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.
2020/10/21 19:26:41
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:29:39
2020/10/21 19:32:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Dudeface wrote: You're right but you can never cover that element of perspective and player onus. The person bringing the tourney list is doing it to kick face in, not because their army has a story behind it.
Even if the fluff list were balanced against it near enough, the players play styles and how they think and approach the game can still be incompatible.
But that's okay. It should be okay for one person to show up as a cutthroat competitive player and one person to show up as narrative. If the game is balanced, then the cutthroat competitive player can display his skill, and it has nothing to do with the army.
If an 18 eradicators list won a tournament a week ago, but it wasn't piloted by Timmy, and Timmy brings it to a narrative event, it shouldn't beat face nearly as badly. Because it shouldn't be the 18 eradicators that make the list win, but rather the skill of the pilot. Timmy, the unskilled pilot, should lose to Johnny, the skilled pilot, even if it's 18 eradicators vs. Kroot Mercenaries. That's what balance is - making player skill, rather than list contents, the defining factor of victory.
I don't deny that play style and how they think and approach the game can have an effect, but back in 5th edition I remember watching a Tallarn player with a very balanced, ho-hum fluffy Imperial Guard army absolutely TROUNCE a Grey Knights powerlist. The Tallarn player wasn't a tournament player, but he was a very very very skilled narrative player who had "seen it all before" and knew how to handle the threats that the GK were providing. He knew when to parry and hold up the enemy with his infantry while his ordnance pounded a critical asset, then when to switch targets and reposition the infantry into an offensive position. He knew when to thrust with armor, or do an overhanded cudgel-like swing with huge infantry blobs. It was a glorious joy to watch, and the GK powerlist guy was simply outmaneuvered at every turn by a player who had 0 tournament wins in his life - not because the GK list was bad, but because the pilot was terrible at using the provided assets.
2020/10/21 19:35:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Lol, 120 Hormagaunts is commitment for 2nd ed.
That'd be a fight and a half.
And someone figured that out within a few WEEKS of it dropping. With no netlisting. Just simple gamesmanship of how to abuse the "shoot closest thing" rule. GW could have limited hormagaunts. They didn't. Therefore, 120 must be just fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:38:00
2020/10/21 19:37:50
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Dudeface wrote: You're right but you can never cover that element of perspective and player onus. The person bringing the tourney list is doing it to kick face in, not because their army has a story behind it.
Even if the fluff list were balanced against it near enough, the players play styles and how they think and approach the game can still be incompatible.
But that's okay. It should be okay for one person to show up as a cutthroat competitive player and one person to show up as narrative. If the game is balanced, then the cutthroat competitive player can display his skill, and it has nothing to do with the army.
If an 18 eradicators list won a tournament a week ago, but it wasn't piloted by Timmy, and Timmy brings it to a narrative event, it shouldn't beat face nearly as badly. Because it shouldn't be the 18 eradicators that make the list win, but rather the skill of the pilot. Timmy, the unskilled pilot, should lose to Johnny, the skilled pilot, even if it's 18 eradicators vs. Kroot Mercenaries. That's what balance is - making player skill, rather than list contents, the defining factor of victory.
I don't deny that play style and how they think and approach the game can have an effect, but back in 5th edition I remember watching a Tallarn player with a very balanced, ho-hum fluffy Imperial Guard army absolutely TROUNCE a Grey Knights powerlist. The Tallarn player wasn't a tournament player, but he was a very very very skilled narrative player who had "seen it all before" and knew how to handle the threats that the GK were providing. He knew when to parry and hold up the enemy with his infantry while his ordnance pounded a critical asset, then when to switch targets and reposition the infantry into an offensive position. He knew when to thrust with armor, or do an overhanded cudgel-like swing with huge infantry blobs. It was a glorious joy to watch, and the GK powerlist guy was simply outmaneuvered at every turn by a player who had 0 tournament wins in his life - not because the GK list was bad, but because the pilot was terrible at using the provided assets.
That 5th ed example sounds ideal, thats where I think people uniformly would like it to be now, but once you get it to the point where the human part of the game is the deciding factor it's a winner.
Not to say those 2 people will enjoy their experiences but the ability to win should be even, agreed.
2020/10/21 19:39:26
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
But with GW, we get gak like 8th ed BA 2.0. This codex was codex: tripoint. Once I started shamelessly abusing tripoint, the army suddenly magically worked despite the mechanic making zero sense. Without tripoint, it was just a series of unfavorable exchanges for BA.
2020/10/21 19:39:52
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
Dudeface wrote: You're right but you can never cover that element of perspective and player onus. The person bringing the tourney list is doing it to kick face in, not because their army has a story behind it.
Even if the fluff list were balanced against it near enough, the players play styles and how they think and approach the game can still be incompatible.
But that's okay. It should be okay for one person to show up as a cutthroat competitive player and one person to show up as narrative. If the game is balanced, then the cutthroat competitive player can display his skill, and it has nothing to do with the army.
If an 18 eradicators list won a tournament a week ago, but it wasn't piloted by Timmy, and Timmy brings it to a narrative event, it shouldn't beat face nearly as badly. Because it shouldn't be the 18 eradicators that make the list win, but rather the skill of the pilot. Timmy, the unskilled pilot, should lose to Johnny, the skilled pilot, even if it's 18 eradicators vs. Kroot Mercenaries. That's what balance is - making player skill, rather than list contents, the defining factor of victory.
I don't deny that play style and how they think and approach the game can have an effect, but back in 5th edition I remember watching a Tallarn player with a very balanced, ho-hum fluffy Imperial Guard army absolutely TROUNCE a Grey Knights powerlist. The Tallarn player wasn't a tournament player, but he was a very very very skilled narrative player who had "seen it all before" and knew how to handle the threats that the GK were providing. He knew when to parry and hold up the enemy with his infantry while his ordnance pounded a critical asset, then when to switch targets and reposition the infantry into an offensive position. He knew when to thrust with armor, or do an overhanded cudgel-like swing with huge infantry blobs. It was a glorious joy to watch, and the GK powerlist guy was simply outmaneuvered at every turn by a player who had 0 tournament wins in his life - not because the GK list was bad, but because the pilot was terrible at using the provided assets.
You're basically describing Leaf Blower and that was a good list in 5th...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:42:29
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.
2020/10/21 19:43:43
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're basically describing Leaf Blower and that was a good list in 5th...
Leafblower used Chimera tanks and artillery extensively. The list I am describing includes large blobs of infantry and Leman Russ tanks (unless you plan and execute an armored thrust with medusas and basilisks ). So no, but thanks anyways.
Additionally, Leafblower was good in 5th only before the release of the GK codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:44:40
2020/10/21 19:45:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
The guard player could take fewer points worth, they could give the dark eldar player extra cp, he'll if that bad give them a round of shooting before turn 1. There are other ways that don't involve "go buy stuff". If you buy, build and paint 1 list and never have spares or options, every chapter approved must be a tough time.
The rules could be better balanced, you're right,it would be better, you're right. So what do you expect people to do in the mean time?
SecondTime wrote:But with GW, we get gak like 8th ed BA 2.0. This codex was codex: tripoint. Once I started shamelessly abusing tripoint, the army suddenly magically worked despite the mechanic making zero sense. Without tripoint, it was just a series of unfavorable exchanges for BA.
What has that got to do with anything?
2020/10/21 19:45:05
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're basically describing Leaf Blower and that was a good list in 5th...
Leafblower used Chimera tanks and artillery extensively. The list I am describing includes large blobs of infantry and Leman Russ tanks (unless you plan and execute an armored thrust with medusas and basilisks ). So no, but thanks anyways.
Additionally, Leafblower was good in 5th only before the release of the GK codex.
Oh it still wiped up the lesser power armor lists like they were children. Part of that immersion breaking I was talking about.
2020/10/21 19:46:29
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're basically describing Leaf Blower and that was a good list in 5th...
Leafblower used Chimera tanks and artillery extensively. The list I am describing includes large blobs of infantry and Leman Russ tanks (unless you plan and execute an armored thrust with medusas and basilisks ). So no, but thanks anyways.
Additionally, Leafblower was good in 5th only before the release of the GK codex.
Oh it still wiped up the lesser power armor lists like they were children. Part of that immersion breaking I was talking about.
Right. I'm not saying 5th was balanced; merely showing an example of a netlist getting smashed by a not-netlist because of a difference in player skill to emphasize my point.
2020/10/21 19:46:58
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
The guard player could take fewer points worth, they could give the dark eldar player extra cp, he'll if that bad give them a round of shooting before turn 1. There are other ways that don't involve "go buy stuff". If you buy, build and paint 1 list and never have spares or options, every chapter approved must be a tough time.
The rules could be better balanced, you're right,it would be better, you're right. So what do you expect people to do in the mean time?
SecondTime wrote:But with GW, we get gak like 8th ed BA 2.0. This codex was codex: tripoint. Once I started shamelessly abusing tripoint, the army suddenly magically worked despite the mechanic making zero sense. Without tripoint, it was just a series of unfavorable exchanges for BA.
What has that got to do with anything?
My point is HOW units are used can be counter to narrative themes as well. So why stop at list composition? Why not enforce narrative tactics as well? This is why I don't like the narrative "fix".
2020/10/21 19:47:59
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
]Historical games have boundaries and real outcomes to measure against. GW has no such limitations. GW could put pseudo-historical restrictions on list building. They choose not to, thereby validating the list building for advantage paradigm.
At all times? Under any and all circumstances?
They have boundaries and real outcomes in the broadest sense but most historical games are as 'speculative' as gw games. Germany might have lost ww2 for example, but in the scale of games like bolt action or even flames of war, there's no reason that they can't have won battles or skirmishes even though in the big picture they lost the war.
And ultimately, just like gw games there are a lot of 'scripts' to choose from. Tank battles? City siege. Paratrooper skirmish etc. There are huge amounts of gaps and unknowns in the historical record. It's not about reenacting battles so much as 'reflecting' them and 'this is the kind of thing that could have happened' is the norm.
Gw can put pseudo-historical limits on things. So can the players themselves. gw in my experience are a 'hands-off' compwny. Let the players play the game they want to play. Everyone wants something different. And Relative list building can lead to outcomes that are just as competitive as absolute list building. Just because you can go absolutely all out in list building doesn't mean it's always appropriate. It's a Central tenet of those of us who enjoy narrative games more so than competitive, or competitive at all costs
And you didn't answer my question. I never said list building for advantage' was an invalid paradigm. I asked how far is it ok to push 'competitive'.
2020/10/21 19:50:23
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I certainly don't think its okay to change lists after lists are revealed. So that's a baseline for me.
I'm also talking REAL historical games, where the scenario gives you your order of battle and there is no list building at all. Not flames of war or bolt action. In these scenarios, you are trying get a better result than the historical outcome. GW has no historical outcomes, and never provides fixed orders of battle for their pseudo-historical battles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:52:19
2020/10/21 19:50:23
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
The problem with being a "hands off company" is that they charge $50 for hands-off rules.
If I wanted to pay $50 to have to do someone else's work for them, I'd ... well, I wouldn't like it very much. If the rules were free? or like $5? Sure, whatever, go ham, I'll change what I need just like putting sugar in the coffee. But I can't even get the 40k rules I need to play for $50, let alone 5. At least not legally.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:51:12
2020/10/21 19:52:14
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote:But with GW, we get gak like 8th ed BA 2.0. This codex was codex: tripoint. Once I started shamelessly abusing tripoint, the army suddenly magically worked despite the mechanic making zero sense. Without tripoint, it was just a series of unfavorable exchanges for BA.
What has that got to do with anything?
My point is HOW units are used can be counter to narrative themes as well. So why stop at list composition? Why not enforce narrative tactics as well? This is why I don't like the narrative "fix".
But you're complaining your army worked once you used the rules? I'm not arguing tripoint makes sense on any level, but you fixed your army by learning to play using core rules, what's the problem?
Tripointing is a skill you use as part of assault, you just got better at using assault units to assault things, it's not unrealistic to try and cut down a foe instead of letting them walk away.
Thinking about it the fall back rule is less narratively appealing than tripointing, though both only make half sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:54:27
2020/10/21 19:54:35
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote:But with GW, we get gak like 8th ed BA 2.0. This codex was codex: tripoint. Once I started shamelessly abusing tripoint, the army suddenly magically worked despite the mechanic making zero sense. Without tripoint, it was just a series of unfavorable exchanges for BA.
What has that got to do with anything?
My point is HOW units are used can be counter to narrative themes as well. So why stop at list composition? Why not enforce narrative tactics as well? This is why I don't like the narrative "fix".
But you're complaining your army worked once you used the rules? I'm not arguing tripoint makes sense on any level, but you fixed your army by learning to play using core rules, what's the problem?
Tripointing is a skill you use as part of assault, you just got better at using assault units to assault things, it's not unrealistic to try and cut down a foe instead of letting them walk away.
You say "used". I say "exploited". It's a problem precisely because it makes no sense at all. I don't want it part of my narrative. Yet, because GW put fallback in the game, I have to. This is as problematic to me as points values.
2020/10/21 19:55:20
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
The guard player could take fewer points worth, they could give the dark eldar player extra cp, he'll if that bad give them a round of shooting before turn 1. There are other ways that don't involve "go buy stuff". If you buy, build and paint 1 list and never have spares or options, every chapter approved must be a tough time.
The rules could be better balanced, you're right,it would be better, you're right. So what do you expect people to do in the mean time?
That's breaking the game itself to give a bunch of additives. That's not balance whether that comes from you or GW themselves (Gladius y'all). So in the meantime don't give GW money for what you admit is a bad job.
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.
2020/10/21 19:58:08
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
Indeed. A key skill of tripointing is to surround models while having inflicted zero damage on that unit. If you can't charge the intersection of two units, you are forced to do the "put only one DC within engagement range" trick. Every time I did it, I had to remind my opponent (and myself) that if I didn't do this, I'd lose every model easily on his turn. Because GW undercosted firepower in 8th and overcosted 1W marines.
2020/10/21 20:01:25
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
They're described as reliving the siege of terra, they fight against what they precieve to be the warmasters forces, throwing aside any regard for their own survival. That doesn't mean they're blind berserkers, that comes after with the red thirst.
I'm sure they'd rather not let the unit of fire warriors casually walk away from them rather than surround a foe and butcher them.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
The guard player could take fewer points worth, they could give the dark eldar player extra cp, he'll if that bad give them a round of shooting before turn 1. There are other ways that don't involve "go buy stuff". If you buy, build and paint 1 list and never have spares or options, every chapter approved must be a tough time.
The rules could be better balanced, you're right,it would be better, you're right. So what do you expect people to do in the mean time?
That's breaking the game itself to give a bunch of additives. That's not balance whether that comes from you or GW themselves (Gladius y'all). So in the meantime don't give GW money for what you admit is a bad job.
So don't play, or do you want to break forum rules and promote piracy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 20:02:19
2020/10/21 20:02:40
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Read the above procedure and tell me how that makes sense.
Tripointing is the act of surrounding a model in a unit so they can't fall back, nothing says you have to try to not kill your enemy.
If you're losing repeatedly by actually attacking them, no that's not good enough. I'm pretty confident there were other ways around it, but not if you're playing competitive games, which you admit you were.
0302/03/16 20:06:13
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with being a "hands off company" is that they charge $50 for hands-off rules.
If I wanted to pay $50 to have to do someone else's work for them, I'd ... well, I wouldn't like it very much. If the rules were free? or like $5? Sure, whatever, go ham, I'll change what I need just like putting sugar in the coffee. But I can't even get the 40k rules I need to play for $50, let alone 5. At least not legally.
Um, firstly, people buy them... Gw charge that much and people still pay. Put yourself in their shoes. This is something people want. You run a business, it makes sense to chase the easy money and cater. Books are cheap to print.
Ultimately you pay gw for their products, after the fact, they don't give a guardsman's cuss what you do with them. personslly I enjoy a codex for stuff other than the rules as well, so for me what I pay is worth it to me (I don't pay gw for their rules 'ahem', quality, I pay them for the cool models and the amazing IP. Rules I'll bodge thank you)
And this might surprise you - you can play the game however you want. you don't need to 'chase the rules dragon' if you don't want to. I played a game of 4th ed a while back. It was fun. Gw won't break down the door if you house rule a few things.
There's nothing wrong with it so don't assume it's some declaration of failure. Some people actively enjoy tinkering with a system. We did it with an osprey set of rules a while back (dux bellorum. I don't think we played the rules the same way for more than three or four games.always tinkering and enjoying ourselves).take home message: Everyone wants something different. People like me are just happier to try to accommodate rather than blindly adhering to the rules which cannot be questioned, or deviated from under any circumstances.
But that's okay. It should be okay for one person to show up as a cutthroat competitive player and one person to show up as narrative. If the game is balanced, then the cutthroat competitive player can display his skill, and it has nothing to do with the army.
.
I'm pretty sure this game is a unicorn and like unicorns, doesnt actually exist.
In the meantime we are left with the actual reality that ttg's are crude, limited systems and simply can't hold up to the pressure generated by anything even remotely resembling 'competitive' gaming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 20:12:19
2020/10/21 20:06:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: "nothing says you have to try to not kill your enemy."
Battleshock rules say you do.
Also, the point of telling people that they can't use their models because they are too good for the narrative scenario seems really crappy still.
Nobody is telling anyone anything, two people can have a discourse about how to balance a game out. There is no dictator here.
I'll sum this up and call it a night for me with:
Why can't people just be human beings and discuss solutions to their problems if it bothers you so much. It doesn't matter if GW did a bad job, you're both there to have fun. Find a way to do that if the default isn't fun for you both.
That is the underlying message in a casual/narrative group. Not who should win. It's making sure everyone has fun.
2020/10/21 20:16:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Lol, 120 Hormagaunts is commitment for 2nd ed.
That'd be a fight and a half.
And someone figured that out within a few WEEKS of it dropping. With no netlisting. Just simple gamesmanship of how to abuse the "shoot closest thing" rule. GW could have limited hormagaunts. They didn't. Therefore, 120 must be just fine.
Well I once ran 40 discs of Tzeentch at some point, so I'm not too surprised somebody tried some ridiculous nid spamming. I can't imagine they actually bought the models for that though.
). So no, but thanks anyways.
