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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.

While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.

It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.

While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.

It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.

its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.

While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.

It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.

its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.

Exactly. I know your meta is ridiculously cutthroat and toxic, Karol, but most people are friendly with those they game with.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.

While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.

It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.

its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.

Exactly. I know your meta is ridiculously cutthroat and toxic, Karol, but most people are friendly with those they game with.

Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.

While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.

This doesn't sound like, "the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have." They sound like a subjective mess that can only reach a point of rough balance after a series of one-sided matches.

It seems like competitive-focused tournament lists are actually more balanced because they don't require a dozen house rules to make a half-decent game.

That doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

And ultimately, balance is a tool that's there to help make fun games. I believe it's a pretty important tool, but asymmetric games can be quite fun-narrative scenarios and whatnot. I would, in the end, rather have a game that's unbalanced but fun for all involved, than a perfectly balanced and boring game. Which is not to say GW shouldn't do better no balance-it's bad enough that you can quite realistically have an unfun game because of the glaring balance issues-but fun is the end goal.

How are asymmetric games supposed to be fun when the symmetric games end up being like that anyway?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

nice reading comprehension. GW IS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself

Anyways, with the smaller boards now, especially for sub 1000 point games, would empty pods be viable area denial?
I've never run anything Imperial, but building a list around dropping open pods on Objectives to block the opponent, if they're fully open, you can stop them getting with 3" right? That sounds like a fun thing to do.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?

I mean if they're seeing you're modifying the rules for yourself regardless, why are they gonna try to do better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

nice reading comprehension. GW IS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself

Or you don't buy their rules and tell them to get their gak together instead.

 Sarigar wrote:
Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.

I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.

I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?

Why would it take 9 consecutive games to realize you're on better footing than one of your regular opponents?

I typically know the strength/skill of my opponents long before a match. Even if I don't know what army they'll play.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.

I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?

They already said why....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.

That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?

I mean if they're seeing you're modifying the rules for yourself regardless, why are they gonna try to do better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.

nice reading comprehension. GW IS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself

Or you don't buy their rules and tell them to get their gak together instead.

If you're so adamant that playing a GW game, either by their rules or by using your own house rules, is a mug's game, why are you even on this board? GW doesn't care what you write here, and you're not going to convince enough people to just NOT PLAY to get their attention. Why not just play and derive some enjoyment from the experience, or better yet, DON'T play, and don't condemn the people who do?

 Blndmage wrote:
Anyways, with the smaller boards now, especially for sub 1000 point games, would empty pods be viable area denial?
I've never run anything Imperial, but building a list around dropping open pods on Objectives to block the opponent, if they're fully open, you can stop them getting with 3" right? That sounds like a fun thing to do.

Smaller board means less locations you can choose to block with the pod, but it also means a single pod now covers a larger percentage of the board.

Another thing to think about is the direct consequences of smaller board - it means that units that are rushing at you can get within effective range that much faster (not that the no-man's land is smaller, but there's now less room to deploy far back). Being able to slow that down for a single turn can potentially change the outcome of the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.

That is like saying life is good when you are happy and rich. Most people are not rich or happy, nor good. We wouldn't need FAQ, errata etc at all if there were just good people playing the game, because people would be playing with self made rules that make the armies fun to play and not wait for 2-3 years, or longer, to see something fixed and then never see it done, like all the people that waited for WFB to get good.

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which is only doable when two things occur. First you actually own enough models to switch stuff up and second the change actualy has an impact, because sometimes you can't downgrade an army enough to make the game enjoyable. It is not even a question of OP units, as much as those do not help, but if an army has the core rules going against it, there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.

That is like saying life is good when you are happy and rich. Most people are not rich or happy, nor good. We wouldn't need FAQ, errata etc at all if there were just good people playing the game, because people would be playing with self made rules that make the armies fun to play and not wait for 2-3 years, or longer, to see something fixed and then never see it done, like all the people that waited for WFB to get good.

Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.

Which is only doable when two things occur. First you actually own enough models to switch stuff up and second the change actualy has an impact, because sometimes you can't downgrade an army enough to make the game enjoyable. It is not even a question of OP units, as much as those do not help, but if an army has the core rules going against it, there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.

People can be bad at game design without being malicious.

It's much, MUCH easier to use an already existing system than make your own. Minor adjustments are much easier than, again, making one from scratch.

If you don't have fun playing with your opponents, don't play them. Take a break from the hobby until you can find a better group.

Karol wrote:
there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.

If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.

I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?

I did it to help ensure we had a fun game? Your question strikes me as odd.

To further break it down. Locally, there are very few Craftworld players. However, there are a lot of players using Marines (I'm actually building a Marine army now as well). What this means is my opponents are generally not as well versed in how a Craftworld army operates, but I am pretty familiar with Marines as I face them often and am building one. That level of knowledge gap is significant, but difficult to quantify. I also help advise my opponents about stratagems such as Forewarning, so they don't plop their Eradicators down in LOS of a Lynx or Dark Reapers. It's not a tourney and I am trying to help ensure both players have a fun experience. I don't play 'gotcha' as it simply lessens the enjoyment for both involved. I want a competitive game, not some blow out because my opponent does not know the rules of my Codex.

The topic of social contracts have been written about and discussed over the years. And after playing this game for over 30 years, I can generally recognize a mismatch and under what experience both players want out of the game. Firstly, 40K is not and has never been a balanced game and I doubt it ever will be. This is important to remember when you are willingly going to spend 2-3 hours with a person to play a game. Understanding what each player really wants to get out of the game is another significant factor. If one is simply wanting to crush someone with the latest tourney winning list, it really helps to play someone with a similar mindset.

Ultimately, I play to have fun and hang out out with folks who enjoy the same hobby. I try to understand the social contract immediately. Tourneys tend to make this easier as the rules for the tourney generally cover most items. I typically pre arrange a game and work out the details prior to arriving at a game shop. If I do end up with a pick up game, a quick 5 minute conversation goes a long way to ensure we have a shared understanding of what we want out of a game. If one wants a practice tourney style game and I'm running Craftworld, I'll absolutely play, but don't expect me to warn you what Forewarning does when you bring your Eradicators in from reserve.

You know what? I miss when drop pods could hold one Dreadnought.

*sigh*

 Niiai wrote:
You know what? I miss when drop pods could hold one Dreadnought.

*sigh*

There's a fw Dreadnought Drop Pod for loyalists (or if you roll chaos Dreadclaws can carry dreadnoughts). You could always proxy a normal drop pod as one if you don't want to spend the money for the fw model.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
You know what? I miss when drop pods could hold one Dreadnought.

*sigh*

There's a fw Dreadnought Drop Pod for loyalists (or if you roll chaos Dreadclaws can carry dreadnoughts). You could always proxy a normal drop pod as one if you don't want to spend the money for the fw model.

Used to carry Dreadnoughts and Terminators, back in the days of unreliable deep striking that was pretty useful.

Nixxing the Dreadnought capability of the Pod was dissapointing, but yeah there's the FW one.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can carry two units, you know.

In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.

Okay, show me the tournament list that did that.

See, this is the problem with your contributions. Apart from the fact tournament play isn't the most common way to play 40k your opinion is entirely reactive and dependent on what's currently being played rather than what's actually good. That's the reason people criticise you for your contributions when you admit to not playing the game. You don't have any frame of reference for units that might be powerful but don't appear in tournament lists so you have no way of knowing whether units that aren't appearing in those lists are bad or are just waiting for their potential to be unlocked. There was a perfect example of this fairly recently with Richard Siegler doing well with Tau when "everyone" was convinced they were terrible. According to you Tau were bad and all their units bad right up until they did well at a bunch of tournaments, then those same units were suddenly brilliant.

That's not how the game works, even at the tournament level. It's entirely possible that a certain unit or army is better than tournament results would indicate. It's also entirely possible that tournament lists, and the game itself, is not so finely tuned that adding in a 70 point unit will not make or break an army and something like a Drop Pod, or any other unit for that matter, might find a place in good lists without being spammed. The nuance of where a unit sits in the spectrum of an army's power level is often not revealed purely through tournament armies because they quite often follow the meta rather than creating it.

Slipspace wrote:
See, this is the problem with your contributions. Apart from the fact tournament play isn't the most common way to play 40k your opinion is entirely reactive and dependent on what's currently being played rather than what's actually good. That's the reason people criticise you for your contributions when you admit to not playing the game. You don't have any frame of reference for units that might be powerful but don't appear in tournament lists so you have no way of knowing whether units that aren't appearing in those lists are bad or are just waiting for their potential to be unlocked. There was a perfect example of this fairly recently with Richard Siegler doing well with Tau when "everyone" was convinced they were terrible. According to you Tau were bad and all their units bad right up until they did well at a bunch of tournaments, then those same units were suddenly brilliant.

If I recall correctly nobody else was ever able to pilot Tau to those same results and those results didn't last. Thus Tau were still bad, it's just that one player was skilled enough to counter the meta for a while and put up some results.

That's not how the game works, even at the tournament level. It's entirely possible that a certain unit or army is better than tournament results would indicate. It's also entirely possible that tournament lists, and the game itself, is not so finely tuned that adding in a 70 point unit will not make or break an army and something like a Drop Pod, or any other unit for that matter, might find a place in good lists without being spammed. The nuance of where a unit sits in the spectrum of an army's power level is often not revealed purely through tournament armies because they quite often follow the meta rather than creating it.

If there's so much room in the meta for rogue lists you'd expect to see these lists making top-8s fairly often because they unlock a little more power than their opponents. The fact that we don't see this is telling.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.

If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?

Because it makes as much sense as someone from the 21+ bracket telling you they will give you training and use only one arm and no throws, but you are 15. It is no longer an actual game, at worse it is a veiled insult, at best it is math showing that army X does not work within the given rule set. Meaning it is no longer a real game, but some play pretend thing. The opponent may may as well play 2000pts then, and just decide to forget to charge, shot, score, bring in deep strike unit etc It is patronizing and unfun to be on the reciving end. And it really gets bad, when they do it and you still lose.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.

If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?

Because it makes as much sense as someone from the 21+ bracket telling you they will give you training and use only one arm and no throws, but you are 15. It is no longer an actual game, at worse it is a veiled insult, at best it is math showing that army X does not work within the given rule set. Meaning it is no longer a real game, but some play pretend thing. The opponent may may as well play 2000pts then, and just decide to forget to charge, shot, score, bring in deep strike unit etc It is patronizing and unfun to be on the reciving end. And it really gets bad, when they do it and you still lose.

There's a difference between people with actual physical abilities and a wholly fictional and arbitrary game. They're similar in some ways, but certainly not one and the same.

Drop pods, and transports in general, gain in points efficiency when you don't use the MINIMUM sized game board. I mostly play on 4'x6' boards still and sometime the full monty at 4'x8' (Though these games are usually 2500-3000). On these game boards transports are much more valuable. On these boards foot slogging terminators is bad enough that you start thinking about Land Raiders, and it is more difficult to block deep strikes so the pods benefit there as well.

I don't understand why people feel the need to only play on tournament sized boards.

So to get back on topic, Drop Pods probably are a little over costed in a tournament game setup, but maybe not in all legal games.

Ananiel

Ananiel wrote:
Drop pods, and transports in general, gain in points efficiency when you don't use the MINIMUM sized game board. I mostly play on 4'x6' boards still and sometime the full monty at 4'x8' (Though these games are usually 2500-3000). On these game boards transports are much more valuable. On these boards foot slogging terminators is bad enough that you start thinking about Land Raiders, and it is more difficult to block deep strikes so the pods benefit there as well.

I don't understand why people feel the need to only play on tournament sized boards.

So to get back on topic, Drop Pods probably are a little over costed in a tournament game setup, but maybe not in all legal games.

Ananiel

The Combat Patrol/Incursion board size is perfect for apartments. A 3x4ft playing surface is much much easier to use and store when not being used.
So for me, personally, that's why I'm sticking with 1,000 or below point games.

 Galas wrote:
Is not that drop pods are bad. Is just that the edition missions, deployment, tables and objetives make them not worth it.

Just like custodian guards with 3++ were useless in 8th and are the new hotness in 9th with 0 changes to their rules.

This is what I also said, some point drop would be nice but the pods rules are fine, the games core rules just do it dirty and the designers spent little time to make them " feel " better. Which could easily be done. Like, for the unit that gets out say the doors blowing open give them a cover save till the start of their next turn from the smoke ? Have the turret be able to take multiple shots at nearby units ? It could only be a storm bolter but say its for " covering fire " like a D3 units get shot as it lands at the nearest enemy targets then gets its usual round of shooting normally ?

Lots of ways to make it more interesting, but lazy designers gonna be lazy.


Edit: I saw it got a little heated for a bit. I'll point out no one is twisting anyones arm to use a drop pod, however if its such a hindrance to win a game woe be the player who lose to someone with even one drop pod. For the pod users must be the best of the best to overcome such a deep negative on their side !

Oh and I have played with some seriously skewed points and while I lost both of those games they were still very close.

Once I was prepping for a doubles tournament and we said 2,000 points. Meaning and we said 1,000 pts per player. My partner and I made our lists with that, who we played against heard it as 2000 pts per player. Needless to say we felt like we were constantly besieged and under the gun the whole game. Who we played against however felt like we were impossible to pin down and wipe out. We had to double check on points when we found out they still had 2 5 man terminators squads to come in and a land raider to drive onto the board. At which point I was like " Wait a minute how many points do you guys have over there ? "

Second was I had a friend make a list for me to play a new player. He gave me the most vanilla of lists. Yet forget to even tell me I had a land raider crusader with a as a full load of terminators in it. Yet again I get to the end of the game and felt like I was making love from nothing at all. Only to find out I had around 700 hundred some odd points sitting out the whole time. All he said was " Ha ha Sorry, but hey you only lost because of some bad rolls ! That was a damn close game. " It was pretty close. Both of those games were very memorable however.