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.

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .

I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount

I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.

Its not optional as units gain judgment tokens by just playing the game. Even if you could choose not to use them it would be equivalent to playing a World eaters army and just "not charging" or tau and just "not shooting". Purposefully ignoring your own rules defeats the entire point of the army and the game... like i said before comes off wrong. Nobody is going to enjoy a game knowing you had to ignore a core rule just for them to have a chance.

It might be possible to take a league that is very weak with unoptimized units but honestly against some armies I just don't think that would be enough because of the way their core rules work. Wouldn't be an issue if it was a competitive league but I'm having a hard time seeing how this army wont stomp 99% of casually built armies

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .

I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount

I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad? They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

The army works because of the judgment tokens. Without them it stops not only being OP, which is questionable LoV are very good at stomping out worse and bad armies like no other army, but the top of the top ones, but it just becomes bad.

Making people not use their army rules is top of WAAC. If you don't care about winning, why would anyone try to change someone elses army rules? That is like someone telling me I can't use throws in a match or some other dude can't do 3 points throws in basketball.

tneva82 wrote:
So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

It's not condescending to want to have a fun game with your opponent, and sometimes giving yourself a handicap will do that.

I've been playing Battletech as my primary game for the last year and a half. Early on, I was building crazy lists and exploring the options available, but lately, I haven't been going crazy, even building lists whose synergy is questionable at best. And actually, I've been having fun with them. Part of that is because I'm not caring what happens to the units so I'll toss in to more risky (read "more-stupid-than-smart") maneuvers just for that story-telling opportunity.

 Charistoph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

It's not condescending to want to have a fun game with your opponent, and sometimes giving yourself a handicap will do that.

I've been playing Battletech as my primary game for the last year and a half. Early on, I was building crazy lists and exploring the options available, but lately, I haven't been going crazy, even building lists whose synergy is questionable at best. And actually, I've been having fun with them. Part of that is because I'm not caring what happens to the units so I'll toss in to more risky (read "more-stupid-than-smart") maneuvers just for that story-telling opportunity.

I consider not net listing and playing entire rules wrong as two different things. I’m never one to net list but I play the rules as they are. For instance if someone was playing chess against me and said “I’ll move all my pieces like they are pawns to give you a chance” I’d be rather offended. I wouldn’t read a chess strategy guide before the game… but I’m also not gonna move my knight like it’s a pawn

Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

Asmodios wrote:
I consider not net listing and playing entire rules wrong as two different things. I’m never one to net list but I play the rules as they are. For instance if someone was playing chess against me and said “I’ll move all my pieces like they are pawns to give you a chance” I’d be rather offended. I wouldn’t read a chess strategy guide before the game… but I’m also not gonna move my knight like it’s a pawn

But sometimes forgetting to use optional rule bonuses isn't necessarily playing the rules wrong, either, but adding to that handicap.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.

Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.

Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.

The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.

Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.

The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".

And you consider the rules to be entirely unmutable? Because FAQs and errata exist to alter rules if they're not considered fair, it's not unreasonable for any group or players to apply their own in mutual agreement.

Your opponent isn't going to learn to get better if you just spoon feed them easier games, it's better they're cognisant of the changes and why so they can improve and slowly ramp up the difficulty if needed.

Either way, the point is Votann have some mechanics which will be very punishing to some armies in particular and I think its common opinion that the auto wounding and/or tokens needs some tweaking.

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

You mad?

Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.

I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.

Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.

The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".

And you consider the rules to be entirely unmutable? Because FAQs and errata exist to alter rules if they're not considered fair, it's not unreasonable for any group or players to apply their own in mutual agreement.

Your opponent isn't going to learn to get better if you just spoon feed them easier games, it's better they're cognisant of the changes and why so they can improve and slowly ramp up the difficulty if needed.

Either way, the point is Votann have some mechanics which will be very punishing to some armies in particular and I think its common opinion that the auto wounding and/or tokens needs some tweaking.

I am not making up rules for a game I dont own, if you and your friend wants to house rule go for it, but going online and saying "just house rule" is not the norm and you know that. Saying the official game devs patching a game is not the same as house rules too, and i dont understand how you think its the same thing at all.

I think they are too strong too, but only a few things, you play with more troops and no HLFs its a completely different game and not at all too strong. The rules for the army are strong bc 3-4 units can abuse them, I do think they should change too but you need to look at it as a whole, what if someone doesn't want 3 HLFs and would rahter play Thunderkyn? Now those JTs are not strong enough. EDIT: So if i play you and play down with no HLFs but 15 Thunderkyns, are you going to make me house rule now?

But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.

It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.

It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"

House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.

It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"

House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.

Because this isn't in the context of pick up games. The discussion originated from someone saying they were worried about ruining their groups escalation league. You know a regular play group where you know the players and can discuss a house rule to maintain over time.

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.

I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.

It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"

House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.

Because this isn't in the context of pick up games. The discussion originated from someone saying they were worried about ruining their groups escalation league. You know a regular play group where you know the players and can discuss a house rule to maintain over time.

Even more so, who takes meta lists to league games? Not the average player. Have you seen how good the "army" box is? its terrible, there are 30+ BatReps out right now and the first 5 that I watched all LoV players lost. Bc even though the army is godly strong, its not warriors that are strong lol. The rest of the army isn't even out till late Oct early Nov, why worry about the broken units when balance slate could hit them between now and then.

I feel "taking a weaker list" is more normal than "I'm going to ignore the rules in the book and insert my own".

Ultimately if its your "friendly local escalation league", massive differences in player skill/interest is usually going to be a bigger issue than faction choice.

Tyel wrote:
I feel "taking a weaker list" is more normal than "I'm going to ignore the rules in the book and insert my own".

Ultimately if its your "friendly local escalation league", massive differences in player skill/interest is usually going to be a bigger issue than faction choice.

I don't disagree on any of those points, but I didn't like any solution that wasn't "pick bad units" being branded as bad sportsmanship to solve a potential issue.

Tyel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.

It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.

What other metric would you use?

For starters, as someone else mentioned, using sub-faction and unit appearance might be the easiest 'next parameters' to use. But beyond that there are other condiderations like "Can unit X adequately perform it's thematic role?" Like, Genestealers could be a popular unit and show up in competetive lists, but if they're still not good at killing marines in CC, that's also a balance fail. If Ork Tankbustas suck at killing tanks, that's a fail regardless of whether they're competetive or not.

A good current example is Bolters and Lasguns vs. Orks both being 5+ to Wound. It's goofy regardless of tourney results.

The original premise was just doing it, obviously anyone can sit down and have a discussion with their opponent and work out whatever they want. That will be cool regardless of what it is because it is a friendly agreement.

So aside from the video about the bezerkers from AUspex tactics, I haven't heard anything about them, ie stats/cost. Are they really the most broken thing ever, or is it still the land fortress?

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

The chapter titles are glorious!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So aside from the video about the bezerkers from AUspex tactics, I haven't heard anything about them, ie stats/cost. Are they really the most broken thing ever, or is it still the land fortress?

22ppm, or 110 for 5, they are Str and Toughness 5 with 3 attacks, and has Fight on death if they have not fought yet.

2 main weapons, Thunder hammer basically, and a better Power axe. The Thunderhammer is just that, x2, -3, 3D, which makes them Str10.
The Plasma Axe is 2 modes, +1, -3, 2D, or User, -3, 1D double the attacks.

The Plasma Axe is going to be the go to, bc Str 6 doesn't matter when you auto wound on 4+, if something has -1D well it doesn't matter bc you just doubled your attacks as well. 5 of them with 6 attacks is 30, 15 of them will auto wound, you re-roll, now 7.5 more will auto wound for at least 22 wounds, the other 7.5 you still roll to wound which is lets say 2 more, 24, -3 wounds against a Redemptor Dread, the Dread gets AoC making it a 5+ save, you still do 14-15 wounds to the Dread killing it.

Thunder hammers will only be 15 attacks, but into say a knight.... 7.5 auto wound, with re-rolls it'll be a total of 11.25 (so 11) the other 5 hits will wound on 3's so 3 more wounds, thats 14 wounds, get a 5+ save for a total of 4.6 saves (lets say they got 5 saves), that still is 27 wounds to the knight, which the chance of killing it. You could also with a Grim if within 12" remove that Invul.

EightFoldPath wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

The chapter titles are glorious!

Now THAT is an extreme position. They may be entirely right, but they aren't covering all of the important factors.

I do have some sympathy though despite not currently playing 40k; AoS has been dealing with the ability to deal mortal wounds on hit rolls of 6 being both rampant and problematic since launch. More units in AoS deal mortal wounds via attacks than units which have rend -2* or better which is fundamentally absurd. Now MWs in AoS don't have the same relative lethality--saves are lower and what would have an invul in 40k has a FnP instead. But it still goes to show that this is a matter GW rules writing clearly does not understand, IMO of course.

*in 40k terms that is roughly analogous to AP -3

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

The chapter titles are glorious!

Now THAT is an extreme position. They may be entirely right, but they aren't covering all of the important factors.

I do have some sympathy though despite not currently playing 40k; AoS has been dealing with the ability to deal mortal wounds on hit rolls of 6 being both rampant and problematic since launch. More units in AoS deal mortal wounds via attacks than units which have rend -2* or better which is fundamentally absurd. Now MWs in AoS don't have the same relative lethality--saves are lower and what would have an invul in 40k has a FnP instead. But it still goes to show that this is a matter GW rules writing clearly does not understand, IMO of course.

*in 40k terms that is roughly analogous to AP -3

AoS is my main now, i travelf or GTs for it instead of 40k AoS is in much a better balance spot by far.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?

Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.