PDA

View Full Version : autolose before deploy?



kiron
17-06-2010, 17:15
Okay, my friend has a guerilla type MSU WE army and we are playing 3k. We decided to play 8th ed. and we rolled breaking point...now he has 0 standards in his army so just basic 2 points which is below the breaking point of 3. Does my friend just autolose to match?

Modaavi
17-06-2010, 17:18
Okay, my friend has a guerilla type MSU WE army and we are playing 3k. We decided to play 8th ed. and we rolled breaking point...now he has 0 standards in his army so just basic 2 points which is below the breaking point of 3. Does my friend just autolose to match?

Yes. As rumoured guerilla msu WE are an unworkable build for 8th anyway, so time for your friend to redesign or accept losing 1/6 games automatically and most other games as well.

Ultimate Life Form
17-06-2010, 17:24
Now my opponents will no longer laugh at me for taking full command on every unit! :mad:

Agnar the Howler
17-06-2010, 17:27
If it's a friendly match, you could always re-roll the game-type; I know that my club only ever played Annihilation in 40k as nobody bothered capturing anything in the other two game types, and matches were won by a unit just happening to be close enough to an objective or both players realising it was an objectives match at the end of the game and the winner being whoever could madly dash to the closest objective the fastest.

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 17:34
This is why random scenario's scare me. Nothing wrong with MSU woodelves that I'm aware of, yet he autoloses because of a d6 before the game.

Stupid.

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 17:40
While I am all for having things to do besides annihilation, stuff like this seems stupid to me.

I think you should have the freedom to make any army you want with in the confines of the rules without it being an auto loose. That is not to say that any army you can build will be effective, but they should at least get to throw their models on the board and play a bit before it is an auto loose.

There are some people who don't care at all about winning or loosing and just want to paint their figs, move their minis around, drink some beer, and roll some dice. This casual play style should not be hampered.

Ultimate Life Form
17-06-2010, 17:42
There are some people who don't care at all about winning or loosing and just want to paint their figs, move their minis around, drink some beer, and roll some dice. This casual play style should not be hampered.

In that case you can still agree with your opponent to play standard pitched battles only, or simply choose the scenario of your choice. :rolleyes:

It's really not difficult.

vcassano
17-06-2010, 17:44
This is why random scenario's scare me. Nothing wrong with MSU woodelves that I'm aware of, yet he autoloses because of a d6 before the game.

Stupid.

That's the risk of taking an army that barely qualifies as an army, as harsh as that sounds.

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 17:46
I guess I also don't think they should have to adjust the rules in order to play their army.

For the record, I don't play like that. I like to win every so often or I get grumpy while playing. I just think that it is unfortunate that this edition neutered some armies that people may have been working on/playing for several editions.


That's the risk of taking an army that barely qualifies as an army, as harsh as that sounds.

What makes his army any less qualified as an army than yours. It has fit within the confines of the rules for atleast 2 editions now I would imagine (since 6th and 7th were so similiar), and it may have been playable before that. Just because he likes different things than you doesn't mean he is any less entitled to play his army. It still fits in within the rules, yet he auto looses before a model hits the board, dumb.

Kalandros
17-06-2010, 17:56
... Just gotta adapt to the new ways of playing, its not hard.

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 17:57
That's the risk of taking an army that barely qualifies as an army, as harsh as that sounds.

In what way does an MSU WE list barely qualify as an army? It probably has more models than a WoC list. It probably has more balanced shooting and CC as well. So it doesn't have flags. What an arbitrary thing to make the list autolose for.

Odominus
17-06-2010, 17:58
Yep new edition, new strategies. My tourny lists from 7th will no longer be viable. I adapt.

Modaavi
17-06-2010, 17:59
While I am all for having things to do besides annihilation, stuff like this seems stupid to me.

I think you should have the freedom to make any army you want with in the confines of the rules without it being an auto loose. That is not to say that any army you can build will be effective, but they should at least get to throw their models on the board and play a bit before it is an auto loose.

There are some people who don't care at all about winning or loosing and just want to paint their figs, move their minis around, drink some beer, and roll some dice. This casual play style should not be hampered.

This isn't really even an issue in anything but tournaments. If you roll the auto lose, so what, that game ends and I am sure your opponent would be willing to play a game 2 considering the first one took 3 seconds. If you knowingly take a list that can auto-lose 1/6 games to a tourney, and roll that scenario, then you can't complain.

rtunian
17-06-2010, 18:01
I guess I also don't think they should have to adjust the rules in order to play their army.

this is silly. if you should never have to change the way you play your army, then how can the game or army rules ever undergo a substantial change?

if gw ceases to support and update the rulesets for its systems, it will go out of business. why? because gw is in the business of selling wargames and wargames miniatures. the market of people who buy wargames and wargames miniatures is small, and it does not grow as fast as other markets do. sure there is some growth, but it is not the kind of growth that can sustain a business. gw's business model requires repeat-customers

gw must sell us different rules all the time, because we will not keep buying the same rules over and over.

if each edition was just the same thing with a tiny little tweak, people would actually stop updating editions, as opposed to idly complaining and threatening. why would anyone spend $75 for a new rule book if it does not have new rules in it?

do you understand now why every so often you will have to change the way you play your army?

Ender Shadowkin
17-06-2010, 18:01
This is why random scenario's scare me. Nothing wrong with MSU woodelves that I'm aware of, yet he autoloses because of a d6 before the game.

Stupid.


You can still put in a few banners and work your MSU as normal. Banners don't yield VP's anymore anyway put some on the some glade guard units and be done with it. Just deal with the new rules, people should be prepared to run into that scenario. In generall it will make all the armies a little more fun to play (and look better because stds always look good).

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 18:05
Don't banners still yield 25 VPs? If we all have to take banners on every unit, trust me, that will add up.

macdaddy
17-06-2010, 18:20
Apparently his army does NOT fit within the rules if you CHOOSE to randomly determine your scenario.change in tactics, causing a change in army build. welcome to progression.

solution: DON'T randomly determine the scenario

4 banners in 7th ed. = 400vp
16 banners in 8th ed. = 400vp

Havock
17-06-2010, 18:20
do you understand now why every so often you will have to change the way you play your army?

Understanding why does not equal 'agreeing with'. I'll probably have to invest roughly 90-100 euros to switch to the new edition. I might decide not to.

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 18:25
this is silly. if you should never have to change the way you play your army, then how can the game or army rules ever undergo a substantial change?

if gw ceases to support and update the rulesets for its systems, it will go out of business. why? because gw is in the business of selling wargames and wargames miniatures. the market of people who buy wargames and wargames miniatures is small, and it does not grow as fast as other markets do. sure there is some growth, but it is not the kind of growth that can sustain a business. gw's business model requires repeat-customers

gw must sell us different rules all the time, because we will not keep buying the same rules over and over.

if each edition was just the same thing with a tiny little tweak, people would actually stop updating editions, as opposed to idly complaining and threatening. why would anyone spend $75 for a new rule book if it does not have new rules in it?

do you understand now why every so often you will have to change the way you play your army?


I understand that BUT his army still fits into the confines of the current rule set. If they made a rule that made it impossible for him to build his army I would be all for what you are saying. But using the army he has built is still possible so why should he auto loose. I am not even saying that an army like that has to have a chance to win battles it just shouldn't auto-loose before the models hit the board. I used to have a themed empire army that sucked and never won, but it fit within the confines of the rules so I could still play with it even though I lost. His army fits within the confines of the rules though it may suck like my empire army did but 1/6 of the time he doesn't even get a chance to play with it.

So in short:

have a legal army become legal but crappy, fine

have a legal army become illegal, fine

have a legal army become legal and autoloose, not fine



Apparently his army does NOT fit within the rules if you CHOOSE to randomly determine your scenario.

His army does fit into the rules in the sense that it is legal. I am not arguing against progression or rules changes or anything like that, I am arguing against legal armies auto-loosing.

Yes he could throw in some banners make it not auto-loose i realize that and probably he does too, that isn't the point though.

Ultimate Life Form
17-06-2010, 18:28
To be frank it has always been possible to make legal armies that stand next to no chance of winning (especially Undead).

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 18:30
To be frank it has always been possible to make legal armies that stand next to no chance of winning (especially Undead).

right that is okay though, you still get to throw your models down, it isn't auto-loose before playing.

I am not saying every army list you could possibly make should have a chance of winning, i am saying that it shouldn't be auto-loose without playing despite any weaknesses it may have. There are plenty of builds that suck and don't win but you can still play with them without just loosing before the game even begins.

LordBadgash
17-06-2010, 18:36
Why not just add some standards to the army? Or a BSB?

enyoss
17-06-2010, 18:49
Yeah, this is a problem that can be solved completely for around 14pts. At worst, you're sacrificing one glade guard and a possible 25 victory points to you opponent. There are more worthy things in Warhammer (and the world) to make a stand on! :)

King_Pash
17-06-2010, 18:49
this is silly. if you should never have to change the way you play your army, then how can the game or army rules ever undergo a substantial change?

if gw ceases to support and update the rulesets for its systems, it will go out of business. why? because gw is in the business of selling wargames and wargames miniatures. the market of people who buy wargames and wargames miniatures is small, and it does not grow as fast as other markets do. sure there is some growth, but it is not the kind of growth that can sustain a business. gw's business model requires repeat-customers

gw must sell us different rules all the time, because we will not keep buying the same rules over and over.

if each edition was just the same thing with a tiny little tweak, people would actually stop updating editions, as opposed to idly complaining and threatening. why would anyone spend $75 for a new rule book if it does not have new rules in it?

do you understand now why every so often you will have to change the way you play your army?

I disagree with one vital point here. GW does not rely on REPEAT-customers as much as NEW-customers. Believe me, having worked there, I know exactly who they want you to sell plastic crack to. :shifty:


Why not just add some standards to the army? Or a BSB?

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 18:53
Yeah, this is a problem that can be solved completely for around 14pts. At worst, you're sacrificing one glade guard and a possible 25 victory points to you opponent. There are more worthy things in Warhammer (and the world) to make a stand on! :)


True, lol.

In the grand scheme of things this doesn't matter at all. But the 2 minutes I have spent posting and the additional 3 minutes I spent thinking about it while I get ready for work don't concern me that much. ;)

rtunian
17-06-2010, 19:07
tarilyn, i'm sorry that you find it so disagreeable. however, the fact remains that you know going into the game that there is a chance you will be required to have a certain model to win. it is entirely your choice to not bring that model. by choosing to bring 0 standard bearers, regardless of the risk, you are making an active choice to concede 1/6 battles, based on the scenario rolled.


I disagree with one vital point here. GW does not rely on REPEAT-customers as much as NEW-customers. Believe me, having worked there, I know exactly who they want you to sell plastic crack to. :shifty:

having the sales staff focus on selling to new players as opposed to veterans is not an indicator that gw relies more on new customers than existing customers. rather, it is an indicator that gw understands that new customers are susceptible to soliciting while existing ones generally are not (or at least, not as much). it's called using your sales staff wisely.

Arkh
17-06-2010, 19:31
While I am part of the crowd that supports the supports the higher importance of full command on units.... Wood Elves DO have the biggest problem with tournament play, because of that new potential victory condition.

Wood Elves only have 4 units that even have the option of carrying banners, and 2 of them are ranged units.

In my opinion, an army needs to AT LEAST have 5 points on the board to avoid the break point limit problem, 7+ being far more ideal. And if you choose 5, then the 5 points you have need to be very tough or very large since you can no longer hide them from shooting and magic because of the introduction of TLOS.

That said... What that new scenario is REALLY there to do is punish the players that max out on monsters, heroes + warmachines. Cause if you put 75% of your army into monsters, heroes + warmachines you better believe that your 25% core is going to have some issues when it comes to preventing you from losing the game in that scenario.

mrtn
17-06-2010, 21:14
He could always keep playing 7th if 8th is disagreeable. Or adapt. *shrug*

Paraelix
17-06-2010, 21:21
In that case you can still agree with your opponent to play standard pitched battles only, or simply choose the scenario of your choice. :rolleyes:

It's really not difficult.

It is always funny that someone has to literally point this out to people.

On another note, Wood Elf Fast Cav- Now with ranks!

Zinch
17-06-2010, 22:34
Came on! Is not that hard to put a pair of banners in some units...


I realy love the breakpoint scenario. These are the kind of victory conditions that I've been waiting since the rumours indicating them and that help the more balanced armies to perform better than the boring cannon glasses or deathstars

Rhaivaen
17-06-2010, 22:47
That's the risk of taking an army that barely qualifies as an army, as harsh as that sounds.

Agreed, make a list that is all-comer, not an extreme to one tactic, and be prepared for any of the scenario's in the book.:rolleyes:

Cordantheman
17-06-2010, 23:12
Why not just add some standards to the army? Or a BSB?

^This

Fixes the whole problem and it shouldn't be as big of an issue that your making it out to be...

Lordmonkey
18-06-2010, 00:02
Nothing wrong with MSU woodelves that I'm aware of, yet he autoloses because of a d6 before the game.

You just described what is wrong with MSU WE without standards :D

w3rm
18-06-2010, 00:33
A Banner on a Glade Gaurd unit is what 10 points? I could see not doing it in 7th but if it only gives a wau 25 VP now? Why not?

TheZombieSquig
18-06-2010, 00:52
Why not just add some standards to the army? Or a BSB?

^This

Fixes the whole problem and it shouldn't be as big of an issue that your making it out to be...

Well that would make the list very easy to beat in the breaking point scenario. Ah well, no pity for wood elves, most boring army by far, good riddance to their abusive lists.

Mudkip
18-06-2010, 00:55
Can't the WE player just find the points for a few standards?

Havock
18-06-2010, 00:57
To be frank it has always been possible to make legal armies that stand next to no chance of winning (especially Undead).

yes, but in this case its a... forced decision.

But hey, warhammer is a game which involves staying up to date, whether its worth the time and effort is something people will have to decide for themselves.

Slyphor
18-06-2010, 01:02
having the sales staff focus on selling to new players as opposed to veterans is not an indicator that gw relies more on new customers than existing customers. rather, it is an indicator that gw understands that new customers are susceptible to soliciting while existing ones generally are not (or at least, not as much). it's called using your sales staff wisely.

Totally agree with this, and find it to be a much more interesting discussion than the Woodelves bit. A force like that should be used for *specific* scenarios agreed upon beforehand by the players, since it clearly is not a rounded list. An ambush scenario, for example, is when you could use this list. A bunch of ragged pointy-ears prancing around and hiding behind trees would be no match for even the simplest bunch of Gobbos if they were put into ranks with a rag on a stick and a drum to follow across an open field.

rtunian is right on that the sales staff should and do sell to new, not established customers. I know what I want when I go into the store, they don't so they should get the attention. GW has to sell new rules to stay in business with those of us who have 3000 pts of 3 different armies and are quite happy with them thank you very much. However, I'm not sure GW has changed the rules here so much as invented a new game to play with the same pieces. I am thoroughly aware that I might have just opened a can of worms, but until I actually have a chance to play 8th, I'm sticking with this opinion.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 01:08
yes, but in this case its a... forced decision.

But hey, warhammer is a game which involves staying up to date, whether its worth the time and effort is something people will have to decide for themselves.

And mandatory 25% Core isn't? Srsly?

alextroy
18-06-2010, 01:08
yes, but in this case its a... forced decision.

You mean like forcing everyone to take 25% of the army in Core models? The injustice of it!

Havock
18-06-2010, 02:07
To a lesser extent, that too.

Well, you know the solution: Buy more boxes.

Wakerofgods
18-06-2010, 02:31
There are some army types that I think will be excluded because of these new game types.

I like it this way, it is a very big change and I think it is one of the bigest balance changes we will see in warhammer for a very long time.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 02:44
There are some army types that I think will be excluded because of these new game types.

I like it this way, it is a very big change and I think it is one of the bigest balance changes we will see in warhammer for a very long time.

Uh... What army "types"?

As tends to happen with a new edition of a game. They change things.

It isn't world ending... It's not like they are making prequels to Star Wars or something...

skelezom
18-06-2010, 05:05
(and look better because stds always look good).

And this is why we write out the word "Standards"...

Devil Tree
18-06-2010, 08:10
I have to say that I'm is the “that's what you get for playing an army that barely qualifies as an army” camp. While the game mechanics might not cover it, it make sense from a fluff perspective. A real commander just doesn't have the same omniscient view above a 6' by 4' battlefield that gamers do. They need ways of telling different units apart, sending or receiving signals and orders and a way of telling how well the battle is going at a distance. So when these things are vital to the mission, then yeah, they loose. Sometimes bird calls just don't cut it.

phoenixguard09
18-06-2010, 08:22
and look better because stds always look good).

Sexually transmitted diseases look good?

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 08:28
because stds always look good

Sexually transmitted diseases look good?


Always :D

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 08:30
While we can call other armies like duo hyrdra, shades star and stegedon min max army silly and deserve to auto lose since they always have a more game practical option to a proper army, I don't think woodelves really have much of a choice to begin with.

knightime98
18-06-2010, 08:42
Where were you clowns when Dwarves had the Breakthrough scenario in 6th edition?

That was auto lose for them!

6 turns at 6" (if not in combat at all or stopped for even one turn) = 36" will get you to the edge of the opponents table edge but NOT OFF the table.

Yeah...


I have no sympathy or compassion for the Avoidance army. They hide and surf on the magic woods shooting gleefully and hiding. Never engaging in combat anywhere for any reason. It's guerrilla warfare and very BORING! Get some co-hones and man up! Get some standards in your units and fight! Stop being a coward or chicken!

I really think it's better for the game to have UNITS that fight instead of hiding..

Just my two cents!
Wood Elves - Auto losing? GOOD!
Build a better army!

As for the Steggies and skinks - the LM also need banners with saurus warriors, cold one riders, and/or temple guard. Same applies to them..

Same for Dark Elves with Dark Warriors, Black Guard, Witch Elves, Repeater Crossbows, etc..

I really don't see what your issue is other than you been playing a points denial army for the last 2 or 3 years.. NOW all the sudden, the rules make it so you LOSE! ROFL.. You deserve it!

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 08:49
*Sits in corner with his constant posts about RANKED FAST CAVALRY that are continuously ignored*

Frankly
18-06-2010, 08:55
This is why random scenario's scare me. Nothing wrong with MSU woodelves that I'm aware of, yet he autoloses because of a d6 before the game.

Stupid.


It's not as bad as that. For example WE MSU list will easily be able to weather 8th Ed scenario encounters, small armylist fixes not a major re-design is all that would be needed. I had a couple of mock games with my DE msu list and it was worked fine(shades still rock btw).

Actually in most cases MSU should do really well, Scenario's will make EVERYONE thing about army design, support troops verses rank and file etc, etc. I think thats a good thing.

knightime98
18-06-2010, 09:17
*Sits in corner with his constant posts about RANKED FAST CAVALRY that are continuously ignored*

ROFL...

Not even sure why you think this is an issue!

When was the last time you got a rank bonus with Wolf Riders?

or Dark Riders? or Glade Guard? OR ANY FAST CAV!!! PERIOD? ? ? ?

Non issue because they really suck at combat. They are there to harass not engage. Whose not going to shoot/magic said unit if it does have a rank bonus?

Do one wound and it gets no rank bonus!.. . Which, I'm not sure but I think is a requirement for you to negate ranks is that YOU HAVE A RANK yourself.

So - now you are not ignored.. Feel any better. I think some people are ignoring you because Fast Cav just get ignored because they almost never pull their points.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 09:18
It is an option for WEs... Wild Riders?