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.

 Blndmage wrote:
I really wish actions had more use.

Yeah, i feel its been wasted potential so far.

Give generic actions that arent tied to scenarios (suppressive fire, anyone?)

Make scenarios that require actions be made by specific unit types (Infantry,elite, monster/vehicles come to mind)

Its a great way to lower lethality but is mostly just dodged by players either by doing them on pure chaff or by being able to do an action and still shoot.

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

IMHO it was a much better game when it was just epic battles in the 41st millennium. instead of now where i see charts and tables reflecting the effectiveness of points/performance of dice averages between unit A and unit B as to which one is better to take. instead of-this faction would use unit B because that is how they fight-, and then your job on the table as the general commanding the force is how to work that to your advantage using terrain and tactics.

The rose tinted glasses are strong in this post

Perhaps you could say that if you are far removed from the editions by years of lack of first hand experience. for my part my FLGS has a strong active community of oldhammer players and we still regularly (nearly every weekend) get in games of primarily mixed 3rd-5th ed.

Hands down i can say without reservation that it is a far better game to play than current 40K. there is no churn there is no chasing codex creep, there is no meta, there are no balance passes or seasons, GW will never mess with it again. Above all it is epic 40K battles and it is fun for all involved. In about the last month we have had the following games-
.7th ed admech VS 4th ed DIY marines
.7th ed admech VS 3rd ed IG armored company
.3rd ed IG armored company VS 5th ed IG
.5th ed dark eldar VS 5th ed IG.

I started in late 3rd/early 4th. I was that era, thanks.

And those games sound absolutely awful and more unbalanced than current 40k, which is pretty impressive.

You did not just seriously say this. At least throw out the "anecdotal" card but don't try to pretend you have a better memory of how an edition you last played 20 years ago plays compared to someone who played it last week.

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:


I do NOT play just to win, i play for social activity, to have fun with friends, roll dice and move models. the lore of the universe is what drives and keeps me playing many game systems including oldhammer.

Then you don't even need the rules you're defending. Just make gun noises and whomever makes the best noises wins.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

IMHO it was a much better game when it was just epic battles in the 41st millennium. instead of now where i see charts and tables reflecting the effectiveness of points/performance of dice averages between unit A and unit B as to which one is better to take. instead of-this faction would use unit B because that is how they fight-, and then your job on the table as the general commanding the force is how to work that to your advantage using terrain and tactics.

The rose tinted glasses are strong in this post

Perhaps you could say that if you are far removed from the editions by years of lack of first hand experience. for my part my FLGS has a strong active community of oldhammer players and we still regularly (nearly every weekend) get in games of primarily mixed 3rd-5th ed.

Hands down i can say without reservation that it is a far better game to play than current 40K. there is no churn there is no chasing codex creep, there is no meta, there are no balance passes or seasons, GW will never mess with it again. Above all it is epic 40K battles and it is fun for all involved. In about the last month we have had the following games-
.7th ed admech VS 4th ed DIY marines
.7th ed admech VS 3rd ed IG armored company
.3rd ed IG armored company VS 5th ed IG
.5th ed dark eldar VS 5th ed IG.

I started in late 3rd/early 4th. I was that era, thanks.

And those games sound absolutely awful and more unbalanced than current 40k, which is pretty impressive.

You did not just seriously say this. At least throw out the "anecdotal" card but don't try to pretend you have a better memory of how an edition you last played 20 years ago plays compared to someone who played it last week.

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?

Sure, it's a slow day, please enlighten us. Share with us your great wisdom concerning a version of a game you don't play.

I thought the thread heading would be about articulated models and working missile launchers!

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?

It is a reasonable match when you play all the codexes within the framework of 5th edition core rules which is what we do. they are completely compatible since they are all based on the same core rules. a few house rules (IE only using 5th ed USRs, using the fixed movement profiles that existed for all unit types all through 3rd-5th ed etc..) and all the problems with the game are removed. Unlike you i have active and current experience, not conjecture about what the game would be like. additionally we have a group of something like a dozen players who are playing the older editions and having fun doing it, who find the old rules not only reasonable but functional. with tactical game play for a miniature war game system that both works and adds an extra layer of depth that encourages lore/thematic based play.

you are free to have whatever opinion you want about the games editions, however it has no bearing on the reality i am currently experiencing in real time.

 aphyon wrote:

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?

It is a reasonable match when you play all the codexes within the framework of 5th edition core rules which is what we do. they are completely compatible since they are all based on the same core rules. a few house rules (IE only using 5th ed USRs, using the fixed movement profiles that existed for all unit types all through 3rd-5th ed etc..) and all the problems with the game are removed. Unlike you i have active and current experience, not conjecture about what the game would be like. additionally we have a group of something like a dozen players who are playing the older editions and having fun doing it, who find the old rules not only reasonable but functional. with tactical game play for a miniature war game system that both works and adds an extra layer of depth that encourages lore/thematic based play.

you are free to have whatever opinion you want about the games editions, however it has no bearing on the reality i am currently experiencing in real time.

I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field? In other words being horrendously awful people all-round. :p

 aphyon wrote:

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?

It is a reasonable match when you play all the codexes within the framework of 5th edition core rules which is what we do. they are completely compatible since they are all based on the same core rules. a few house rules (IE only using 5th ed USRs, using the fixed movement profiles that existed for all unit types all through 3rd-5th ed etc..) and all the problems with the game are removed.

LOL
Compatible core rules to write codices =/= compatible games between different editions of codices. Lemme guess, your local player with the 3rd edition codex for Daemon Hunters had a close game with the guy running Skitarii?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I can find the rules for older editions online. Do you expect some breakdown of why 4th edition Marines aren't a reasonable match for a 7th edition codex of any kind?

It is a reasonable match when you play all the codexes within the framework of 5th edition core rules which is what we do. they are completely compatible since they are all based on the same core rules. a few house rules (IE only using 5th ed USRs, using the fixed movement profiles that existed for all unit types all through 3rd-5th ed etc..) and all the problems with the game are removed. Unlike you i have active and current experience, not conjecture about what the game would be like. additionally we have a group of something like a dozen players who are playing the older editions and having fun doing it, who find the old rules not only reasonable but functional. with tactical game play for a miniature war game system that both works and adds an extra layer of depth that encourages lore/thematic based play.

you are free to have whatever opinion you want about the games editions, however it has no bearing on the reality i am currently experiencing in real time.

I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field? In other words being horrendously awful people all-round. :p

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

Never mentioned either caac, banning things or making 40k 'good', but you know, keep tilting at those windmills. You're good at it. Thumbs up!

And for the record, there's a massive gulf between two players collaboratively game-building, (or even just staying away from known toxic builds of older editions )and caac. The latter is just as bad as competitive-at-all-cost though this isn't the thread to dive down into that.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

Never mentioned either caac, banning things or making 40k 'good', but you know, keep tilting at those windmills. You're good at it. Thumbs up!

Literally what I quoted:
"I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field?"
If you have to fix the game via modifying rules and telling people what they can and can't do, and then tell people that the game is fine when you do that.....it's not a good game. As well, the CAAC comes from your "reasonable" comment.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

Never mentioned either caac, banning things or making 40k 'good', but you know, keep tilting at those windmills. You're good at it. Thumbs up!

Literally what I quoted:
"I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field?"
If you have to fix the game via modifying rules and telling people what they can and can't do, and then tell people that the game is fine when you do that.....it's not a good game.

I'd say that's how the majority of players handled any edition of 40K to fix rules oversights, balance issues or bad scenario rules.

Balance for casual and balance for competitive are two very different things. GW has been focusing on balance for competitive, which is why communities like r/warhammerCompetitive and Goonhammer are generally really happy with the current state of the game.

Dakka definitely skews towards casual/narrative play, and a thread like this is an even greater filter for anti-competitive types.

It's pointless arguing about which style of play is better. It's even more exceptionally stupid to attack each other over it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Literally what I quoted:
"I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field?"
If you have to fix the game via modifying rules and telling people what they can and can't do, and then tell people that the game is fine when you do that.....it's not a good game. As well, the CAAC comes from your "reasonable" comment.

He says whilst tilting at more windmills.

Then your reading comprehension is poor, even when you quote me twice and project inaccurately even more both times! Where did I say it was 'fine'?

Where did I say 40k was a 'good' game? Quote me. We all know it's a clunky poorly balanced mess, at best.

And your caac comment is also horrendously misplaced and innaccurate. Retract it. Ill repeat - I'm not caac. And resent the projection, thank you very much. suggesting staying away from.the broken builds is not caac, especially when you want to see the other 96% of gsme options that aren't a tournament build(not that theres anything wromg with them either, especially agsinst similarly powerful builds). Everything has its place.

I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field? In other words being horrendously awful people all-round. :p

Since you never know which codex you might be fighting a well rounded army that can deal with a bit of everything is usually ideal, unless somebody requests something specific. even superheavies are not that big of a deal since we are using the old IA rules when they were made for games of regular 40K.

As far as the gimmick army lists go, back in the time when 4th and 5th were the current edition we had a guy who liked to copy/paste the tournament lists to throw at us. so it isn't anything we have trouble with-lash prince, nidzilla, one of our current chaos players runs the "dreaded" 3.5 iron warriors list. it is always a good fight i have beaten it several times.

Turns out obliterators do not like grav cannons.

Most often though people tend to favor thematic lists. 3rd ed imperial guard armored company is a popular one. i had a fantastic game a couple months back where i put my 3.5 dark angels up against a 5th ed blood angels armored company/mechanized styled themed list.

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

It is no surprise that you cannot understand a group of players who have been at this for decades can look at the game and decide the core 5th ed rules work best in most cases but can also look at things like snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing from 7th and think hey that would make a great addition to 5th to really add some interesting game play, or conversely realize the 5th ed wound allocation rule is dumb and decide to use the 4th ed version instead.

And for the record, there's a massive gulf between two players collaboratively game-building, (or even just staying away from known toxic builds of older editions )and caac.

I'd say that's how the majority of players handled any edition of 40K to fix rules oversights, balance issues or bad scenario rules.

indeed, our group sat down one game night and spent a couple hours deciding which edition had the best overall core mechanics and "fixing" the few items that were a problem by using the rules from a previous or later edition. We then codified it in an official 5th ed rules set with a list of those minor changes. It makes every codex compatible and also makes the game quite fun.

 aphyon wrote:

I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field? In other words being horrendously awful people all-round. :p

Since you never know which codex you might be fighting a well rounded army that can deal with a bit of everything is usually ideal, unless somebody requests something specific. even superheavies are not that big of a deal since we are using the old IA rules when they were made for games of regular 40K.

As far as the gimmick army lists go, back in the time when 4th and 5th were the current edition we had a guy who liked to copy/paste the tournament lists to throw at us. so it isn't anything we have trouble with-lash prince, nidzilla, one of our current chaos players runs the "dreaded" 3.5 iron warriors list. it is always a good fight i have beaten it several times.

Turns out obliterators do not like grav cannons.

Most often though people tend to favor thematic lists. 3rd ed imperial guard armored company is a popular one. i had a fantastic game a couple months back where i put my 3.5 dark angels up against a 5th ed blood angels armored company/mechanized styled themed list.

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

It is no surprise that you cannot understand a group of players who have been at this for decades can look at the game and decide the core 5th ed rules work best in most cases but can also look at things like snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing from 7th and think hey that would make a great addition to 5th to really add some interesting game play, or conversely realize the 5th ed wound allocation rule is dumb and decide to use the 4th ed version instead.

And for the record, there's a massive gulf between two players collaboratively game-building, (or even just staying away from known toxic builds of older editions )and caac.

I'd say that's how the majority of players handled any edition of 40K to fix rules oversights, balance issues or bad scenario rules.

indeed, our group sat down one game night and spent a couple hours deciding which edition had the best overall core mechanics and "fixing" the few items that were a problem by using the rules from a previous or later edition. We then codified it in an official 5th ed rules set with a list of those minor changes. It makes every codex compatible and also makes the game quite fun.

AKA you proved my point. If you take only parts you want to see and take out stuff you just don't like AND tell people what they're allowed to run, you're not playing the supposed "tactical" game you're claiming you are. You're playing "me and my friend's game we played a long time ago and cant let go of it", not an older edition that, as you claimed, is more tactically in depth.

For aphyon to have proved your point, you would first have to make a point - not just lash out on reflex at someone who has found a way of playing (and a group of players) that they enjoy, that just happens to be different from how you think things should be.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

AKA you proved my point. If you take only parts you want to see and take out stuff you just don't like AND tell people what they're allowed to run, you're not playing the supposed "tactical" game you're claiming you are. You're playing "me and my friend's game we played a long time ago and cant let go of it", not an older edition that, as you claimed, is more tactically in depth.

Are you making the claim that GW's rules writing has always been perfect? And that GWs balance has been perfect? Are you making the claim that modifying the game in any way is sullying the absolute perfection of GWs products?

That appears to be a corollary of your accusations here.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

AKA you proved my point. If you take only parts you want to see and take out stuff you just don't like AND tell people what they're allowed to run, you're not playing the supposed "tactical" game you're claiming you are. You're playing "me and my friend's game we played a long time ago and cant let go of it", not an older edition that, as you claimed, is more tactically in depth.

You don’t seem to have a point.

40k has always been best played with house rules. Literally every edition. Often times because one or more core rules straight up do not work without some slight tweaks.

I can only assume your (attempted) point is that any iteration of modified 40k isn’t ‘real’ 40k and should be dismissed because it’s not what the competitive scene uses…. To which I’d point out that the same thing has existed in the competitive scene. Forever. ITC was a multi-edition structure of house rules to make tournaments actually semi playable. Rule of 3 was a house rule for tournaments to, surprise surprise, make 40k remotely playable for anything other than elder flyer spam.

AFAIK 9th is the first edition to ever not have house rules built into the tournament scene; and that’s entirely because GW is actively collaborating with dais tournament scene and allowing them to actively assist in writing said rules. Which is good on the one hand, and would be a lot better if 9th ed wasn’t a dumpster fire of an edition.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

 aphyon wrote:

I presume you're also not inflicting the most broken builds of those eras on your mates, and you know, doing things like being reasonable in what you field? In other words being horrendously awful people all-round. :p

Since you never know which codex you might be fighting a well rounded army that can deal with a bit of everything is usually ideal, unless somebody requests something specific. even superheavies are not that big of a deal since we are using the old IA rules when they were made for games of regular 40K.

As far as the gimmick army lists go, back in the time when 4th and 5th were the current edition we had a guy who liked to copy/paste the tournament lists to throw at us. so it isn't anything we have trouble with-lash prince, nidzilla, one of our current chaos players runs the "dreaded" 3.5 iron warriors list. it is always a good fight i have beaten it several times.

Turns out obliterators do not like grav cannons.

Most often though people tend to favor thematic lists. 3rd ed imperial guard armored company is a popular one. i had a fantastic game a couple months back where i put my 3.5 dark angels up against a 5th ed blood angels armored company/mechanized styled themed list.

You mean being CAAC makes it look like it's a good game? "Nooooo the game totally works you're just not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, oh and A, B, and C".

The fact you bought that just now is great.

It is no surprise that you cannot understand a group of players who have been at this for decades can look at the game and decide the core 5th ed rules work best in most cases but can also look at things like snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing from 7th and think hey that would make a great addition to 5th to really add some interesting game play, or conversely realize the 5th ed wound allocation rule is dumb and decide to use the 4th ed version instead.

And for the record, there's a massive gulf between two players collaboratively game-building, (or even just staying away from known toxic builds of older editions )and caac.

I'd say that's how the majority of players handled any edition of 40K to fix rules oversights, balance issues or bad scenario rules.

indeed, our group sat down one game night and spent a couple hours deciding which edition had the best overall core mechanics and "fixing" the few items that were a problem by using the rules from a previous or later edition. We then codified it in an official 5th ed rules set with a list of those minor changes. It makes every codex compatible and also makes the game quite fun.

AKA you proved my point. If you take only parts you want to see and take out stuff you just don't like AND tell people what they're allowed to run, you're not playing the supposed "tactical" game you're claiming you are. You're playing "me and my friend's game we played a long time ago and cant let go of it", not an older edition that, as you claimed, is more tactically in depth.

That's a joke, right? Older editions obviously had more "tactical depth" than the glorified board game that is 8th/9th. Stacking buffs and trying to keep your units within some character's "reroll bubble" isn't "tactics".

An example of what I consider to be cool things that are fairly common to me:

My Seraphim deep strike, raining fire from above (Deadly Descent 1CP), take aim as they hit the ground and fire off a standard shot while singing to the Emperor that they may reach his foes and rend the survivors (Miracle dice to pass the 9" charge).

My Missionary utters a war hymn as he charges into battle with his Arcoflagellants, uttering the Extremis Trigger Word (1CP) as they hit the enemy in a storm of implanted blades and flails.

People who play competitively and even some casuals hate strats because of how they skew the all-important balance. That's fair, but if you actually use them as narrative tools at the appropriate moments, rather than using them exclusively as tools to win, they can be fluffy and cool as feth.

Crusade adds even more cool things- some of them are long term, like becoming a Saint, or conquering territory for influence in Commorragh, or taking over planets and even whole systems, but often they are more immediate.

For example, let's say you've got a unit of sisters, and in the game before, they let you down in some way- that's up to you; maybe they failed to defend an objective, maybe they all fell in the battle, maybe they failed to eliminate a key target... Whatever. They can swear a Penitent Oath and become Repentia. You play with them as Repentia until they've redeemed themselves, at which point they are purified and return to their sisters at a higher rank.

I don't doubt that 2K Matched competitive games have standard optimized builds that feel dull and detached from the lore but my small Crusade games tell better stories now than they have in any edition since Rogue Trader, which was almost an RPG with warbands of miniatures.

I applaud the efforts of earlier editions which at least paid some attention to campaign play by adding Kill Team and Combat Patrol protoype mini-games. In their time, they were fun and I imagine they still are, but they provide nothing like the amount of narrative content available via Crusade.

I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

This is my issue with stratagems for basic stuff. If popping smoke is a choice and a trade off, it makes all of zero sense that only one tank can do it. And that popping smoke somehow inhibits my Chaplain's ability to speak properly.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

If you try out Open Play, there's no cap on the number of time a phase you can use a stratagem, unless noted in the strat.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

If you try out Open Play, there's no cap on the number of time a phase you can use a stratagem, unless noted in the strat.

Sure there is: the amount of CP that I have available. Nah, I'll stick with HH and older editions. Where my guys have the abilities and equipment that I paid for all of the time, instead of trying to play "resource management", instead of worrying about unit placement, movement, etc. Also: Initiative, AV, Facings......soooo nice to have back

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

Here's the thing: if you box, you know not every punch is a knock out; if you fence you know not every hit is a point, if you shoot, you know that not every hit is a killshot.

Abilities that are always on are the things that are unfluffy, bs bolter porn. Moments of true heroism being rare? That's fluffy as feth. Not every soldier gets a medal.

And for what it's worth, it's hard to understand complaints about lethality and wombo combo in one breath, and a desire for those abilities to be always on in the next.

And finally, if anything, the cost system for strats is a greater cost, than paying for always-on abilities for points, and it's paid on the batlefield in response to emergent opportunities and obstacles as a part of the narrative rather than at the list building stage.

But I do acknowledge that all of these arguments are based on my own personal preferences, and that your personal preference is just as valid as mine- and again, in the environs of Dakka, certainly more common than mine. I express my preferences and opinions not in the hope of changing anyone's mind- that's impossible. Instead, I do it to point out that other points of view do exist. What is a forum if not a place for the expression of multiple perspectives?

May 10th be as fun for you as 9th was for me brother. The wheel spins.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

Here's the thing: if you box, you know not every punch is a knock out; if you fence you know not every hit is a point, if you shoot, you know that not every hit is a killshot.

Abilities that are always on are the things that are unfluffy, bs bolter porn. Moments of true heroism being rare? That's fluffy as feth. Not every soldier gets a medal.

And for what it's worth, it's hard to understand complaints about lethality and wombo combo in one breath, and a desire for those abilities to be always on in the next.

And finally, if anything, the cost system for strats is a greater cost, than paying for always-on abilities for points, and it's paid on the batlefield in response to emergent opportunities and obstacles as a part of the narrative rather than at the list building stage.

But I do acknowledge that all of these arguments are based on my own personal preferences, and that your personal preference is just as valid as mine- and again, in the environs of Dakka, certainly more common than mine. I express my preferences and opinions not in the hope of changing anyone's mind- that's impossible. Instead, I do it to point out that other points of view do exist. What is a forum if not a place for the expression of multiple perspectives?

May 10th be as fun for you as 9th was for me brother. The wheel spins.

All of my Night Lords having Night Vision for a standard price is "unfluffy"? Interesting POV, I must say.

And if the ability/equipment is too powerful to be always on? Change or remove it.

And I think that I'll just stick with HH. 10th is looking to be just as much of a burning dumpster fire as 8th and 9th have been.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

Here's the thing: if you box, you know not every punch is a knock out; if you fence you know not every hit is a point, if you shoot, you know that not every hit is a killshot.

Abilities that are always on are the things that are unfluffy, bs bolter porn. Moments of true heroism being rare? That's fluffy as feth. Not every soldier gets a medal.

And for what it's worth, it's hard to understand complaints about lethality and wombo combo in one breath, and a desire for those abilities to be always on in the next.

And finally, if anything, the cost system for strats is a greater cost, than paying for always-on abilities for points, and it's paid on the batlefield in response to emergent opportunities and obstacles as a part of the narrative rather than at the list building stage.

But I do acknowledge that all of these arguments are based on my own personal preferences, and that your personal preference is just as valid as mine- and again, in the environs of Dakka, certainly more common than mine. I express my preferences and opinions not in the hope of changing anyone's mind- that's impossible. Instead, I do it to point out that other points of view do exist. What is a forum if not a place for the expression of multiple perspectives?

May 10th be as fun for you as 9th was for me brother. The wheel spins.

All of my Night Lords having Night Vision for a standard price is "unfluffy"? Interesting POV, I must say.

And if the ability/equipment is too powerful to be always on? Change or remove it.

And I think that I'll just stick with HH. 10th is looking to be just as much of a burning dumpster fire as 8th and 9th have been.

Have fun with HH.
Since you don't play 40k, I guess I'll be seeing less of your posts in the 40k areas of Dakka then. Considering how much of a dumpster fire you see 8th and 9th to be.

 Blndmage wrote:
Have fun with HH.
Since you don't play 40k, I guess I'll be seeing less of your posts in the 40k areas of Dakka then. Considering how much of a dumpster fire you see 8th and 9th to be.

A lot of us who post but don't play would like to enjoy 40k but can't because the rules are trash. We're not going to stop posting because hall monitor Blndmage doesn't want us here.

I've been loving the game the last 2 editions, as do many I play with. Doesn't seem like trash to me.

 Blndmage wrote:
I've been loving the game the last 2 editions, as do many I play with. Doesn't seem like trash to me.

Some people like Mcdonald's and others prefer to cook at home, objectively only one of those groups is consuming good food. 40k is the fast food of TT Wargames, it's easy, it's everywhere, and it takes more effort to have anything else.

 Blndmage wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't hate stratagems because they screw up balance, I hate them because of how silly they are from a narrative standpoint. Only one tank can use its smoke launchers. Only one unit of Loyalist Scum remembers that it's "transhuman". Only one unit of CSM are VotLW (and the next turn another is). Yuck. Give me abilities and equipment that I pay for and stick with the unit. Trophies of Judgment. Bloody Murder. Preysight. I want my guys to be what they should be all the time, not just when I spend some ephemeral resource.

Here's the thing: if you box, you know not every punch is a knock out; if you fence you know not every hit is a point, if you shoot, you know that not every hit is a killshot.

Abilities that are always on are the things that are unfluffy, bs bolter porn. Moments of true heroism being rare? That's fluffy as feth. Not every soldier gets a medal.

And for what it's worth, it's hard to understand complaints about lethality and wombo combo in one breath, and a desire for those abilities to be always on in the next.

And finally, if anything, the cost system for strats is a greater cost, than paying for always-on abilities for points, and it's paid on the batlefield in response to emergent opportunities and obstacles as a part of the narrative rather than at the list building stage.

But I do acknowledge that all of these arguments are based on my own personal preferences, and that your personal preference is just as valid as mine- and again, in the environs of Dakka, certainly more common than mine. I express my preferences and opinions not in the hope of changing anyone's mind- that's impossible. Instead, I do it to point out that other points of view do exist. What is a forum if not a place for the expression of multiple perspectives?

May 10th be as fun for you as 9th was for me brother. The wheel spins.

All of my Night Lords having Night Vision for a standard price is "unfluffy"? Interesting POV, I must say.

And if the ability/equipment is too powerful to be always on? Change or remove it.

And I think that I'll just stick with HH. 10th is looking to be just as much of a burning dumpster fire as 8th and 9th have been.

Have fun with HH.
Since you don't play 40k, I guess I'll be seeing less of your posts in the 40k areas of Dakka then. Considering how much of a dumpster fire you see 8th and 9th to be.

I will and you will, except for these various "what you want to see in 40k" threads.

But that means I won't be having your back when the Aecus Decimus of the world come at you. Have fun with that. And your lack of thanks in those instances is noted.