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.
If that total is 1337 points then why not play a 1500 point game? Why should your opponent have to match an awkward point total perfectly tailored to your army?
As I already said, they don't need to perfectly match it. 163 point more seems a tad excessive though, it is over 10% more. Also that 'perfectly tailored' might matter if the list was constructed around some specific strategic build rather than a theme or what happened to be painted at the moment. And ultimately if one wants to construct some power list, certainly the advantage is one the person who first suggest the point limit in the first place? I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
Crimson wrote: Why it is bizarre? Perhaps those were the forces I think thematically fit with my Inquisitor. Perhaps that was the total of the Space Marines I had painted for my new chapter thus far.
If that total is 1337 points then why not play a 1500 point game? Why should your opponent have to match an awkward point total perfectly tailored to your army?
Considering your obsession with equal point values, should that be a question YOU answer? For all we know, 1337 is the maximum force the one player can field. They may be new, transitioning, or just over 600 points got attacked by the cat earlier that day with no time to repair. I knew plenty of people who would be willing to work with a new player's maximum built list just to have a game and even one that was lower on the pressure scale. They would even consider it a list-building challenge as well.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You are definitely not a competitive player based on several of the posts you've made regarding evaluating codices and units. So that's a lie.
What's the definition of a competitive player? Is someone that goes to tournaments? If yes, you're right I'm not a competitive player since I don't like paying for playing, spending an entire day playing 40k and playing games with times limitations.
But I play with tournaments lists and against tournaments lists. Not everytime since my meta is not only made of competitive players but I tipycally spam diss cannons, talos and grotesques, I've already tried the 25 lootas combo and all the most competitive orks lists.
Competitive player is very different from WAAC, and I'm definitely not a WAAC dude, which in my opinion is basically an insult. If I'm sure I'm going to play against a very optmized list I'm all in favor of bringing a top tier list myself. In fact I mostly play using competitive lists, but I simply enjoy more a balanced game than an easy win or auto lose regardless of how much competitive those lists were. I also try to make lists with less common units, which makes me more competitive than dudes than copy paste tournament winning lists from the internet.
To evaluate codices and units you have to consider all the possible scenarios, not only the tournament scene, which is just a fraction of 40k and affected by strong house rules, the most important one is the time limitation which deeply affects list building and how units perform.
What some people fail to understand about playing with some points above the budget is that the specific player that asks to play with a few points more is not actually asking to play with some advantage but to simply adopt an house rule, which is a tolerance in the points budget as I'm sure he won't mind if also the opponent corrects his list with those few extra points. People use house rules all the time and I honestly don't see any difference than using a tolerance as a house rule, rather than applying the ITC format. I don't play ITC, if someone asks me to use ITC rules should I consider him a cheater because he's actually asking to bend the rules? Of course not. Some people ban the soups (it's the only house rule my group use at competitve levels), some even play with alternate activation. Other dudes apply a tolerance in the points budget. Where's the difference?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 09:01:06
As I said before, the difference is in who benefits.
A house rule like using the ITC format is player-neutral, it doesn't benefit either player more than the other. It's a set of rules that apply equally to both players, created by a group that is entirely separate from the current game and widely played by people who are not involved in the current game. A player saying "hey, ITC is better than RAW, can we use those rules" isn't giving themselves an advantage by doing so, they're just trying to improve the game for both players. In fact, any changes made by the ITC rules are just as likely to go against the player suggesting them as in their favor.
A house rule like "I get to take extra points" is a purely selfish request made to benefit the player making it. It isn't improving the game experience, it's just making one player's army more powerful (even if by a small amount). Even if you frame it as "be flexible with points" it's probably going to give more benefit to the player who has a list specifically designed to use those extra points and less benefit to the player who throws a random melta bomb on a sergeant and probably never uses it. That's less "I think the game genuinely is improved for everyone involved if 2005 points is the standard instead of 2000" and more "can you approve my cheating".
In short: motives matter.
(Yes, someone could in theory ask to play ITC because they figured out a way to exploit something about the ITC rules and don't think their opponent can. But in my experience most people who want to play ITC genuinely think it's better for everyone and are expecting to play against people who are also prepared for ITC.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: Considering your obsession with equal point values, should that be a question YOU answer? For all we know, 1337 is the maximum force the one player can field. They may be new, transitioning, or just over 600 points got attacked by the cat earlier that day with no time to repair. I knew plenty of people who would be willing to work with a new player's maximum built list just to have a game and even one that was lower on the pressure scale. They would even consider it a list-building challenge as well.
Ok, sure, 1337 is their maximum, play a 1250 point game. But that's not the scenario that was presented, it was about a player who selects a specific list out of their collection for fluff reasons and then wants to set the point limit exactly to fit their list. A player who is working with a limited pool of models and can't build a list for higher point levels can always play a smaller game, and there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't have much stuff, can we play at 1000 points".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
At which point I say "let's play 1250 or 1500, the standard point limits and not the weird random one you've selected because it favors your particular list".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/12/18 09:48:28
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.
A house rule like "I get to take extra points" is a purely selfish request made to benefit the player making it. It isn't improving the game experience, it's just making one player's army more powerful (even if by a small amount).
Why only one army is more powerful? The tolerance is applied for both armies. That specific player who asked for playing at 2004 will certainly allow the opponent to add some extra in order to get benefit from the tolerance as well.
For that reason a player that suggests a 2-5 pts tolerance should be considered equally honest to someone else that suggests playing with the ITC format in a group where the ITC is not popular. In my group we strictly respect the points budget but I've seen other groups allowing some tolerance, none of them gave me the impression that they wanted to exploit the benefit, they were just typically players that don't own large collections, want to play WYSIWYG and they''re not interested in spending lots of time in list building. Maybe they could live respecting the points budget but decided to apply the house rule anyway since they don't find it game breaking and let the build the list more quickly. With that mindset playing 1998 or 2005 doesn't make any difference. As I think there's no significant difference in using the ITC rules or not I don't think that applying a tolerance in the points budget is something very different.
Maybe you're right, motives matter but for some players list building, at the point where all the tiny detalis matter, isn't that important. There are people that use power levels for that reason, which is not even house ruling but an official way to play 40k. They have the same dignity that those ones that go to every tournament and chase the flavors of the month.
Blackie wrote: Why only one army is more powerful? The tolerance is applied for both armies. That specific player who asked for playing at 2004 will certainly allow the opponent to add some extra in order to get benefit from the tolerance as well.
The second player isn't going to benefit from it as much because they don't have a list designed to make use of it. The player making the request gets an upgrade (or even a full unit!) that is so important that they feel that the need to ask to break the rules to include it, the other player gets to add some minor upgrade that they previously decided was too weak to want in their list. Yeah, technically the second player could spend a bunch of time trying to figure out a way to revise their list to take advantage of the extra points, but they probably won't.
For that reason a player that suggests a 2-5 pts tolerance should be considered equally honest to someone else that suggests playing with the ITC format in a group where the ITC is not popular.
No, because their reason is still selfish. Advocating ITC, however unpopular it may be, is advocating a rule change that applies equally to everyone. Advocating a 2005 point game because your 2000 point list couldn't fit that thing you want is selfish and biased in your favor, even if you offer your opponent an option to add something too. You should never be asking for that rule change in the first place.
With that mindset playing 1998 or 2005 doesn't make any difference.
Then play the 1998 point list, problem solved. This is the problem we keep coming back to, people claiming that the extra points aren't a big deal and simultaneously treating them as so important that they need to break/change the rules to take them. If it genuinely doesn't make a difference then they should be perfectly happy to play a standard 2000 point game with a legal 2000 point list, no extra points included.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/18 10:44:38
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.
Why only one army is more powerful? The tolerance is applied for both armies. That specific player who asked for playing at 2004 will certainly allow the opponent to add some extra in order to get benefit from the tolerance as well.
I can see it with my minds eye. One guy decides to play more points, but he does it back home, when he builds or even buys the list. Now he forces his opponent to adapt, when he may as well not have the models to play more points, or he has them at home, so he just needs to teleport fast back home optimize his list and teleport back within the one hour time you have to play. Because the guy who is going over points will wait to the very moment the game starts to more or less force you to let him play his own way, because if you don't you just reserved and paid for a table and made trip for nothing.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
We're talking about casual games, where there's no real competition. For some players using the desired models and loadout worths more than trying to outsmart the opponent if course the points budget is basically the same. It may be laziness, obsession in playing WYSIWYG or the fact the there aren't other models available but this approach isn't disohnest and can't be considered cheating.
I disagree with the word selfish because that player doesn't want to outperform the opponent by bending the rules. He actually plays a casual list.
And maybe those +4 points could improve the opponent list more than the SM one. With my drukhari I can upgrade a useless venom blade (I need that archon mostly for the aura and he's as cheap as possible) to an huskblade giving him some punch and making him a decent babysitter for my vehicles. My list would definitely benefit more than the SM one. I can do the same thing for orks by adding a big choppa or with SW by adding a couple of shields or storm bolters, maybe a plasma pistol for my wolf priest who will definitely be near the action.
Seriously if you have a list designed to be 2000 points those +4-5 points wouldn't make it different, just 1-2 upgrades somewhere. It's not like having those few extra points available before list building would let you think of a different list. List would be exactly the same.
Maybe he considers some of the SM stuff overcosted so breaking the rules by bringing a few more points above the budget is equal to those players that want to play with the ITC format because they're not 100% ok with the rules. Playing with some minor changes to the core rules or the points values is actually the same concept.
Why only one army is more powerful? The tolerance is applied for both armies. That specific player who asked for playing at 2004 will certainly allow the opponent to add some extra in order to get benefit from the tolerance as well.
I can see it with my minds eye. One guy decides to play more points, but he does it back home, when he builds or even buys the list. Now he forces his opponent to adapt, when he may as well not have the models to play more points, or he has them at home, so he just needs to teleport fast back home optimize his list and teleport back within the one hour time you have to play. Because the guy who is going over points will wait to the very moment the game starts to more or less force you to let him play his own way, because if you don't you just reserved and paid for a table and made trip for nothing.
Only if he plays strictly WYSIWYG, which is something that apparently matters less than nothing for many posters here. Some upgrades can be invisible ones like the switch between a venom blade to a huskblade, the adding of a phantasm granade launcher, shock prows... but also an extra plasma pistol or storm bolter can be an invisible upgrade. How many rhinos are actually modelled with 2 storm bolters since the box comes with just one? And yet they're auto takes.
No one forces no-one, people are asbolutely entitled to refuse games if they like to. I also refuse to play under some circumstances.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/18 11:01:31
As I said before, the difference is in who benefits.
A house rule like using the ITC format is player-neutral, it doesn't benefit either player more than the other. It's a set of rules that apply equally to both players, created by a group that is entirely separate from the current game and widely played by people who are not involved in the current game. A player saying "hey, ITC is better than RAW, can we use those rules" isn't giving themselves an advantage by doing so, they're just trying to improve the game for both players. In fact, any changes made by the ITC rules are just as likely to go against the player suggesting them as in their favor.
A house rule like "I get to take extra points" is a purely selfish request made to benefit the player making it. It isn't improving the game experience, it's just making one player's army more powerful (even if by a small amount). Even if you frame it as "be flexible with points" it's probably going to give more benefit to the player who has a list specifically designed to use those extra points and less benefit to the player who throws a random melta bomb on a sergeant and probably never uses it. That's less "I think the game genuinely is improved for everyone involved if 2005 points is the standard instead of 2000" and more "can you approve my cheating".
In short: motives matter.
(Yes, someone could in theory ask to play ITC because they figured out a way to exploit something about the ITC rules and don't think their opponent can. But in my experience most people who want to play ITC genuinely think it's better for everyone and are expecting to play against people who are also prepared for ITC.)
ITC rules definitely favour certain things, such as mortars camping as unshootable (and until recently) unassaultable in a building. So yes, asking those houserules to be used might indeed give an massive advantage to the player asking, far greater than four points ever could. Similarly things like detachment limit and a rule of three (using them is a houserule outside tournaments.) They benefit certain armies and builds, and if the person asking them to be used has already taken that into account, it is possible that they would benefit from their use. The difference is just to whom you're willing to ascribe nefarious motives. I certainly see it as perfectly plausible that a person who is committed to squeezing all possible power out of every point of their army would try to gain an benefit in scenario and houserule selection too.And if we are talking about 'in my expedience', then in my experience people who want to increase the point limit by four point or play in unconventional point totals in the first place, are not doing it to gain any meaningful benefit. If they cared about such things, they'd just copy an popular net list which would surely be made to at nice round number.
At which point I say "let's play 1250 or 1500, the standard point limits and not the weird random one you've selected because it favors your particular list".
So 1350 is now an unacceptable point limit too? This is getting really surreal. You think a person asking for a 2004 point game is making outlandish demands? I say that your demand that all point tolatals must for some bizarre reason to be divisible by 250 is completely ludicrous. Look, if you have so hard time building a list to a point total you're not used to, perhaps because it is not one for which you can easily copy a netlist for, then you really should try Power Levels. They might be more suitable for you.
Since this thread became an excercise in absurd argumentation, there is actually a quite good reason NOT to use "round" 2000 points as standard point cap, as it is only divisible by 2, 4, 5 and 8. In a game system with so much oddly priced upgrades and base values, it is a very biased point limit to begin with. 1890 points is a far better number, as it is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, so far smaller number of builds will be left with some unusable leftover points, especially since leftover from both division by 4 and 8 is perfectly usable 2. Great improvement of the fairness of the limit!
Alternatively, 1999 or 2003 are ideal, as they are beautiful prime numbers closest to ugly, arbitrary 2000 pts. 2000 is such a peasant number...
And those had to be indeed dreadfully ugly times, when "standard" point limit for 40K games was 1999+1...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 14:46:06
This thread is entirely pointless because it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that different gaming groups have drastically different ways of playing this game. If you feel it's fine in your group to play a few points over, or use non "standard" points values, that's cool, as long as your entire group is OK with it.
It is not my experience though. At every place I've played in NJ, NY, and PA, games are almost always at 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, 2000, or 2500 points. Nobody has ever asked me if they could go over, and I would never think of asking either. It would seem very odd for someone to ask that, since nobody around here does.
So can we stop arguing about points values? It's pointless. It depends on your local meta and group what is socially acceptable to do or not do.
nou wrote: Since this thread became an excercise in absurd argumentation, there is actually a quite good reason NOT to use "round" 2000 points as standard point cap, as it is only divisible by 2, 4, 5 and 8. In a game system with so much oddly priced upgrades and base values, it is a very biased point limit to begin with. 1890 points is a far better number, as it is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, so far smaller number of builds will be left with some unusable leftover points, especially since leftover from both division by 4 and 8 is perfectly usable 2. Great improvement of the fairness of the limit!
Alternatively, 1999 or 2003 are ideal, as they are beautiful prime numbers closest to ugly, arbitrary 2000 pts. 2000 is such a peasant number...
And those had to be indeed dreadfully ugly times, when "standard" point limit for 40K games was 1999+1...
That's the thing - in previous editions, notably 5th, 6th and 7th, it was actually uncommon to find upgrades, or even base unit costs, that weren't multiples of 5 and/or 10.
Now, you've got lots of things costing quite awkward values (2s, 3s, 7s and 8s are just annoying), and I understand it creates more accuracy, but at a cost of being too finicky for me. (Which is why I use power level, seeing as I rarely even need to worry about 3 digits, let alone 4).
With multiples of 5 and 10 being comparatively rare, why do we expect things to be in nice rounded numbers?
Aesthetic or personal preference? That's ironic.
Speed? Is it faster? Without the focus on 5s and 10s, reaching 2000 would be just as convoluted as reaching 2001.
Tradition? More likely, and that focus on "we've always done it like this, and expect everyone else to" is also why there's such a big attitude of "Matched Play or GTFO" with some users here. The fact that tournaments uphold that value still (which is their choice to do so, and their right) means that to people who see 40k as something to be "official" and to be "gamed", the 2000 points is going to be their limit of choice, because it's the one used by who they look up to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Horst wrote: So can we stop arguing about points values? It's pointless. It depends on your local meta and group what is socially acceptable to do or not do.
But Horst - don't you know that if you don't play to a round number, you're basically cheating and your idea of playing the game is wrong?
I mean, if two players both agree to change the size of the game from A to B, they're actually cheating. /s
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 15:01:41
You know, even my old pre-CA Steel Fury company had 1982 points in it, because I literally couldn't be assed to spend 18 points and convert my models / buy new ones.
Guard battalion with Power Sword on one CC - 184 Admech battalion (vanguard, not rangers) - 214 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528
I don't think I ever felt like I was playing an unbalanced game (much of the time, I felt like it was fairly easy to win actually). So maybe my point of view comes from the fact that at 2k I would play 1982 and still have tons of fun, which makes me wonder how much of a difference in "fun-ness" ≤18 points really makes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 15:06:20
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, even my old pre-CA Steel Fury company had 1982 points in it, because I literally couldn't be assed to spend 18 points and convert my models / buy new ones.
Guard battalion with Power Sword on one CC - 184
Admech battalion (vanguard, not rangers) - 214
Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528
Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528
Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528
I don't think I ever felt like I was playing an unbalanced game (much of the time, I felt like it was fairly easy to win actually). So maybe my point of view comes from the fact that at 2k I would play 1982 and still have tons of fun, which makes me wonder how much of a difference in "fun-ness" ≤18 points really makes.
With the options available in the Vanguard and Infantry you could certainly hit 2000 if you want to.
nou wrote: Since this thread became an excercise in absurd argumentation, there is actually a quite good reason NOT to use "round" 2000 points as standard point cap, as it is only divisible by 2, 4, 5 and 8. In a game system with so much oddly priced upgrades and base values, it is a very biased point limit to begin with. 1890 points is a far better number, as it is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, so far smaller number of builds will be left with some unusable leftover points, especially since leftover from both division by 4 and 8 is perfectly usable 2. Great improvement of the fairness of the limit!
Alternatively, 1999 or 2003 are ideal, as they are beautiful prime numbers closest to ugly, arbitrary 2000 pts. 2000 is such a peasant number...
And those had to be indeed dreadfully ugly times, when "standard" point limit for 40K games was 1999+1...
That's the thing - in previous editions, notably 5th, 6th and 7th, it was actually uncommon to find upgrades, or even base unit costs, that weren't multiples of 5 and/or 10.
Now, you've got lots of things costing quite awkward values (2s, 3s, 7s and 8s are just annoying), and I understand it creates more accuracy, but at a cost of being too finicky for me. (Which is why I use power level, seeing as I rarely even need to worry about 3 digits, let alone 4).
With multiples of 5 and 10 being comparatively rare, why do we expect things to be in nice rounded numbers?
Aesthetic or personal preference? That's ironic.
Speed? Is it faster? Without the focus on 5s and 10s, reaching 2000 would be just as convoluted as reaching 2001.
Tradition? More likely, and that focus on "we've always done it like this, and expect everyone else to" is also why there's such a big attitude of "Matched Play or GTFO" with some users here. The fact that tournaments uphold that value still (which is their choice to do so, and their right) means that to people who see 40k as something to be "official" and to be "gamed", the 2000 points is going to be their limit of choice, because it's the one used by who they look up to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Horst wrote: So can we stop arguing about points values? It's pointless. It depends on your local meta and group what is socially acceptable to do or not do.
But Horst - don't you know that if you don't play to a round number, you're basically cheating and your idea of playing the game is wrong?
I mean, if two players both agree to change the size of the game from A to B, they're actually cheating. /s
If you can't adjust to something as simple as different pricing for weapons (which was actually a good thing rather than arbitrary multiples of 5), no wonder why you defend Power Level so hard. Because math is hard!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 15:20:42
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you can't adjust to something as simple as different pricing for weapons (which was actually a good thing rather than arbitrary multiples of 5), no wonder why you defend Power Level so hard. Because math is hard!
Dude, can you stop with the personal attacks? Seriously.
How many times do I have to tell you, I don't find maths particularly hard. I coped just fine with playing 40k, with all of it's listbuilding elements too, for years. I think I can still remember how much all my standard unit choices were in points from 5th edition.
Spoiler:
Captain, power sword + storm shield + artificer armour 140 2x Tactical Squad, flamer and missile launcher, 170 x2, I think Tactical Squad, meltagun, multimelta, combi-melta - 190? Vindicator with something added to it 125 Dreadnought - 105 Terminators - 200 on the nose.
I might have missed something, and might be off somewhere with some of the costs, but I don't think I'm far off, am I?
Maths isn't hard. Even if it was, I have calculators. However, I've got better things to do than to micromanage and add every upgrade, calculate every single model, weapon, and other upgrades, and I sure as hell can't be bothered to remember and keep updating it. If you read my post instead of making personal attacks, you'd see that I agreed that moving away from multiples of 5 was good for balance, and I think that the values changing as new exploits are found is better than leaving them stagnate for the competitive 40k scene.
However, that's not for me. I want quick, simple calculations that I can do on the fly, not having to rely on a pre-built list that I rarely deviate from. I want to put down the units I like, and not have to take off a unit because the models I picked up are carrying the wrong weapons. I want to play 40k differently to how you do. Is that a problem for you personally?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/18 15:43:50
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, even my old pre-CA Steel Fury company had 1982 points in it, because I literally couldn't be assed to spend 18 points and convert my models / buy new ones.
Guard battalion with Power Sword on one CC - 184 Admech battalion (vanguard, not rangers) - 214 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528 Baneblade with 1 sponson set, twin HBs, and stubber- 528
I don't think I ever felt like I was playing an unbalanced game (much of the time, I felt like it was fairly easy to win actually). So maybe my point of view comes from the fact that at 2k I would play 1982 and still have tons of fun, which makes me wonder how much of a difference in "fun-ness" ≤18 points really makes.
With the options available in the Vanguard and Infantry you could certainly hit 2000 if you want to.
Oh, I totally could. I wasn't saying it was impossible. I just couldn't be assed, because 18 points didn't matter that much to me. It still doesn't, if I'm honest. Hell, it'd even be easy to model one Hunter-Killer Missile on each Baneblade if I really wanted an easy way to hit 2k. But the 18 points barely affected my games. There was never really a time when I was like "man, I wish I had more Mortars, or more Plasma Calivers, or more HKMs". I just played, and I won some, and I lost some (but not as much as I won because damn, Baneblades), and it was tons of fun either way.
The fact that I can be 18 points down and have fun remains the case, whether it's because I'm playing 1982 vs 2000, or 2000 vs 2018.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/18 17:48:54
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I've never heard someone not spend points on Mortars until now. You have the points to get all three actually.
I do, but not the will. I converted my models from High Elves actually, with Skitarii Ranger heads (with the mechanicus bits shaved off) to look like rebreather masks under a heavy hood. The Arms were cadian, with the hands painted as gloves.
The idea is that the infantry regiment is from a space-station, and can only breathe air from by air recyclers since they've only lived generations in space. So they wear heavy hooded gear that is almost atmospherically sealed (like chemical handling equipment) and then just put on armour over that. The High Elf "armored skirts" completed the look nicely I think.
The downside, of course, is converting high elf models (given that they were old and for fantasy) into anything other than "stand and look pretty with a hand-weapon" (e.g. lasgun) so I never really got mortars or any other weapon to work with them. I just couldn't visualize how to make the mortar look nice with the squads, so I didn't bring any heavy weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I've never heard someone not spend points on Mortars until now. You have the points to get all three actually.
I do, but not the will. I converted my models from High Elves actually, with Skitarii Ranger heads (with the mechanicus bits shaved off) to look like rebreather masks under a heavy hood. The Arms were cadian, with the hands painted as gloves.
The idea is that the infantry regiment is from a space-station, and can only breathe air from by air recyclers since they've only lived generations in space. So they wear heavy hooded gear that is almost atmospherically sealed (like chemical handling equipment) and then just put on armour over that. The High Elf "armored skirts" completed the look nicely I think.
The downside, of course, is converting high elf models (given that they were old and for fantasy) into anything other than "stand and look pretty with a hand-weapon" (e.g. lasgun) so I never really got mortars or any other weapon to work with them. I just couldn't visualize how to make the mortar look nice with the squads, so I didn't bring any heavy weapons.
Send a PM of that gak later as I appreciate creative armies.
That said, you can definitely find a way to create Mortars then. It doesn't HAVE to be the exact Mortar model but a similar profile and "feel" of a super small artillery piece. Hell I'll shoot you ideas once I see the rest of your army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/18 18:48:01
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That said, you can definitely find a way to create Mortars then. It doesn't HAVE to be the exact Mortar model but a similar profile and "feel" of a super small artillery piece. Hell I'll shoot you ideas once I see the rest of your army.
I don't actually care that much, though. Yeah, mortars are good, whatever. I also don't think every squad should have a mortar, as mortars are pieces not meant to be in the "line." I get autocannons and lascannons and direct-fire squad support weapons, but mortars are generally a company - or in the case of light mortars, platoon - level asset. Squads in general don't usually have access to organic indirect fire (Though this may be changing in the modern era with things like squad level UASs or loiter munitions, but I digress).
Furthermore, mortars don't really fit the fluff I had laid down. The guys were urban fighters because they trained in tunnels and hallways aboard their space-station, and had to learn to clear dense spaces with complex terrain. Mortars never struck me as a weapon that would be terribly useful in a space station, or training in space in transit to their destination. At best, I might put a mortar in a Veteran Squad because they picked it up off some other regiment or nicked it from the Departmento Munitorum or something.
Sir Heckington wrote: 1250 is the best point level because I can fit 9 Crisis suits with missile pods, 3 Broadsides with missile pods and a single commander.
It's fine. Because that number is divisible by 250, it is impossible for you to prefer it for being perfect for the exact list you want to run. Lucky you!
I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
So why is a person obligated to add more points, when they were already following the rules at hand, rather than the other person removing an upgrade so that they DO follow the rules?
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.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
"So why is a person obligated to add more points, when they were already following the rules at hand, rather than the other person removing an upgrade so that they DO follow the rules?"
They are not obligated to add more points.
What rules did the player who wants 2006 points break? None. He's discussing what points level to play at with a potential opponent.
"Is there a small upgrade you can drop?"
That is almost always the better answer. But not always.
For instance, at one point I wanted to play a small game. Someone said sure, how does 1000 sound? I said about right. THen noticed all my Harlie models (at the time) came to just over 1000 points. I told him I could drop down to 1k, but would rather he added another Marine or something, so I could play all my Harlies. He added a Power Fist, wound up 2pts above me, and we had a fun game.
In that case, I would argue that renegotiating the points cost was the better option than dropping points. Because "all mah Harlies".
& 
