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.

Apple fox wrote:
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.

Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.

 Jidmah wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.

Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.

Yes, I know. Seems you missed mine.

Expanded a bit.
Good game design would lessen all those issues, but it also side steps one of the reasons units of one size are seen as issues. Why others are not, size of scale itself can be a major issue. Both for player conception of the battlefield and the way the flow of the game plays.

I could see these units in 40k as a great thing, but right now I just find them annoying.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Karol wrote:
that only works if you have huge groups of people owning multiple armies and multiple choices for single armies. If two people met up to play a 2k pts game, then the chance that both arrived with more then 2k pts is very small, the chance they own enough to tailor the armies against each other is low either. Specially when one of the people have a bad or very good army, there is a good chance you can't balance the two armies against each other. And then what do you do, go back home without playing?

That's not a pickup game though, it's a pre-arranged game. So if there are any dealbreakers for you, they should be discussed when arranging the game.

So what if you show up to a store, it's a slow day, and the only other player there brought a tournament list, or a LoW only list, or a guard tank company? Assume, they only have the models for the list they brought and you have the same issue.

Depends upon who it is, not what they brought. There's several players I simply won't play with. If it's not one of those people, then we'll have a game.
As for the match up? I'm not worried about it. If I was, then I wouldn't have brought the army I did with me.

So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.

Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.

That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.

That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.



You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.

Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.

That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.

In 5th it was pretty much akin to putting three castellans on the board. If you dig deep enough you'll probably find a 20+ page thread here on dakka about how tripple land raiders ruined the game.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

I would not say "liked" as much as "not disliked". I got no problem playing with a complete stranger, if we seem to be after the same kind of game and they are not acting annoying.

On the other hand I happily decline a game against a friend if he wants to play his all Knight list. The odds of me winning could be a perfectly balanced 50/50 chance, I would still do it because playing against such a list is no fun for me.

Idk, maybe it's my tough Meta (lots of tourny prep gamers) but my Knight army is a liability I stubbornly stick to due to my investments. Most times I'm out of the game by turn 3.

I do use a Castellan though, instead of the typical Crusader Warden rush list.

I personally don't mind facing Lords of War, because I tend to bring an unreasonable amount of firepower. Yesterday, with my Drukhari, I took down my opponent's 1,170-point, 30-Wound Ta'unar battlesuit on turn 2 after dealing with all of its shield drones. However, I realize not everyone fares as well; the previous guy who faced said Ta'unar, a Death Guard player, had to ignore the damn thing entirely and focus on playing the objectives (and still lost, albeit narrowly). I think it's good form to at least provide advance warning that you're bringing a LoW.

I don't use them. Not because I think they're broken, but because I think it's more effective to spread your firepower across your entire army.

.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

Absolutely. It's my free time. If I dislike you, why would I waste my time playing a game with you? So I'll just politely decline the offer to play.
Like I said, there's several people I simply will not play with.

Time/proper list/proper points? As long as I don't dislike you, those can be negotiated.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

Outside of a tournament setting? Absolutely. As people have stated, this is casual hobby time - a way to relax and spend time doing something you enjoy. No fething way am I spending that time with someone who's an asshat, or I don't enjoy being around. They're not entitled to my free time.

This is a hobby, not a right.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Would have been nice if they had stay apocalypse but good game design would have help with a lot of things.

Way to completely miss the point. You can create just as one-sided and unfun games with heavy support choices that have been available since the dawn of WH40k. Cue tripple landraider lists.

That must have been very long time ago, because nowadays three land raiders don't do much.

I mean, unless you play in a very strange place where nobody is there to interact with other human beings....yeah?

If everyone hates your guts they probably won't play against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.

That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.



You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.

So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?

This is just getting unreasonable now. it's political correctness gone mad!

the_scotsman wrote:


So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?

In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.

The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.

 Asmodai wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?

In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.

The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.

Sir, if i may, what about a skeleton watch, does it allways need to be a pocket watch?

 Asmodai wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?

In a typical 2-day tournament, for the first day of games you're expected to wear a morning coat, waist coat and trousers, or a ball gown for women. A pocket watch is a useful accessory for not going over time.

The second day is typically less formal, so a black lounge suit or evening gown is sufficient.

And the third day everyone goes completely naked except for a dice bag cinched around their business, I know, I know. Spare me your tournament etiquette lesson, Anne Landers, we're talking about CASUAL gaming here.

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

You're not owed anyone else's free time.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Karol wrote:
So you not only have to be on time, with a proper list, with proper points, but also have to be liked to play?

Yes that's very normal. It's a hobby not a mandated part of work or life. You are not required to play with anyone just as they are not required to play with you.

That's just normal society, same as in any hobby or craft where it takes more than one person.



You also generally have to bring your dice, ruler, rules, codex to most games as well. Just like you've got to bring your models; wear decent clothes; behave etc.... just normal expectations.

So not only do I have to be liked to play, I also have to wear clothes?

This is just getting unreasonable now. it's political correctness gone mad!

I'll have you know my nudist community has a very active 40k community.

That's probably because they can enforce rules by throwing sharp minis at peopel who break them, and no one has any clothes to protect them..

 Melissia wrote:
That's probably because they can enforce rules by throwing sharp minis at peopel who break them, and no one has any clothes to protect them..

capital punishment in that group is chaos dread socking.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Anecdotes do not make for evidence.

And with that comment you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me, then, what Knight (again, aside from the Valiant and its superflamer) have scary enough Overwatch to kill, say, a blob of Orks? They're not even that durable, but a Castellan has a not quite 2% chance of rolling enough SHOTS to kill a squad of 30. And then they have to hit on a 6+ and wound on 2+ or 3+.

And yes, I know that there's a strat (I think it's House-locked, though) to have an additional Knight Overwatch, rather than just the one charged.

There is a tau super flamer that overwatches pretty nastily, and from more than 8 inches. By the time you have a chance to declare an assault your boyz might be pretty whittled down.

nareik wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Anecdotes do not make for evidence.

And with that comment you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me, then, what Knight (again, aside from the Valiant and its superflamer) have scary enough Overwatch to kill, say, a blob of Orks? They're not even that durable, but a Castellan has a not quite 2% chance of rolling enough SHOTS to kill a squad of 30. And then they have to hit on a 6+ and wound on 2+ or 3+.

And yes, I know that there's a strat (I think it's House-locked, though) to have an additional Knight Overwatch, rather than just the one charged.

There is a tau super flamer that overwatches pretty nastily, and from more than 8 inches. By the time you have a chance to declare an assault your boyz might be pretty whittled down.

Is that on a LOW? Not seeing it in their options on battlescribe.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Is that on a LOW? Not seeing it in their options on battlescribe.

I think it is the phased plasma-flamer on the Y'vahra, a FW unit.

Edit: actually, that is only 8" and fast attack, so no idea.

For the Yvahra I believe you can make it's flamer 14". But yeah, it's fast attack. Tau only have the Taunar Supremacy Armour and Stormsurge for LoW.

 chimeara wrote:
For the Yvahra I believe you can make it's flamer 14". But yeah, it's fast attack. Tau only have the Taunar Supremacy Armour and Stormsurge for LoW.

Is it from a strat or wargear? Just looking at the profile both normal and reactor are 8".

 Trickstick wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
For the Yvahra I believe you can make it's flamer 14". But yeah, it's fast attack. Tau only have the Taunar Supremacy Armour and Stormsurge for LoW.

Is it from a strat or wargear? Just looking at the profile both normal and reactor are 8".

There is a Sept trait that adds 6" to all heavy weapons.

Personally I think you need to warn you opponent if you plan to use fast attacks or septs.

TBF there are so many rulesources now that it often leads to rather iffy gotcha moments if you don't give your opponent a small rundown.

Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.

Is that something people don't do?

a_typical_hero wrote:
Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.

Is that something people don't do?

Some do some don't, generally i started doing it since as stated one of my armies is based upon AL movement shenanigans. The other one is a CSM horde army, which is rather straight forward but still pretty mean.

Also if i dust off my R&H ( rarely these days) i actually have less to explain then i do for my other armies.
Which is kinda sad considering that one is an actual fringe faction.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Funny that you mention that.
In every game I played I went through my army (usually during deployment) and mentioned things that are either not WYSIWYG or I felt are uncommon.
Warlord traits or relics fall into that category for example.

Is that something people don't do?

from my experience, people that give out that kind of information usually do it as a huge infodump super quickly so my brain doesn't actually register what they said.
I'll ask my opponents questions during the game like "can this unit get better overwatch" "can anything deepstrike at less than 9"" and stuff like that to make sure theres no "gotcha!" moments.

When i play i tell my opponents if they would take an action that i could react to in a negative way for them (falling back from hawyire skyweavers for example).