PDA

View Full Version : Anti Powergaming House Rules



jigplums
03-12-2005, 16:40
What do you think of this anti-powergaming house rule

Whenever you pick a multiple choice from the same slot in the force organisation slot, other than troops, you must pay an additional cost of 25 points
so for example

Wraithlord with brightlance 120
wraithlord 2 with starcannon 145
wraithlord 3 with brightlance 170

or

landspeeder 80
landspeeder 105
landspeeder 130

this would encourage more variety in army lists and penalise overpowering combo's allowing a balanced list to still compete.

Dvalin
03-12-2005, 16:46
Hm. And what about armies that have a limited number of selections in an area? Tau, for instance, have only two viable elite choices -- or mechanized Tau is likely only to use Hammerheads for its heavy support, as a doctrinal point. What of, also, Necron? They're generally short on variety in some areas -- or, at least, have a rather marked lack of quality options in others.

Basically, it'd compel an army to use all possible choices in a given force organization slot -- regardless of the effectiveness of those units. Given that some lists have options that are utterly ineffectual (krootox?), I think this would be a bit much.

lord_blackfang
03-12-2005, 16:50
How about making all the options equally viable instead?

Pendragon
03-12-2005, 16:53
The one rule that works best for supressing powergaming, beardiness and other such things is:

"It is the prime objective for each player to make sure that the game will be enjoyable for both parties."

/Joel - rarely bothers to tally up the victory points nowadays, plans to do away with points limits and force organisation charts as anything but guidelines.

Lostanddamned
03-12-2005, 16:54
Landspeeders are three to a fast attack choice and meant to be used in squadrons.

Would you do the same with troops choies? no.

Backgroungd wise; IMO if anything having one makes itmore likely to have another.

A better way to prevent this is to just express dissaproval of the cheesey tactic.

jigplums
03-12-2005, 16:59
so is it not beardy for a tau list to have 3 hammerheads and 9 suits? personally i think it is.....necrons only need to max out on certain elites if they need to compete with powergamed lists. and if they wanted to they still have that option, it just costs them a few points.

for example many necron lists i see have 3x3 destroyers and 3 heavy destroyers. is that need for the necron list to have any chance of winning against a balanced list? no its only needed to face off lists of seercouncil, 3 wraithlord 3 vyper style lists, which would be just as hindered against each other and so would be in the same situation they are in now.

jigplums
03-12-2005, 17:00
Landspeeders are three to a fast attack choice and meant to be used in squadrons.

people can do this, they often don't. if they take 1 squadron they aren't being punished.

Orbital
03-12-2005, 17:13
I commend you for trying to come up with new solutions. The pwoergaming thing is a pain in the butt for all of us. Unfortunately, I think that powergaming is about attitude and philosophy, not rules-based limitations. You can't create a rule which tells someone to stop being an a**hole and, for that reason, someone will always find loopholes and exploit them.

But, as I said, I'm glad to see some thought and effort is being made at least. Brainstorming like this does help the overall climate of Warhammer gaming.

A neutral shade of black.
03-12-2005, 19:00
so is it not beardy for a tau list to have 3 hammerheads and 9 suits? personally i think it is...

Not only is it not beardy (in the case of mech Tau; static Tau max out on Broadsides instead), but the nine suits are also ineffective. There are some armies that just can't do without taking multiple choices of X. There's one army that can: Space Marines. :rolleyes:

Follow
03-12-2005, 19:29
I don't get it...

My balanced list really doesn't have a problem against any list at all, "beardy" or otherwise. I fight, I win (often), and I have fun with a list that your powergaming rules wouldn't touch. In fact, I even field an LRC which any powergamer will warn you against...

Maybe if your "balanced" lists aren't doing so well against the "powergamed" lists, you should take a look at just how "balanced" your list actually is. Maybe take another look at the tactical viability of your troops, etc.

Being fluffy is all wonderful and great, but do you think it's fluffy that your great general is taking a group of warriors with him that are ill-suited to the job ahead of them just because he's stuck on the dogma of his predecessors?

I don't change or modify rules to win a game, and it makes me crazy to think this is a viable option for some people to feel like they need to be put on "equal footing." It just makes no sense at all to me. Personally, I love seeing these tipsy and top heavy lists take the field against my balanced list. They're always the easiest games I play because I only need to concentrate on one achilles heel rather than try to out flank a foe that is actually prepared for me.




Follow :)

Xander-K
03-12-2005, 19:35
They're always the easiest games I play because I only need to concentrate on one achilles heel rather than try to out flank a foe that is actually prepared for me.

winning isn't fun, if its that easy... you end up with a dull more predictable game this way.

Wez
03-12-2005, 19:41
If you use 'house' rules, you're presumably playing against people you know. As such, why can't you just ask them not to power-game? If they refuse, don't play them at all.

Making it harder for a Win-At-All-Costs player to win won't stop the game being crap because he's not trying to make it fun.

-Wez

Grand Warlord
03-12-2005, 19:41
Personally, I dont see any point in changing the point cost ... if it really bothers you that much don't play that person anymore. I mean somehow my 1 HQ, 6 Troop, 2 HS list is beardy to some ... come on it's only 60 or so Space marines and a couple of termies/tanks ... but thats just me.

Follow
03-12-2005, 19:50
winning isn't fun, if its that easy... you end up with a dull more predictable game this way.

I agree with you in some ways. While it's certainly less entertaining to try to out-think my foe on the field and move better than him (if and when I ever get a female opponent, I'll switch that word to a gender neutral :p), I do still get a few tense moments. I just take comfort in the fact that I know I'm going to beat him in the end anyway, and probably teach a short lesson about army balance.

When I see a balanced list, I'm not sure at all that I'm going to win, and while that's a better prospect and lots more fun in my opinion to fight against, I don't really differentiate between them when playing. Most of my fun comes from cool stuff going on the field and heroics I can record from my characters I guess (though I hadn't really thought about it that way before this post).

So ya, I have no frustration whatsoever against a power list, the game is still fun to me no matter what I'm playing against. The player makes the difference, a fun player is great, a whiney one pisses me off. But I've been playing this game for nearly a decade now, I remember being annoyed earlier on by lists I figured I could never beat. Now though? They just don't exist anymore. :p

You want to feel like you're up against impossible odds? Play a game under 2nd ed or Rogue Trader rules. ;)




Follow :)

jigplums
03-12-2005, 22:47
i agree with what your saying and i also don't think there are unbeatable lists. I just think it would make the game a little more fun and mean we see a wider selection used in games.

Grand warlord. If both your hs are the same then sure you'd be penalised 25 points. Not a huge amount, but it adds up and so against a COPY PASTE list you'd be at an advantage.

lockmaster55
03-12-2005, 22:50
People who want to powergame will powergame, and they like to, so let them. Not many people will play against them, that can be their punishment. People who don't powergame won't as they don't want to, their reward can be lots of people wanting to play them :)

TzarNikolai
04-12-2005, 01:16
its a good idea. if some people just don't take the hint that they're armies are broken (i mean personally i play for fun, i'll power up my list a bit if i want to play in a tourney though)

however i don't really think this is the way to go. really it will just affect some armies more than others. eg. my grey slayers are now 25 points more for an already expensive pack. and i have to have 2 packs, but often go for 3.

and you know, don't call me a sore loser. i've played using powergamed lists before and it's just no fun. how do i know whether the win was me or wether it was just my army? really i can't take pride in a win if anyone else using my army who had no clue what they were doing could have pulled it off.

in tourney's i agree its a different matter, you enter to win (or look at the lovely painted armies) not to play some nice friendly games.

Icarus
04-12-2005, 01:34
Don't complain about power gamers. It only makes them feel important.

AgentZero
04-12-2005, 01:44
First off my store maintained a gaming area that accomodated upto 40 people. Primarily a comic store , we also maintained stock in CCGs,wargames, RPGs, anime ,sports cards,posters,apparel, and the like......
After a couple years we turned that room into a storage area. We had to, we consumed our three local competitors.We bought them out and took all their stock.That stuff had to go somewhere:p


We had basic general rules......no vulgarity,keep you belongings with you and organized, no mess etc.....normal stuff.

My store also had some basic requirements for several levels of play in 40k.
No one played Fantasy.We did have several Chainmail players though.
But the GW fantsay games just didn't have any appeal or even a single request for group time in the room.

The one basic rule was no min/max armies.Period.Unacceptable.
There was a GW store a simple train's ride away and another one two buses away, if you wanted to be a fraud you could go there.

The other basic rules included turn times, issue resolution, and sportsmanship.
Mainly to speed things up and to maintain some civility.

The only points based rules were a specific requirement to field full units per point zone.
IE at 1000 points you were required to deploy x amount of full squads of troops in your army etc...all the way up to 3k points. After 3k it's anything goes.

Special characters,VDRs,and such are allowed without asking permission after 2.5k points.Below 2.5k it's all about being nice and asking/granting permission.
Proxies were always permissions.

We played both 2nd edition and 3rd edition.
For a bit we even had Space Hulk going.

Edit: we also required score cards or whatever for the bigger games, 2k points and up, so everyone was honest about what they had etc.......

D&D,Rifts, and the like had basic rules for noise pollution and cleanliness. The role players made the most mess of any gaming groups, so that was always an issue.
It's always easier to sit around munching potato chips when all you're using is a piece of paper, some pencils, and a handful of dice.

For the CCGs there were rules against double taps and the like..but it's harder to police card games then wargames. It's hard to prove someone stacked their deck, it's not hard to see a min/maxer setting up.

Because it was the source of too many problems MTG Type 1 was disallowed after arguements/bad trades etc....revolving around some of the expensive power cards like Moxes, Time Warps, and the like occured.
Types 1.5 and 2.0 were allowed until the gaming area was turned into a storage room:D

Pokemon was too crazy so that got dumped after two months.We're a business , not a day care center.

Video games lasted less then three weeks. The video game players were entirely too noisey.
Screaming and yelling is not good for business.So that ended hard and fast.

Follow
04-12-2005, 01:50
its a good idea. if some people just don't take the hint that they're armies are broken (i mean personally i play for fun, i'll power up my list a bit if i want to play in a tourney though)

however i don't really think this is the way to go. really it will just affect some armies more than others. eg. my grey slayers are now 25 points more for an already expensive pack. and i have to have 2 packs, but often go for 3.

and you know, don't call me a sore loser. i've played using powergamed lists before and it's just no fun. how do i know whether the win was me or wether it was just my army? really i can't take pride in a win if anyone else using my army who had no clue what they were doing could have pulled it off.

in tourney's i agree its a different matter, you enter to win (or look at the lovely painted armies) not to play some nice friendly games.

Obviously you're not fond of "powergaming" (I put it in quotes because I really don't think the word exists in any real sense), but why ruin other people's way of playing? Some people play a competitive game and like to test their ability through a combination of tactics and army lists built to be up to the task.

Whose idea of "fun" is more important? And more importantly, whose place is it to judge that? Isn't it just as simple to deny a person a game if you don't like their style, rather than enforce rules to make them conform to it? You're not forced to play with or against anyone, making additional rules just muddles the matter when what you're really saying is "I don't like to play against that list."

If you want to look at this from a realistic point of view, you might be interested in looking into some of the gaming organizations outside of GW that have tried to make "powergaming" or "cheese" illegal by making rules similar to yours against it. The end result is always the same though, people will break through it and still make as efficient a list/character/whatever as possible and still be called "powergamers" or "cheesy" or "beardy" or whatever other colorful titles catch on. It's a failed enterprise that works far less efficiently than simply choosing your opponents. Like Nurglitch said earlier in this thread, you will have the most fun with people who have similar mindsets to yours. That's about the only rule you need to follow to preserve your gaming experience to its fullest.





Follow :)

Trunks
04-12-2005, 02:55
I find your suggestion to be stupid myself. If anything, you'd have to make things more expensive by a percentage (such as 10%), not a fixed number, but even then it is a dumb concept because it still doesn't make any sense.

You have problems with people taking multiples of unit X. Those who want to take multiples of unit Y, that is considered inferior to other choices (lets say, Swooping Hawks or Shining Spears for example), are penalized. You really didn't think this concept through very well.

You don't throw blanket rules down to cover specific problems.

Furthermore, if you are in a "pick up game" situation, you don't play against someone or ask them to use different things if you just aren't having fun in games against them. That is the best solution.

Orbital
04-12-2005, 03:01
Hey, don't be hard on the guy. Calling his suggestions "stupid" is out of line. Even if his suggestions wouldn't work or you have problems with his understanding of what Powergaming is, he's just trying to make the game better by trying to offer a solution to something that gets complained about endlessly. I must say that whether his suggestion is viable or not, trying to come up with solutions sure is a lot more productive than identifying problems.

Snakebite
04-12-2005, 09:59
I don't get it...

My balanced list really doesn't have a problem against any list at all, "beardy" or otherwise. I fight, I win (often), and I have fun with a list that your powergaming rules wouldn't touch. In fact, I even field an LRC which any powergamer will warn you against...

It's a point of pride with me that the first list I put together from the new Space Marines Codex was so well balanced that it was able to take on and hold against a Terminator heavy min / maxed list Space Marine list for six turns, despite some serious First Year Combat Cadet mistakes on my part. I mean, the guy even asked me how many Plasma Cannons in my army and based his list on that information five minutes before the game started.

Snakebite

jigplums
04-12-2005, 15:28
why don't you feel it makes sense? because some units are worse than others and so should have less of a penalty? In which case it would be the application of the theory that is at fault not the theory itself.

The fact 1 heavy support choice for example is better than another means that the points for that individual unit is off and needs changing. If all were equally affective then this wouldn't be a problem.

I think it fits in with some of the way points are calculated, for example you pay more for heavy weapons in a devastator squad, because you have can specialise and have more efficient targeting. Armoured company as well[in designers notes] pay more because you are getting multiple similar targets, minimising your opponents firing efficiency by making many of their weapons useless. This is what many of these Copypaste lists rely on, presenting many targets that are similar to minimise their opponents affectiveness.

Therefore 3 predators are in theory worth more together.

I personally have never had problems taking on copypaste lists, i just find it very boring to see endless multiples in peoples armies, with no imagination whatsoever going into them, and thinking somehow that they are great for coming up with it.

Snakebite
04-12-2005, 17:53
I personally have never had problems taking on copypaste lists, i just find it very boring to see endless multiples in peoples armies, with no imagination whatsoever going into them, and thinking somehow that they are great for coming up with it.

I hate to ask a stupid question, but exactly what is a Copypaste list?

As for multiples, I've always had a problem with "single" units - particularly Land Speeders. They're supposed to be in squadrons, and yet this theory demands you pay extra for this on top of the additional unit points values. I'm sorry, but three Land Speeder Tornados with Assault Cannons are expensive enough as it is, without adding on another 50pts simply because I'm using them as intended.

I don't think I've ever seen a single battle that included a Land Speeder squadron of one Speeder where the Speeder did anything useful, let alone kill anything.

Snakebite

jigplums
04-12-2005, 18:19
there is no penalty whatsoever for taking 3 landspeeders as a single squadron. only taking 3 seperate squadrons

a copy paste list is one like this

Chaplain

5 marines lascannon plasma gun
5 marines lascannon plasma gun
5 marines lascannon plasma gun
5 marines lascannon plasma gun

Landspeeder assault cannon, heavy bolter
Landspeeder assault cannon, heavy bolter
Landspeeder assault cannon, heavy bolter

Predator twinlinked lascannon heavybolters
Predator twinlinked lascannon heavybolters
Predator twinlinked lascannon heavybolters

Grotsnik
04-12-2005, 20:08
I keep hearing this phrase "balanced army".
Exactly WTF is a "balanced army"??:confused: Does such a thing actually exist? Or is it some kind of Holy Grail all the fluff players chase after?
Is there some kind of magical formula that determines if an army is "balanced"?

And finally, why should a player be expected to play a watered down version of his particular army choice so his opponent can have "fun" and a better chance of beating him. What is the challenge of playing a weak army?? Where is the fun in that?:wtf:

Seems to me that the people yelling about "balanced" armies won't be happy until eveyone plays a strict cookie cutter army that contains the exact required amount of each selection choice armed exactly the same as everyone elses.

Would a IW army that is 30% HQ/Elite, 30% troops, & 30% Hvy Spt not be balanced??
Why is it that people think they can dictate to others how thier armies should be composed & what units they should take? :confused:

(sigh) feel so much better now. :p

Xander-K
04-12-2005, 20:12
Seems to me that the people yelling about "balanced" armies won't be happy until eveyone plays a strict cookie cutter army that contains the exact required amount of each selection choice armed exactly the same as everyone elses.

I think you are taking their opinion to the extreme, there is a difference between "balanced" and "cookie cutter" balanced just means not overdosing on certain units - an example of this overdosing is shown above your post(the copy past method).. its okay to do it to a certain extent, but there are lines that when passed make the army very dull to play agains't.

Brother Edwin
04-12-2005, 20:22
In any tornament I run I make it:

1 HQ

0-2 Elites

3-6 Troops

0-2 Fast attack

0-2 Heavy support.

1,500points.
Random mission and 1-3 gamma 4-6 omega.

This works very well and is simple. And if you REALLY want to make it balanced make it the same but have it so you have to have at least one of each slot.

Brother Edwin
04-12-2005, 20:35
so is it not beardy for a tau list to have 3 hammerheads and 9 suits? personally i think it is.....necrons only need to max out on certain elites if they need to compete with powergamed lists. and if they wanted to they still have that option, it just costs them a few points.

for example many necron lists i see have 3x3 destroyers and 3 heavy destroyers. is that need for the necron list to have any chance of winning against a balanced list? no its only needed to face off lists of seercouncil, 3 wraithlord 3 vyper style lists, which would be just as hindered against each other and so would be in the same situation they are in now.

What kind of necron list is that? It would be phased out easily. A list with a pshase shifting immortal unit and lots of basic guys is far harder to deal with.

Orbital
04-12-2005, 22:11
I keep hearing this phrase "balanced army".
Exactly WTF is a "balanced army"??:confused: Does such a thing actually exist? Or is it some kind of Holy Grail all the fluff players chase after?
Is there some kind of magical formula that determines if an army is "balanced"?

This is just me, but the way I see a "balanced" list is to have it divided roughly in half (though the exact measurements aren't so important). One half I use to get what I consider to be my core "must have" stuff which forms the backbone of my force. The other half I use to add a little taste of things which aren't so core, with an emphasis on fluff, theme and "intention" of the army. For instance, I would use about half my list to take the HQ I like, the Aspect Warriors I like, the tanks I like and maybe a Special Character if I'm so inclined. Once I've got that core established, I then look at whether I'm leaning too much one way or the other. Do I have a lot of really heavy shooters? Then I'll put in a dusting of assault units. Do I have a lot of slow moving tough guys? I'll throw in some Jetbikes. I'll also make sure I have a decent Guardian presence, because I consider that to be fluffy and flavorful. I also know that the Eldar army is meant to be fast and not-too-durable, so if I have some points to do it with then I'll make sure there's enough in there of that flavor. Iron Warriors, Khorne, Orks, Tau, etc. will all have different flavors and that will be better represented by certain lists than others.

What I want is that when the opponent arrives at the table he will see that I depend on no one thing and that I am not only concerned with taking units that can beat him with certainty. It's not a hard and fast rule, this balance thing... it's basically about trying to do your part to make the game fun for the other guy and not just you. If both opponents are working on that, then the game is usually awesome.

my_name_is_tudor
04-12-2005, 22:30
these rules would also, at times, punish fluffy lists - lists that may well be very un-beardy.

Grotsnik
05-12-2005, 05:50
Sorry guys, all I keep reading in this thread is how people want to "make" other players conform to their personal idea of how the game should be played. Same BS I always hear from the "balanced army" mentality.
Get a grip already. Not everyone plays the game the same.
Making up little rules that troop units have to be a certain number size to have hvy wpns is stupidity run amok. Calling other players names because they don't play the way you think is "the right way" is childish.
Why should other players have to conform to your opinion as long as they go by the rules of the game??
Are you folks so poor players that you are unable to play against a strong or well constucted army?? Can't you figure out how to explote the weaknesses in your opponents army?
Personally I don't care how my opponent composes his army. As long as it is legal by the Codex it is fine. It makes for a better game when you have to work hard to win against a strong army.

So give the whinning a break already, just play the game and leave your opinions at home. :eek:

jigplums
05-12-2005, 11:52
What kind of necron list is that? It would be phased out easily. A list with a pshase shifting immortal unit and lots of basic guys is far harder to deal with.

The guy who came 5th at heat 3 used it, although he actually had a monolith and 2 heavy destroyers rather than 3 hvy. He obviously did quite well without phase shifting immortals. Another list there had 9 destroyers in it, a mate of mine played it in game 4 on about table 11ish

So give the whinning a break already, just play the game and leave your opinions at home.

so its only ok for u to give your opinions, and have a long whine about the sort of players u dont like? sorry.

Just because its the rules as they stand doesn't me we can't strive to changes things for the better. you obviously don't think it would be for the better and thats your opinion but all the changes since 1st edition have come about from people wanting things to change, interpreting certain rules as unfair or too complicated, time consuming etc etc.... If there was a rule which said eldar always win would that be ok because its in the rules? no obviously we would accept that so why should we not have opinions about other rules in the game?

SmashemTaBitsa
05-12-2005, 16:20
It doesn't seem like this would really solve the problem. Most things that would be 'powergaming' just to have more than one have been deemed as 0-1 or 0-2 by GW.

Also, im my experience, most powergaming is done not by taking the same choice many times but instead by finding combos of choices that could take advantage of different rules. For example, in 3rd ed, my brother would take a wraithlord and have a farseer and warlock join it, giving the 4 wound monstrosity a 3+ save with re-rolls and a 5+ cover save with re-rolls. Since it had the most wounds, it would always be targetted by my atacks so i could never kill off the farseer first, and the high T of the wraithlord meant I could hardly ever even wound it, then it gets all those crazy saves.

I think that some of this powergaming does need to be fixed, but I don't think this is the solution.

jigplums
05-12-2005, 16:52
however that combo would cost a minimium of about 231 points so is not really that bad, and as far as i know would still be cheating as i dont think warlocks could ever join wraithlords. Thats not really an abuse of the eldar powers, that is afterall what you are buying them for.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 17:58
For example, in 3rd ed, my brother would take a wraithlord and have a farseer and warlock join it, giving the 4 wound monstrosity a 3+ save with re-rolls and a 5+ cover save with re-rolls. Since it had the most wounds, it would always be targetted by my atacks so i could never kill off the farseer first, and the high T of the wraithlord meant I could hardly ever even wound it, then it gets all those crazy saves.

That combination is impossible, as a Farseer who is joined by a Warlock is no longer an independent character and, because he is not, he can no longer join other units. That ain't cheese... but it is another word starting with "ch" :)

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 18:18
Sorry guys, all I keep reading in this thread is how people want to "make" other players conform to their personal idea of how the game should be played. Same BS I always hear from the "balanced army" mentality.
Get a grip already. Not everyone plays the game the same.
Making up little rules that troop units have to be a certain number size to have hvy wpns is stupidity run amok. Calling other players names because they don't play the way you think is "the right way" is childish.
Why should other players have to conform to your opinion as long as they go by the rules of the game??
Are you folks so poor players that you are unable to play against a strong or well constucted army?? Can't you figure out how to explote the weaknesses in your opponents army?
Personally I don't care how my opponent composes his army. As long as it is legal by the Codex it is fine. It makes for a better game when you have to work hard to win against a strong army.

So give the whinning a break already, just play the game and leave your opinions at home. :eek:

True. But when designing a tornament I personelly prefer to limit armys for the simple reason it makes you try things out you never would of normally. This is more to do with makeing things more fun and intresting than limiting certan things.

Brother Edwin
05-12-2005, 18:22
The guy who came 5th at heat 3 used it, although he actually had a monolith and 2 heavy destroyers rather than 3 hvy. He obviously did quite well without phase shifting immortals. Another list there had 9 destroyers in it, a mate of mine played it in game 4 on about table 11ish


Did he? He works at my store and he told me he did it with a list composed of loads of troops. I will get him back for that.

Xander-K
05-12-2005, 19:24
Are you folks so poor players that you are unable to play against a strong or well constucted army?? Can't you figure out how to explote the weaknesses in your opponents army?
huh? I thought you didn't like balanced lists, afterall they tend to be the ones that are "well constructed"... exploiting weakness' is far easier agains't an unbalanced army because they have less variety.. thus more weakness' to exploit.

SmashemTaBitsa
05-12-2005, 19:35
That combination is impossible, as a Farseer who is joined by a Warlock is no longer an independent character and, because he is not, he can no longer join other units. That ain't cheese... but it is another word starting with "ch" :)

I may have remembered something wrong, but I do know that it was not cheating; I looked through the codex and rulebook many a time and could not find anything that could make it illegal, and I also called GW 3-4 times and they said it was legal also. In any case, it was nearly impossible to kill, and besides, I was just giving an example of the types of loopholes/ rule exploiting that I see used, so that jigplums can work on a more effective house rule. I'll try and find out what he was actually using and point costs if you are interested though.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 19:48
I may have remembered something wrong, but I do know that it was not cheating...

Well, whether it's technically cheating or not, I'm sure your brother wasn't meaning to do anything that broke the rules. No offense was intended in that regard.

The Eldar codex I have says that a Farseer is only an Independant Character if he is NOT accompanied by Warlocks. In other words, if a Warlock and a Farseer are part of the same unit then they can't join any other unit (unless it's one where Warlocks would normally appear anyhow, like Guardians or Wraithguard).

To the best of my knowledge, a Farseer and Warlock can't join another unit as a pair. If someone can tell me in what way I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to learn.

Just from a completely personal standpoint (and no judgment is intended), I would find joining a Farseer with a Wraithlord to be on the warm edge of Powergaming, as it gives the player a tons of wounds, great saves, heavy offensive power and psychic powers in a unit of two models. Seems like the Wraithlord is already tough enough on its own without the extra three wounds and whatever protective psychic powers are brough to bear.

Anyhow, no intent to criticize. Merely sharing my own opinion.

SmashemTaBitsa
05-12-2005, 21:27
I don't remeber how he got that warlock in there, or even if it was for sure. It wasn't tied to the Farseer though. Anyways, even without the warlock, it is as you said, a tough combo, but was fully legal. With new 4th ed rules it can't be done, though. I think Wraithlord counts as monsterous or walker or something now that doesn't allow it to be joined. You are right about them not being able to join as a pair, I remember that though.

Epiphany: I just remembered that the 3rd model was in fact not a warlock but an Avatar. He was normally rather easy to kill in CC b/c of his horrid save, but in the squad the wraithlord had to be killed before the Avatar could be hit, so the squad would just wander around and mercilessly murder all my troop choices, and in CC I couldn't even hit the Wraithlord's high Toughness.

Brushmonkey
05-12-2005, 21:53
Its very easy to get a Warlock and farseer to join the same unit.

1. You buy the Farseer.
2. You buy a Warlock for him.
3. You detach the Warlock to the target squad.
4. The Farseer now has no Warlocks and joins the same unit.

No cheating, no cheese. All legal and above board, so long as the target squad has the entry "may have a Warlock detached to them", or something similar.

The Wraithlord CANNOT be joined by a Warlock however, so whoever did it was cheating. Wraithguard however, may have a Warlock and Farseer.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 22:36
Its very easy to get a Warlock and farseer to join the same unit.

1. You buy the Farseer.
2. You buy a Warlock for him.
3. You detach the Warlock to the target squad.
4. The Farseer now has no Warlocks and joins the same unit.

No cheating, no cheese. All legal and above board, so long as the target squad has the entry "may have a Warlock detached to them", or something similar.

The Wraithlord CANNOT be joined by a Warlock however, so whoever did it was cheating. Wraithguard however, may have a Warlock and Farseer.


So can Guardians, which was mentioned earlier.

hootier
05-12-2005, 23:00
To get back on to topic, I don't like the suggestion because I think it severely restricts Chaos Marine armies dedicated to the Chaos Gods. For the same reason, I really really really do not like the "must take maxxed-sized squads".

Take the Emperor's Children army list, for example. A totally fluffy EC list might very well have two 6-man squads with all the exact same sonic weaponry. They "need" to be 6-man because that's the fluffy favored number for Slaanesh, and there's not exactly a whole lot of variety amongst sonic weapons.

Any of ECs, DGs, WEs, or TSs would be completely and unfairly screwed if they had to take ANY maximum-sized squads. These armies give up a huge amount of flexibility and get a few advantages, one of which is free aspiring champs to favored-sized squads. To lose this advantage because of some goofy tourney rule would be extremely harsh.

Xander-K
05-12-2005, 23:10
Take the Emperor's Children army list, for example. A totally fluffy EC list might very well have two 6-man squads with all the exact same sonic weaponry. They "need" to be 6-man because that's the fluffy favored number for Slaanesh, and there's not exactly a whole lot of variety amongst sonic weapons.

thats not entirely true, I field 12 man EC squads to great success. - it just has to be a multiple of 6

hsiehlt
05-12-2005, 23:32
Its very easy to get a Warlock and farseer to join the same unit.

1. You buy the Farseer.
2. You buy a Warlock for him.
3. You detach the Warlock to the target squad.
4. The Farseer now has no Warlocks and joins the same unit.

No cheating, no cheese. All legal and above board, so long as the target squad has the entry "may have a Warlock detached to them", or something similar.

The Wraithlord CANNOT be joined by a Warlock however, so whoever did it was cheating. Wraithguard however, may have a Warlock and Farseer.

Guys this combo was legal, but only in one type of Eldar army. This was only allowable in Iyanden in the Craftworld eldar codex. The reason you could
do this was because the warlock entry for iyanden contained an upgrade called spiritseer. This spiritseer was like a warlock, except for a few points more it became an independent character. The warlock entry in standard Eldar codex had to be detached by the stated rules above and you could not join a warlock to wraithlord. However, in an Iyanden army, since the farseer and spiritseer were both independent characters, there is no rule against independent characters joining units nor having 2 independent characters join a unit. The original purpose of the spiritseer was to allow you to take for example 2 wraithguard units and only have to buy one warlock between them and allow the warlock to join one unit to another. Obviously powergamers took advantage of this and coupled said farseer, spiritseer, and wraithlord together. A even more common coupling was farseer, spiritseer, and avatar creating with fortune and conceal an avatar with rerollable 5+ invuln save to take lascannon hits and a farseer with 3 wounds and 4+ invuln save to take bolter hits.

hootier
05-12-2005, 23:33
thats not entirely true, I field 12 man EC squads to great success. - it just has to be a multiple of 6

Since the rule mentioned in the poll doesn't apply to troops, I was mostly talking about Havoc squads and Possessed squads. They can't be 12 in size, so they really "need" to be 6.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 23:52
Guys this combo was legal, but only in one type of Eldar army. This was only allowable in Iyanden in the Craftworld eldar codex.

He's quite right.

I would, however, consider the method hsiehlt describes as being pretty cheap, as it seems (to me) to be an exploitation of a loop hole in the rules and doesn't really represent the way the rules for that army are meant to be played.

That's just a personal feeling, mind you.

If that rule about being able to join a monstrous creature as a unit in 4th ed are true (I haven't seen it, but I'll take it on faith), then the Warlock+Farseer+Wraithlord combination is no longer possible anyhow.

Finally, it was noted by the original poster that he was mistaken and it was an Avatar who joined the Farseer and Wraithlord in his brother's army; not a Warlock.

Man... just typing and reading all this is giving me a rules nosebleed. Ouch!

Xander-K
06-12-2005, 00:07
Since the rule mentioned in the poll doesn't apply to troops, I was mostly talking about Havoc squads and Possessed squads. They can't be 12 in size, so they really "need" to be 6.
oh sorry, my mistake then.

Trunks
06-12-2005, 02:36
The reason this rule is dumb because it doesn't attack the problem.

There are so many units in the game that aren't crazy to take multiple times. What you are doing is penalizing anyone who wants to theme their army around something that isn't a troop choice, which is very wrong in my opinion.

Is it really that huge a deal if as an Eldar player I want to take three squads of jetbikers, as a Dark Eldar player who wants three squads of mandrakes, or a chaos player who wants a squad of heavy bolter havocs and a squad of plasmagun havocs?

Also, you can powergame just as well taking different choices. It really won't do much to stop powergaming. It does reduce the ability to theme armies that aren't based on troop choices though, which is goofy.

Furthermore, I hate this assumption that "troop choices are fairer".

Dark eldar have the most boring troop choices known to mankind, who are not on par with Tactical Marines. A Dark eldar army that is mostly warriors is aesthetically and tactically boring as hell to play (although with a completely mounted army can be quite powerful when done right).

Chaos can have a very powerful army that is nothing but troops choices (and HQ of course).

I'll say it again, specific things are the perceived problem, but you are applying a rule to things that aren't a problem and making them worse.

Those who want to powergame are going to find very easy ways around your rule, all it does is punish those who want to make a fun themed army.

onlainari
06-12-2005, 02:46
I voted no, they would find a way around it, because they would.

But yes, it sucks too. It absolutely kills tau and necrons. It's not powergamers you have a problem with, it's whingers, cheaters, dice snatchers, and rules benders. All of which are not powergamers, only occasionally associated with powergaming.

Sir_Turalyon
06-12-2005, 16:48
Voted no. Not only because people will find way around it, but because it hurts non-powergaming thematic armies. White Scars bike heavy force? Forget. Deathwing? Ravenwing?

jigplums
06-12-2005, 17:30
how about if you could choose 1 slot in which the penalty didn't apply?
for example you could choose fast attack and have lots of bike squads? this may make it easier for some lists to remain un-hindered but affect less those who want a certain theme?

Follow
06-12-2005, 18:49
Let's not forget the Wych Cult armies, or hell even Imperial Guard. :p

The word "powergaming" is by nature subjective, and utterly meaningless to anything. I'm a very firm believer in the fact that unless you accept that, you're not long for the 40k gaming community. You're only in for a bunch of frustration until you can't take it anymore and move on.




Follow :)

Brother Edwin
06-12-2005, 23:00
Its very easy to get a Warlock and farseer to join the same unit.

1. You buy the Farseer.
2. You buy a Warlock for him.
3. You detach the Warlock to the target squad.
4. The Farseer now has no Warlocks and joins the same unit.

No cheating, no cheese. All legal and above board, so long as the target squad has the entry "may have a Warlock detached to them", or something similar.

The Wraithlord CANNOT be joined by a Warlock however, so whoever did it was cheating. Wraithguard however, may have a Warlock and Farseer.

Althow beore the FAQ warlocks in Iyaden could be made indipendant characters for 8 points.

onlainari
06-12-2005, 23:14
how about if you could choose 1 slot in which the penalty didn't apply?
for example you could choose fast attack and have lots of bike squads? this may make it easier for some lists to remain un-hindered but affect less those who want a certain theme?
No, I'm sorry, but your houserules just don't make any sense. Restricting multiple units doesn't do anything, powergamers will still powergame within the new set of rules, and you'll be hitting fluff gamers and hobbyists too.

Mad Makz
06-12-2005, 23:46
As a house rule to prevent powergaming I think this is a poor idea. Using a similiar rule to represent something else in a campaign setting/other agreed situation may be fun to trial and get people thinking about taking different forces.

I think the best way to prevent powergaming is not penalising the powergaming, but PROMOTE balanced play. You can do that by playing pre-organised games/campaigns were lists are restricted for fluff based reasons etc.

The powergamers are still powergaming, as they will still try to max out the newly limited list, but it will hopefully invite them to try a new unit that they have always thought would underperform and never bothered to use and then they may take a shine to that unit and use it in their regular games.

Often powergamers don't bother looking beyond what's on the paper, and are unwilling to experiment. There are a FEW who can do this and generally be right, but to concieve every situation in every possible game and how the number of wounds at what toughness and what save in your army will stack up against the opposing force, let alone the ability to move, shoot, attack in close combat etc, is simply beyond viable number crunching. So Powergamers often distill armies to a few raw variables they think look the best on paper with taking just the bare bones of things into consideration, and don't bother to experiment (I'd argue that Tournament gamers, or at least the ones who win, aren't Powergamers, because generally they get good sports and so have experimented with enough units to know what's good yet doesn't look like powergaming, this is known in certain circles as 'Stealth Cheese' but I look at it just as making hard interesting lists :) )

nightshade_eyes
07-12-2005, 09:53
If those house rules work for your gaming group, then good for you. Keep in mind what works for one gaming group probably won't work for another.

Just don't play the power gamer.

Same old whiners with the same old arguements

sigur
07-12-2005, 12:16
I agree with Mad Makz, Powergamers will always be powergaming. They always find a way because the system is so open and lists become more and more flexible. But how could you promote balanced armies in single games? Extra VP?




...same old arguements

Well, that's mainly because the Powergamers just don't get it and stick to their same old point. :)

onlainari
07-12-2005, 12:26
The only way to stop powergaming lists is to give everyone the same list really. I don't see what's wrong with powegaming lists anyway, it's just another list, it just needs a different way of fighting against it than other lists.

Xander-K
07-12-2005, 13:27
I agree with Mad Makz, Powergamers will always be powergaming. They always find a way because the system is so open and lists become more and more flexible. But how could you promote balanced armies in single games? Extra VP?

...thats the whole point of this thread though, to think of well thought out rules so you can't make powergaming list... I agree the specific rules on this thread do no good with a lot of armies, but the concept of house rules could easily quash lists that were too unbalanced (without disabling "themed" armies).

Venkh
07-12-2005, 13:40
The only way to put a complete stop to powergaming is for one player to design both lists and for the other player to choose a side. I believe that this method is ised in real estate in the US to broker honest deals.

Kind of undermines some of the fundementals for the hobby though.

Rgds

Xander-K
07-12-2005, 13:45
*sigh* to make EFFECTIVE anti-powergaming rules you have to create specific limits for each and every army (i.e. all varients of Eldar, Chaos, BA, SW) it might take a long time, but if you make extra army limiting rules for each one then you will be fine.

Sir_Turalyon
07-12-2005, 14:27
The only way to stop powergaming lists is to give everyone the same list really.

I think making armies - or even only squad weapons - randomly generated, like in Rouge Trader, would balance things up. I mean, in reality general does not always have the liberty of arming his troops as he likes - he fights with what he has availiable.


I don't see what's wrong with powegaming lists anyway,


The problem is, the game is much mor about quatermastering then leading your army. A game where you have to win with what army quatermasters provided you with is more... strategic ... then quatermastering an army that will win you the battle.

jigplums
07-12-2005, 16:20
in some local tournaments when you get to the 3rd or 4th round you have to swap armies with your opponent and use their army against yours. It really pisses those maxed out armies generals to be on the receiveing end.

Venkh
07-12-2005, 16:27
I agree with Jigplums, forcing players to use an army designed by their opponent is the only true way to stop powergaming.

Even if there was only one army list in the whole game. there would still be people who would attempt to min/max and use the letter of the rules to create unbalanced lists.

jigplums
07-12-2005, 17:56
in theory you could give all units a "multiplier bonus" in the unit entry, based on how rare and powerful they are, however that would require a re-doing of every codex

Tim
07-12-2005, 18:31
The big change I would sugest is that units that are normally one choice like heavies in a standard list, that become troops. or that are allowed to be taken in two or more areas like elites and heavies should have a points adjustment when taken in the new catagory to cover the benifet of having more in your army.

Kahadras
07-12-2005, 19:09
I think it's fairly pointless trying to stop people power gaming by introducing rules against it. Better to just make it clear to everybody who joins that it is not really welcome at your club. The onus is then on them if they switch their list then fine, if they turn up with a list and people still want to play them then thats fine too. However if they turn up with a list and people don't want to play them (due to its content) then they don't have much to complain about.

Kahadras