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.
I'd take ASM over Scoprions, easily.
They both have 2A S4 AP0 D1 for CC stats, but Scoprions have a 1/6 chance for a mortal wound. So Scorpoins do more damage. But how are you going to get them stuck in? ASM have a 12" move and Fly. Scorpions have 7" move.
The cover thing helps, but one enemy model out of cover means the unit is not in cover, thus no benefits. So you're usually only getting that if you can get into a small backfield unit. Moving 7" a turn, you're going to take quite a bit longer to get stuck in than a 12" move, even before factoring in Fly. So getting into a small backfield unit is a lot easier for the ASM.
The Exarch is good. Better than a PF Sarge.
But you're taking quite a bit more damage from any small arms (S3/S4) that comes your way.
You lose to more skirmishers in a head to head, though. You lose out in CC to ASM if you run into them, and the ASM will decide the enagement/get the charge, too.
Fly is a BFD. Especially on a skirmisher. Scoprions have their upsides, but ASM are better overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (I would take ASM, but I see how it's debateable.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 18:54:21
True, but again with 40K there are a bunch of other factors.
I run Biel-Tan (re-roll 1's for shuriken weaponry and +1 leadership to Aspect warriors)...BUT....I run Renegades with CSM so I can advance and charge (giving the ASM a crazy range).
My ASM can take special weapons, but seven of them cost more than 10 Scorpions (including an Exarch). I don't think either of them are prime units, but I find I enjoy my Scorpions a bit more than ASM.
I agree with everything you said though. I do think an ASM squad is much more versatile.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.
*ahem*
Moving on, I've stated this MANY TIMES now: choices players make aren't limited to optimization based on numbers, or even what the internet claims. We've even had examples of that posted in this very thread. Just because there are better choices to put into a list doesn't mean things won't be put into a list because you want to play them, or they fit a narrative in your head.
Once again, I'm definitely this sort of player and insisted on running Repentia during 5th edition when they were considered useless due to the Rage special rule. And yet I found ways to funnel them into my enemy effectively and tear apart their toys with them. Optimization at the time would say to just replace them with a unit of melta gun Dominions for tank busting, but I intentionally choice a unit I felt was fluffy for the army I was running (as the way I view Sisters I feel they would always have some number of Repentia seeking redemption during a conflict). This is what fluff informing list building looks like. It's quite different than how you build lists, but it's no less valid in how to choose units to play.
Heck, some armies are only started because people like the look of a particular model and will go out of their way to include said model in a list, even if it basically sucks.
And list building is just as important in the game as anything else, because it is what forms the core of what your army is and how they fight on the table. It defines the narrative you craft for yourself on why things are being punched up for and what you're fighting over.
You know, the things we do outside of tournaments, like planning an army for campaigns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.
Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!
See how silly and far you can take it?
Paint scheme is what determines what is what on the table. If you choose to skimp out on the details just because you want to swap models around that's on you, but if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings, then it's understandable that they may not feel as comfortable as you regarding swapping units around willy nilly.
Your choice to play strictly from a point of optimization doesn't invalidate mine to play from one where I build based on a narrative and lore over what is the best of the best choice at every turn.
If we aren't crunching numbers, then what's the point of discussion? It boils down to "do whatever" otherwise. So no I'm not wrong. You putting magical handicaps on yourself had no merit when discussing a unit's usefulness. If someone wants to use their Assault Marines as is, just say the recruitment pool was THAT good that year and you use the Vangaurd stats. I don't get your imaginary restrictions.
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.
"I'm not wrong."
"magical handicaps"
"no merit"
"imaginary restrictions."
Tacs hitting on a 3+ is an imaginary restriction, and a magical handicap. But it certainly has merit. And you need more than loaded terms to make it otherwise!
Saying "You liking ASM doesn't change whether they have a niche use" would be a valid argument. But that's not what you've been saying. Much of this huge 5-page digression comes from your claims that any such thought makes no sense or is not valid.
You've been refuting the validity of other peoples' preferences and viewpoints. If you had simply been showing or stating that they did not factor into the crunch, that would have been more productive. If that's what you were trying to say.
However, you've gone beyond just arguing the technical points, to the point where you consider the 1ppm to have 0 vaue. Not little to no value, but actually 0 value. Same with the Elite vs FA. There are many finer points that could be discussed about what actual value those differences have, but repeatedly shouting that you're right, it's 0, and everyone else is just stupid and their points don't make any sense doesn't get us anywhere.
When discussing the crunch, the fact that I have ASM certainly doesn't matter. The 1ppm and the FA vs Elite do matter, but not a lot. Those are valid statements. If you could stick to that instead of going off on hyperbolic fantasy claims, these threads might be more productive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 19:31:26
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.
Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.
see
I had Tyberos the Red Wake in 7th beat Abigail in melee once. Want me to start rambling about how great he is?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I'm not wrong."
"magical handicaps"
"no merit"
"imaginary restrictions."
Tacs hitting on a 3+ is an imaginary restriction, and a magical handicap. But it certainly has merit. And you need more than loaded terms to make it otherwise!
Saying "You liking ASM doesn't change whether they have a niche use" would be a valid argument. But that's not what you've been saying. Much of this huge 5-page digression comes from your claims that any such thought makes no sense or is not valid.
You've been refuting the validity of other peoples' preferences and viewpoints. If you had simply been showing or stating that they did not factor into the crunch, that would have been more productive. If that's what you were trying to say.
However, you've gone beyond just arguing the technical points, to the point where you consider the 1ppm to have 0 vaue. Not little to no value, but actually 0 value. Same with the Elite vs FA. There are many finer points that could be discussed about what actual value those differences have, but repeatedly shouting that you're right, it's 0, and everyone else is just stupid and their points don't make any sense doesn't get us anywhere.
When discussing the crunch, the fact that I have ASM certainly doesn't matter. The 1ppm and the FA vs Elite do matter, but not a lot. Those are valid statements. If you could stick to that instead of going off on hyperbolic fantasy claims, these threads might be more productive.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't. We have 2-3 detachments to work with. If you aren't terrible at list building it won't be an issue.
Also your point about Tactical Marines makes no sense because that's part of the game rules, not an imaginary handicap you're putting on yourself because you're unwilling to make use of the models you have in a better fashion. Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 19:56:53
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.
Part of the game rules... Were you one of those players who argued that FMCs in 6th had neither Monsterous or Smash because they had 'Monsterous Smash' instead? The game comes down to shared social constructs. Unless you believe everything can be mathed down to basic logic and numbers and proofs (hint: it cannot).
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
At some point, this game needs a social construct between players. So what is a rule and what is not a rule isn't as black-and-white as we sometimes like to think.
"Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault."
My desire to play WYSIWYG is 100% not your problem. But your rage against players who do want to play WYSIWYG is your problem.
Sure, it's my own "fault" for wanting to play my models the way I made them. Except that I see that more as a "credit" than a "fault". Why can't you accept that people who see things differently from you are not inherently wrong and evil?
I get the WYSIWYG thing but I personally see no problems with:
1. Players who paint VV models like ASMs.
2. Players who paint ASM models like VVs.
3. Players who use a color scheme that doesn’t have as stark contrasts between veterans and line infantry.
4. Players who use VVs to represent veteran members of a company other than the 1st.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 21:42:08
I loved Assault Marines in 2nd Edition. My Dark Angels Assault Marines from then have never been playable in subsequent editions because of their armament. Assault Marines have been kinda pointless since 1999, which is sad. I've made new squads and tried to make them work. Vanguard Veterans have somewhat of a point, and my old DA Assault Squad are now Flesh Tearer Vanguad Vets. They're still sub-optimal, but they have their odd moment of glory.
Assault Marines need some help!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Bharring wrote: Part of the game rules... Were you one of those players who argued that FMCs in 6th had neither Monsterous or Smash because they had 'Monsterous Smash' instead? The game comes down to shared social constructs. Unless you believe everything can be mathed down to basic logic and numbers and proofs (hint: it cannot).
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
At some point, this game needs a social construct between players. So what is a rule and what is not a rule isn't as black-and-white as we sometimes like to think.
"Also 100% not my problem and your own darn fault."
My desire to play WYSIWYG is 100% not your problem. But your rage against players who do want to play WYSIWYG is your problem.
Sure, it's my own "fault" for wanting to play my models the way I made them. Except that I see that more as a "credit" than a "fault". Why can't you accept that people who see things differently from you are not inherently wrong and evil?
Weren't Flying Monstrous Creatures an entry that said they had all the rules of Monstrous Creatures with the following additions? If they weren't, you could argue it otherwise. I might be remembering 7th instead of 6th.
Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations. The Tactical Marine box doesn't have a Grav Cannon and yet they have it as an option, which you gotta buy from the Devastator box. Interchangeable kits, it seems, is an advantage here, unless you wanna keep saying you gotta use the correct boxes.
The game also shouldn't need a social contract. The only thing players should agree on is a point limit, and they shouldn't have to fix the damn game for GW themselves.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
It's kinda unreasonable, wouldn't you agree, to ask someone that?
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.
"The game also shouldn't need a social contract."
If we, as a species, can't do basic algebra without social contracts and constructs, how the hell are we going to play this game?
"Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations."
I don't think you follow. I'm not saying that that rule should be followed. I'm pointing out how absurd it would be to follow that rule. Reduction to the absurd.
"If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades"
Certainly! I'd never go that far in my modelling. I do what looks awesome and makes the representation clear (although the first occasionally trumps the second). But I *wouldn't* go around forums trying to bash people who *do*. How WYSIWYG *I* want to be should be up to me, not you. Why do you have so much of a problem with that?
2018/08/02 23:34:45
Subject: Re:Is there any point in Assault Marines?
To anyone saying the game shouldn't have a social contract, I agree that GW should write a tight rule set and fix any obvious errors or ambiguity. But what type of game your going to play is something that should be discussed briefly. Though this edition has technically broke the game up into different modes, two people playing should talk about how competitive of a game you want to play.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
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.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
HQs are the taxes that stop me from double battalion, soo. . . Wrong again I guess.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I totally do that...
Same
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 23:46:12
Bharring wrote: "The game also shouldn't need a social contract."
If we, as a species, can't do basic algebra without social contracts and constructs, how the hell are we going to play this game?
"Also by your logic you aren't able to do several unit configurations."
I don't think you follow. I'm not saying that that rule should be followed. I'm pointing out how absurd it would be to follow that rule. Reduction to the absurd.
"If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades"
Certainly! I'd never go that far in my modelling. I do what looks awesome and makes the representation clear (although the first occasionally trumps the second). But I *wouldn't* go around forums trying to bash people who *do*. How WYSIWYG *I* want to be should be up to me, not you. Why do you have so much of a problem with that?
Numbers don't require social contracts. What you're thinking of is the language we communicate them in.
There's gonna be an overall universal rule for models. Overall correct wargear and similar model size is all you really need. If your Chapter just has Chainaxes instead of Chainswords, counts-as is fine as there actually isn't a Chainaxe option, though it'll go along the same principles as being a similar weapon. If you want to use the Assault Marine models as is, though, there isn't a point when using the actual Assault Marine unit entry. That's why you can just say that the recruits that year are just that good.
Fluff wise, you can justify a lot. Use Assault Marines all you want, just use them as a different unit entry for results that aren't terrible. If anything, try not to buy them to help GW realize they need to fix said unit.
I would argue the slots don't matter period. 100% don't.
That would be a poor assertion. CPs matter. "Tax" matters. Just those two things plainly show that slots matter. You can build to mitigate the effects, but then they are affecting your build. And therefore matter again.
Tax only ever applies to troops and you know that. Luckily Marine variants have Scouts and Cultists to help avoid that for the most part, but some armies have good troops.
HQs are the taxes that stop me from double battalion, soo. . . Wrong again I guess.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I totally do that...
Same
Aren't you the one that says to keep your HQ's bare bones so you can do PA swarm? No wonder they feel like a tax. However, it isn't hard to fit HQ units in. For your particular case, Techmarines are a cheap addition and you can get a Conversion Beamer if you felt like it. That's not a lot of points not a tax, though not supportive either.
If you wanted to play 100% WYSIWYG, you would need to model Bolt Pistols and Frag/Krak grenades on each individual Tactical Marine, the grenades on each individual Assault Marine and Vangaurd, the Plasma grenades on each individual Eldar infantry...
I totally do that...
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 23:50:46
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.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
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.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
What part of "if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans" you have trouble understanding? The models have been painted so ages ago.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
What part of "if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans" you have trouble understanding? The models have been painted so ages ago.
So fluff wise the recruits were super good that year. It's not an excuse to use the worse unit entry at all.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
If you're not comfortable using the Vets using the appropriate markings, you shouldn't be comfortable using the models without modeling ALL Bolt Pistols and grenades. You either follow your own standard or you don't with WYSIWYG.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/03 01:28:55
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.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
A reason, even if considered a poor reason is still a reason regardless of where it comes from. I don't know why you don't seem to get it, but let me try spelling it out for you:
Not every human being shares the same metric for decision making. As such the weight of our choices vary, leading to very different choices and reasons for making said choices.
So a choice you'd never make, because to you it's invalid as an option, to others is the first, and possibly only choice.
In short: your metric is useless to anyone who isn't you and forcing it on others while decrying how they approach the game as "wrong" isn't the kind of attitude anyone wants to deal with in this game. Good luck getting games when you're too busy telling people how to build their army "correctly" to let them do what they find fun.
Now I'm going to go back to building my Space Goats for Kill Team instead of trading blows with someone who can't understand the viewpoints of others much less respect the choices they choose to make in a game that is built completely around arbitrary choices based around self imposed restrictions in terms of army selection, unit selection and even the colors we choose to paint our models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/03 01:34:14
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
It is good reason for me! And of fething course it is imaginary, a big part of the appeal of this game is to partake the imaginary world the models represent.
If you're not comfortable using the Vets using the appropriate markings, you shouldn't be comfortable using the models without modeling ALL Bolt Pistols and grenades.
And I am not. I already said so. All my models have appropriate bolt pistols and grenades. Look, you can halfass your models if you want, but don't judge others for wanting it to do it properly.
I never thought I'd see the day where people were criticized for holding themselves to a higher level in a hobby or a game setting. It's more and more common on this site and a few others.
Bharring wrote: Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?
He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.
Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.
see
Not to be that guy, but a 75% win rate in locals isn't very impressive. I mean, when you're clubbing baby-seals...
They've won vs lists featuring centstars, multiple ik, eldar standard scatbike+wk spam, even though they mainly scored and denied center vs eldar. Lost to fw artillery list with renegade knights. There were no crushing victories but at the same time no crushing defeats. I'd not call any of those lists casual.
So...that's more of a psychological problem going on. "If a unit is not auto-win or requires some tactics to be used, it's garbage".
Mutilators constantly outperformed obliterators. While being considered 'one of the worst units in the game'. Paradox.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/03 05:52:06
There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.
At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.
Actually there is no such rule. WYSIWYG isn't a rule any more so you don't even need to have the correct equipment.
And no, the rules explicitly say that you keep re-rolling roll-offs until one player wins.
