editon, the following things are not casual and/or unfun:
- Forgeworld
- LoW
- Primarchs
- Named characters
- T8 units
- Fielding two battalions
- Eldar
- Grey Knights
- Khorne berzerkers
- World Eaters
- Skull cannons
- Daemon princes
- Painboyz
- IG guardsmen
- LRBT of any load-out
- Basilisks
- Putting infantry in front of tanks
- Using transports
- TS cultists
- Using anything more than twice
- Using anything more than once
- All horde units
- Snipers
- Smite
- Denying powers
- Deploying in ruins
- Tabling your opponent
- Not tabling your opponent
- Trying to win the game

I hope you never did any of those you sleazy neckbeard WAAC TFG

Don't forget any flyer, anything with a "minus to hit me" ability, and any unit that ever appeared at an event, (even at the bottom tables,)

Otherwise QFT!

 Sim-Life wrote:
A lascannon can reliably kill an ork. A lagun cannot reliably kill a knight.

If a KFF is involved, you need three lascannons to kill an ork, and 90 to kill a mob. That's 450 lascannons or 11.250 points to kill a knight's points worth of ork boyz, with no costs included for the model to hold the lascannon.
On the other hand, you get 2812.5 guardsmen holding lasguns for those points, causing 234 .375 wounds to a knight. Assuming it has the relic for 2+ armor, you still kill it on one salvo with 39 damage done. Twice that much in rapid fire range.

So lasguns are more efficient at wounding knights than lascannons are at wounding orks.

You're welcome

 Just Tony wrote:
Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

That's the thing though: Lord of Wars aren't so imbalanced that they ruin the game, or whatever people think...unless you're playing a mission that's massively imbalanced/stacked to favor them like Kill Points (which is honestly such an incredibly stupid game objective that anyone who willingly plays it then whines about balance afterwards deserves exactly what they get).

If you're playing a mission with an objective that is not "no objective, just kill the opposing army as efficiently as possible" then all LOWs are completely hamstrung. A 400-something point imperial knight just does not put out enough firepower to reasonably table a half-decent TAC list, and when it comes to objectives, their army consists of 5-6 models realistically. Maybe a couple more now that they've got the little speedy dreadnought duders. When one player can have their ENTIRE ARMY on an objective but could find themselves trumped by a single 10-man 40 point guardsman squad, that's a pretty significant game advantage.

But here's the problem: Your average player will still whinge and moan about a win where they didn't kill more of their opponents stuff than vice versa. I've seen people playing against elite armies win victories by 10 or more points and never stop complaining the entire time because "God those custodes are SO BROOOOKEN, I can't even cause a single wound, it takes my whole army to kill one model, why do they all have invulnerable saaaaves, why do they all have three wouuuunds, why can they kill so many guuuuuys...?"

People don't care that when it comes to the actual objective of the game, they have a massive advantage. It feels broken because they don't get to kill as many dudes. This is why Decurion kept being complained about in late seventh when it had been totally eclipsed by much more competitive lists.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Refusing a game because of a list when you declared no other criteria beyond matched play is poor sportsmanship. If you specifically don't want to play them, the onus is on you to ask the opponent to play a specific list for you, not on him to magically know what you want or don't want to play against.

The criteria is a casual game. The game stops being casual when you bring a game that's doesn't help create a fun game, the onus is on you to create a casual list if you agree to a casual game, if you don't want to play casual games all you have to do is ask if he wants to do a competitive game instead.

You do realize that both fun and casual are not well defined right?

According to what multiple different people posted here on dakka during 8th editon, the following things are not casual and/or unfun:
- Forgeworld
- LoW
- Primarchs
- Named characters
- T8 units
- Fielding two battalions
- Eldar
- Grey Knights
- Khorne berzerkers
- World Eaters
- Skull cannons
- Daemon princes
- Painboyz
- IG guardsmen
- LRBT of any load-out
- Basilisks
- Putting infantry in front of tanks
- Using transports
- TS cultists
- Using anything more than twice
- Using anything more than once
- All horde units
- Snipers
- Smite
- Denying powers
- Deploying in ruins
- Tabling your opponent
- Not tabling your opponent
- Trying to win the game

I hope you never did any of those you sleazy neckbeard WAAC TFG

yes and no. All of them or none of them.

It's not a particular thing. It's refusing to communicate and claiming the other guy violates some unspoken rule and "is TFG" for potentially not wanting to play a game they won't enjoy while simultaneously refusing to accept the very notion of "unspoken rules" and arguing that the dichotomy of "legal/not-legal" is the only thing that matters.

If it's only legal/not-legal, it's perfectly legal to refuse to play for whatever reason or no reason at all. End of story.

If there are unspoken rules beyond legal/not-legal, they apply to both sides, simple as that.

There is no such thing as unspoken rules.
If you don't communicate your rules for fun and casual, how is the other person supposed to know them?

The only person to blame in such a scenario is the one who didn't communicate.

How I play 40k:

Find an opponent who I know is in the hobby for the same reasons I am.

Set up a game.

If I'm going to bring things that can skew the game and make it super one-sided, mention it so that they can react accordingly.

If he's going to bring something that can skew the game and make it super one-sided, he'll mention it so that I can react accordingly.

Play the game.

I learned long long long ago that people have different approaches to the game and as 40k has always been bent and broken and had shoddy rules that playing with like-minded players is vital to enjoy yourself.

I'm not referring to tournaments here. If you go to a tournament you should already be expecting to be facing powergamers and powerlists.

I'm referring to my casual free time which can only be used sparingly.

As long as you keep insisting that any pure knight list ever will be an unfair skew list, there is nothing left to talk about.

I just hope no poor casual knight players get their fun ruined by TFGs walking away from their games for no reason.

 Jidmah wrote:
As long as you keep insisting that any pure knight list ever will be an unfair skew list, there is nothing left to talk about.

I just hope no poor casual knight players get their fun ruined by TFGs walking away from their games for no reason.

But no one is saying that. Most people are saying they would just like some ability to prepare in advance or adjust their list when they find out they're going to be playing against a skew list.