|
LingcodKilla posted:Crutches are for the weak. I much liked the old build your chapter rules instead of having to take a character. This I agree with. I love characters but don't like them being mandatory or the main way to give an army flavor. I'd rather have build your own chapter rules too.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:I guess I have a deep hatred of "opponents permission" rules because I've played with too many shitlords who would never give permission for anything they thought might beat them. Ya the permission thing was always dumb for that very reason. I rarely ever got to play my old Dark Eldar humonculous hero because of that, can't even remember his name it's been so long since 3rd. Nowadays I dislike using hero's since I prefer my own dudes but I have no beef with other people wanting to use their's. Making them required is dumb as all hell though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yeah...thats an absolutely bizzare choice and I'm trying to understand the logic there. Were non-triumverate ynnari lists really breaking the game? They're selling loads of imperium triumvirate boxes because of cawl and maybe celestine, they're selling TONS of the space marine one because Guilliman is, and will continue to be in the new codex, an auto-take you'd be dumb not to have. They weren't selling eldar triumvirate boxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:This I agree with. I love characters but don't like them being mandatory or the main way to give an army flavor. I'd rather have build your own chapter rules too. Agreed. It's why I was so excited when I thought you could mix and match chapter tactic elements. It could make some fluffy combos. Combining the Imperial Fist cover busting tactic with the Raven Guard's ambush and the Black Templar's Heroic Intervention warlord trait gives you a chapter designed to put down insurrections. They traverse the cities so expertly that they seem to come out of nowhere, then expertly navigate around the resulting cover to smoke out their enemies. When pressed, their bannerman charges into combat to rally troops which are under attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Whole lot of people have arrived to tell everyone they're having bad fun
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Whole lot of people have arrived to tell everyone they're having bad fun So stop posting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:So stop posting? Are you still very very sad that some Marines are bigger than others? I think you managed two posts in a row without mentioning it so maybe you're recovering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Are you still very very sad that some Marines are bigger than others? I think you managed two posts in a row without mentioning it so maybe you're recovering. Yes I am. What's your point? I dont have closure yet on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Whole lot of people have arrived to tell everyone they're having bad fun Were you anxious to be the first one to make the 'accusing others of accusing others of having fun wrong' post for this particular discussion of part of the game? You let fly a bit early tbh, it was pretty civil. e: to actually add to it, named characters are kinda cool but by and large they're not interesting enough to me (fluff wise anyway) to actually want to use any. eSportseXpert fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Jul 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Agreed. It's why I was so excited when I thought you could mix and match chapter tactic elements. It could make some fluffy combos. Combining the Imperial Fist cover busting tactic with the Raven Guard's ambush and the Black Templar's Heroic Intervention warlord trait gives you a chapter designed to put down insurrections. They traverse the cities so expertly that they seem to come out of nowhere, then expertly navigate around the resulting cover to smoke out their enemies. When pressed, their bannerman charges into combat to rally troops which are under attack. People were able to mix chapter tactics or bonuses in 7th edition by jamming characters from one chapter into a squad from another. It was really, really bad. Allowing people to mix and match special rules with no cost or penalty would just lead to really broken stuff - there would be too many combinations to playtest. I'm glad with the restrictions announced - you can run a cross Imperium force in a single detachment and forego chapter tactics, or gain chapter tactics but either find the points for a patrol detachment or lose a CP to get the special snowflake you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
I hate Codex: Special Characters because the only one who doesn't look like a scrunt next to the Biglys is Robby G, and his 40k model is atrocious. My connection is too slow to pull up the awesome Heresy model's price, but it would probably make me weep, especially because I'd feel obligated to model in the Emperor's sword somehow
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
FiestaNinja posted:Were you anxious to be the first one to make the 'accusing others of accusing others of having fun wrong' post for this particular discussion of part of the game? You let fly a bit early tbh, it was pretty civil. Idk maybe drive-by posting over breakfast isn't ideal. I conceive of the game differently to (I guess) a lot of the thread because I don't give a poo poo about the fluff, or more accurately I don't think it has any place dictating what does and doesn't go into the toys on the table. Ultimately the various units are playing pieces for a game, and delineating these pieces as being fine but these ones require "opponent's permission" or whatever because it "feels wrong" to have this particular dude on the table at x points doesn't make sense to me. As chutche already said, the whole game is "opponent's permission" so marking out special characters as being a thing which requires extra special permission just sets off the more fevered nerd brains. I'm totally down with groups like adamantium|wang's which say "we prefer not to use them, we've all agreed this, so let's generally not." That's fine, you do you. It doesn't help that GW's design philosophy for special characters has been all over the place, from 2nd ed where they were apparently insanely good (I was 7 and not playing the game so I have no idea), to 3rd ed where they were largely terrible and gated in a weird null-space where you weren't generally expected to take them. I don't remember 4th but by 5th they'd become totally normal, we absolutely expect you'll include these, also they're the only way to get some kinds of builds to work (especially for Marines and variants). 6th and 7th passed me by but I think they were largely the same, and now we have 8th where they're probably in the best place they have for a while, except for possibly Guilliman who's undercosted (but this is a thing they have an actual mechanism in place for fixing even if they haven't managed to follow through on that yet). I think if anything, I've known too many people who have a very particular, restrictive, vision of the game, and think that vision should be imposed on everyone else who plays, and everyone who doesn't agree is a terrible person. It leads to a lot of very tiresome back and forth (ask me about the time I had a four-hour debate about tournament results and accidentally lost a shop all of its terrain). On the other hand, I'm totally on board with comp which in 40k is generally uncommon, or was, and done badly, which I imagine it still is. The Fantasy tournament scene was very good and self-organised and stuff like Guilliman + 6 Stormravens would have lasted for about a week before someone found a way to restrict it without straight up banning the list, whereas 40k players seem to twist themselves in knots over the idea of comp and you either end up with insane things like that Swedish comp system or really terrible poo poo which just creates new problems. Living Image fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jul 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
I think maybe you'd be happier playing chess than wargames with settings, friend. That said, were you not paying attention a few hours ago when we were talking about GW having just put up new FAQ to address issues like flyer heavy lists appropriately without banning them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Yeah, for Super Serious wargaming (that is still well fun) there's good systems a plenty with modern rules and exciting interactions where you don't wait an hour to do anything but roll to see how many of your dudes you remove from the table. 40ks is just an excuse to use Space Barbies in the fluff world and still function while tanked af. I mean, you do you an all, but when you strip the fluff away there's a system that makes monopoly look complicated combined with a horrid mashing of balance and pay-to-win. It's not an un-fun game, but only if you try and ignore the game parts. This is the Emperor's actual opinion, btw. In case you were wondering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I think maybe you'd be happier playing chess than wargames with settings, friend. Why? I like building and painting toys and using those toys to play games, I just don't see a particular reason that the fluff should change what the toys do on the table. I literally linked the FAQ and commented on the appropriateness of the change so maybe you're the one not paying attention? I don't think it goes far enough - personally I'd change Airborne so that units with it don't restrict shooting at characters as well - but I appreciate that they're trying and made a sensible ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
I dream of a time where someone who sees the minis as pieces on a board to play a competitive game with can play 40K against someone who wants to build a story with the models he thinks look cool and good and they can both have a fun and fulfilling time just by using the rules straight out of the box. Maybe by 13th edition?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Pidgin Englishman posted:Yeah, for Super Serious wargaming (that is still well fun) there's good systems a plenty with modern rules and exciting interactions where you don't wait an hour to do anything but roll to see how many of your dudes you remove from the table. Agreed. The only reason I play 40k is for the setting, the fluff and the narrative forging stuff. The game is a bit of a clusterfuck if you remove those parts. There are far more elegantly designed wargame systems out there if you're just concerned with game mechanics. They don't have nearly the same popularity though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I dream of a time where someone who sees the minis as pieces on a board to play a competitive game with can play 40K against someone who wants to build a story with the models he thinks look cool and good and they can both have a fun and fulfilling time just by using the rules straight out of the box. How can you build a story without the cooperation of your opponent though? It's no fun talking about your characters with a brick wall who cares only for numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I dream of a time where someone who sees the minis as pieces on a board to play a competitive game with can play 40K against someone who wants to build a story with the models he thinks look cool and good and they can both have a fun and fulfilling time just by using the rules straight out of the box. There will be no 13th edition, as the Water Wars will have ended the decadent Western lifestyles which allow us to argue about the best way to push plastic toys around a table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Can't we all just talk about how cool Sydonian Dragoons look? Seriously one of the coolest models in the game and I need a bunch for my Admec.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Can't we all just talk about how cool Sydonian Dragoons look? Seriously one of the coolest models in the game and I need a bunch for my Admec. Jesus, I know. Some AdMech guy somewhere said, "yes, we are going to have a giant robotic chicken piloted by a limbless gimp, surrounded by a cloud of incense, ridden by a man in shining plate armour carrying a cattle prod longer than he is tall, and we are going to use it to cavalry charge the enemy. This is a good idea. This is how warfare in the year 41,000 should be." And the best part is that thought process nails the entire Adeptus Mechanicus thought process to a T. That model alone is why I'm collecting AdMech.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Jesus, I know. Some AdMech guy somewhere said, "yes, we are going to have a giant robotic chicken piloted by a limbless gimp, surrounded by a cloud of incense, ridden by a man in shining plate armour carrying a cattle prod longer than he is tall, and we are going to use it to cavalry charge the enemy. This is a good idea. This is how warfare in the year 41,000 should be." I wanna get some Kataphron once I'm done painting my last squad of Vanguard but I keep hearing the Dragoon temptress's seductive song. I have no idea if it will even do good on the board, especially solo, but it's just so rad!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Yeah. Call me biased, but I'm partial to mine over this one, and mine is lacking skulls. Yeah see thats a primaris chaplain. Think I'm gonna live dangerously and try to use my saw to transpose a few more of the bits from the old mini like the knee skull and ream of scripture. Looking forward to making the first of my objective markers with the spare banner too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Can't we all just talk about how cool Sydonian Dragoons look? Seriously one of the coolest models in the game and I need a bunch for my Admec. I was absent for AdMech becoming a thing so I have no idea what they're like on the table but they look extremely cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Pidgin Englishman posted:This is the Emperor's actual opinion, btw. In case you were wondering. What?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Jesus, I know. Some AdMech guy somewhere said, "yes, we are going to have a giant robotic chicken piloted by a limbless gimp, surrounded by a cloud of incense, ridden by a man in shining plate armour carrying a cattle prod longer than he is tall, and we are going to use it to cavalry charge the enemy. This is a good idea. This is how warfare in the year 41,000 should be." Don't forget that there's a near-perpetual motion engine inside it, that they don't have the instruction manual for because the guy who invented it didn't share how it worked before he died. So, since they're too scared to turn it off in case it doesn't turn back on again, they store Dragoons and Ironstriders either in huge circular barracks, where the walkers are constantly turning and the riders have to be lowered on with a huge crane, or on huge treadmills to (very inefficiently) transfer that energy into other machinery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Why? I like building and painting toys and using those toys to play games, I just don't see a particular reason that the fluff should change what the toys do on the table. So basically you think we are playing the wrong way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Why? I like building and painting toys and using those toys to play games, I just don't see a particular reason that the fluff should change what the toys do on the table. Spotted the Ultramarines player
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Hummingbird James posted:Don't forget that there's a near-perpetual motion engine inside it, that they don't have the instruction manual for because the guy who invented it didn't share how it worked before he died. So, since they're too scared to turn it off in case it doesn't turn back on again, they store Dragoons and Ironstriders either in huge circular barracks, where the walkers are constantly turning and the riders have to be lowered on with a huge crane, or on huge treadmills to (very inefficiently) transfer that energy into other machinery. Jesus gently caress I love 40k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Hummingbird James posted:Don't forget that there's a near-perpetual motion engine inside it, that they don't have the instruction manual for because the guy who invented it didn't share how it worked before he died. So, since they're too scared to turn it off in case it doesn't turn back on again, they store Dragoons and Ironstriders either in huge circular barracks, where the walkers are constantly turning and the riders have to be lowered on with a huge crane, or on huge treadmills to (very inefficiently) transfer that energy into other machinery. Someone should make this into a GD Diorama with a bunch of those fuckers inside giant hamster wheels
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Endman posted:How can you build a story without the cooperation of your opponent though? It's no fun talking about your characters with a brick wall who cares only for numbers. So fluff players are like those on the Left who keep pushing the narrative harder and harder until everything falls apart, and even people who are in the middle and want a solid ruleset that is balanced around unit selection are pushed into the fringe? <political cartoon> EDIT: Does that make tournament players literal Nazis?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
You are the south park of 'hams.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
This is the family guy of warhammer threads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:So basically you think we are playing the wrong way? I think it's a fine way to play and if followed through can lead to cool themed modelling and painting (which I do care about), I just find it tiresome when fluffy players try to impose their ideas about what is and isn't fluffy on other people's stuff. It's the difference between two players agreeing on restrictions as a mutual thing, and one player deciding unilaterally that there's extra rules which aren't stated and you're a bad person for not following.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Guillimans versus guillimans is non-fluffy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Ultramarines were a mistake
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
One of them needs a goatee
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
ijyt posted:Guillimans versus guillimans is non-fluffy. It means one is an imposter!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It means one is an imposter! Grouchoman
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Bizarroboute
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:25
|
|