PDA

View Full Version : What limitations would you impose?



Tarax
04-01-2014, 10:09
With Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the rumours of a new edition, combined with any whining on the current edition, there is talk of NOT using everything GW wants us to use. Be it certain units or certain rules.

So I'd like to know what limitations you would like in your games of 40K. (I know the term 'impose' is a little hard, but was used for lack of a better term.)

To begin with, here are mine (based on a 'normal' game, ie 1500-1850 points):

On Armies:
-No Fortifications
-No Super-Heavies
-No Named/Special Characters
-Only 1 Flyer (or unit of Flyers)
-Max 2 Monstrous Creatures (that are real Monsters, see next point)
-No 'big' units which don't belong in the game (note the 1 Flyer point), like Riptide, WraithKnight, DreadKnight etc.

On Rules:
-No Warlord Traits
-No Mysterious Terrain (already optional)

These are just some to begin with in general. I would also limit some units form codexes, but that would be too specific. An example from the Eldar, which I play:

-No WraithKnight (see above)
-Max 1 WraithLord

These limitations are not game-breaking, but will add a little flavour to the game, if not 'realism'.

Now it's your turn.

Chem-Dog
04-01-2014, 10:26
I don't think I'd bother with limiting anything in stand alone games. I might as part of a campaign, but the only reason I'd ever seek to impose limitations on available options for my circle of playing buddies would be time related issues, we have a finite amount of time at our club venue, so we need to squeeze setting up, playing and packing up into the evening.

Still Standing
04-01-2014, 10:27
Only 2. No Superheavy below 2000 points, then you may take 1 up to a max of 25% of your army. No str D weapons.

Literally everything you list is ridiculous and makes the game worse, not better.

The Custodian
04-01-2014, 10:29
Max 2 Monstrous creatures... Yeah... HAve fun trying to convince a Daemon or Tyranid player to follow that.

I dont see why you're 0-1'ing wraithlords either. They never were that game breaking.

Im fine with most of what 6th edition initially gave us. Its the stuff thats come out over the last 3 months that irritates me. My restrictions would be rather simple really

Any force that does not come from the parent codex takes up an ally slot. (Inquisition, Dataslate formations, ect.)

Superheavies work like the HH lords of war slot and cant comprise more than 25% of an army list.

Thats it for now really.

MajorWesJanson
04-01-2014, 10:29
That list is incredibly harsh, IMO.

What I would prefer to play-
No Void Shield Generators
No Destroyer weapons (Destroyer CC weapons in are instead treated as S10 AP1 Armorbane Fleshbane)
Formations/Dataslates take up an ally slot. (except for the Special Character ones)
Forgeworld units allowed.

jackers
04-01-2014, 10:36
I just talk to my opponents before a game and we decide what we fancy using. To be honest I now play most of my games against friends, or least people I vaguely know, so I'm not all that fussed about how many riptides they want to field, as long as they are nice and can have a laugh while killing me :p
I reckon that the only units I would say no to in a pick-up game would be Titans, but mainly because I would need to list-tailor to have a decent chance of not dying in 2 turns.
I also love things like warlord traits and mysterious terrain and objectives; they add an extra layer of interest to the game for me. I love the idea of my scouts moving into a forest, but then having to run away because it tries to eat them :p haha.

The no super-heavies bit I can understand, and I kind of get the no fortifications bit too, but 1 flyer? I know that 2-3 Heldrakes isn't fun to face, but would you really begrudge me my pair of storm talons?

May I ask why you want to restrict codex units so heavily? Do you feel that they don't fit into your picture of 40k? Or do you you think they are too powerful?

Camman1984
04-01-2014, 10:54
I only play with people i know so its just the rule of social contract. We agree to play a game, we talk about how 'competitive' it might be and usually end up with lists of similar power. We have no set restrictions.

Having fixed restrictions starts to alienate people. Monstrous creatures might not fit your image of the game but i love them (nids are one of my favourite opponents). Its also who gets to write that list? Is the person organising it a white scar player? You can bet helldrakes and any other ignore cover ap3 weapons will hit the 'resrticted list'. Whereas the guard player might want to ban anything with a high rate of fire.

I'm not accusing you of trying to bend your meta to fit how you want to play as i dont know how your list was created. But it opens up a huge can if worms in a situation that can usually be resolved amongst friends.

I have found that GW store staff are the worst for this, i know a manager that plays an army with no antiaircraft (he plays nids). Since 6th all flyers have been strickly limited to apocalypse only in his store. Funnily enough though, his next tourney in feb has been announced and the flyer restriction is absent. Interesting that is happending just after nids get flyers?

Andy089
04-01-2014, 11:14
One might as well promote using kill team restrictions (excluding the point limit and that every model is an IC) for usual games.

Sorry but that list makes no sense what so ever.

Tarax
04-01-2014, 12:50
May I ask why you want to restrict codex units so heavily? Do you feel that they don't fit into your picture of 40k? Or do you you think they are too powerful?

Fair question. I don't necessarily see anything as too powerful, though some are. But, indeed, most of it doesn't fit my picture of 40K, with that I mean the game. Some units just don't belong in the (large) skirmish that is 40K, again the game. That's also the main gripe some people have with Flyers, they feel that Flyers (or at least the rules for them) don't belong here.

As to many other remarks: You can see these suggestions as either something you agree to with a couple of friends, or just that your friends agree to when playing against you. My main reason for this was to see whether or which units/rules you fell don't belong in the game (or should be restricted).

T10
04-01-2014, 14:11
These limitations are not game-breaking, but will add a little flavour to the game, if not 'realism'.

I guess "bland" too is a flavour.

-T10

Bubble Ghost
04-01-2014, 15:16
I don't think it hurts to create two or three 'modes' for 40K, just as guidelines or gentlemen's agreements, so you can agree on a sort of manner of game very quickly. That's something I've thought about a bit. Here's the sort of thing I'd do:


Competitive mode

No Destroyer weapons
No experimental Forge World rules




Wargame mode

No Forge World
No Escalation
No formations
0-3 flyers, or 0-2 if any have AV 12 or more on any facing
Max 25% of army's points value on fortifications
Minimum 25% of army's points value per detachment
Battle Brothers treated as Allies of Convenience, even codexes allying with themselves - except Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas, who remain battle brothers
Mortally Wound the Warlord: inflicting an Instant Death wound on a warlord gets you the Slay the Warlord VP, even if he has Eternal Warrior - he dies of his wounds later.




Wacky Zany Candy Store Funhouse Narrative mode
"Official" 40K. Pick this only if you have the wisdom to use it.

Beppo1234
04-01-2014, 15:26
why not NOT limit anything, and learn how to play within the new environment. It's been around less than a month.

Spiney Norman
04-01-2014, 15:44
I would restrict Lord of War choices to 25% of army points total like in the HH system, otherwise no limits in particular, that would solve any problems connected with Revenant titans because I am never likely to agree to a 3600+pt game unless you are going to buy me about 1000pts worth of models before we play.

I think it would be fun to play with a 0-1 restriction on everything that is not a troops choice or ded trans, but that would be something I would only do with my opponent's consent as a one-off, not as a general game rule. I think that spamming things like wraithknights, riptides, Helldrakes etc is slowly ruining the game.

I would say that I think its unlikely that any new edition of 40k will have more restrictions than it does now, judging by the abortion of a battle report that featured in this months WD I'd say things are only likely to get worse until they ditch the FOC entirely and you can take whatever you like up to the allocated points cost. I suppose we ought to be thankful that the Tyranid book doesn't appear to have any Monstrous creatures in its troop selection, I was half expecting them to go there to be honest.

Camman1984
04-01-2014, 16:58
My main limitation would be max percentage spent on lords of war and maybe on characters. Preventing a 1500 point army containing both the chapter master and a titan makes sense. But sometimes its fun to play 'hunt the baneblade' with the superheavy and a minimal number of support troops. So again back to the gentlemans agreement.

Szalik
04-01-2014, 17:18
No super heavies under 2000 points.
Random events like mysterious terrain and objectives rolled before the game starts or none at all.
No D weapons.
Some restrictions on the number of Flyers, 2-3 per army list ? Number depends on points being played.

General ban and restriction list of units both GW and FW, a la Magic The Gathering. I'm more in favour of 0-1 restriction than ban here.

Bob Arctor
04-01-2014, 17:19
The only limitations I would impose are:

1) No Escalation without prior agreement.
2) No AV15 Fortifications without prior agreement.
3) No Mysterious terrain (it never gets used in our area anyway)

Prior warning if someone is using a FW list would be nice, but as long as they abide by the above it wouldn't be a sticking point for me.

Other than that, some incentives to not take too many OP units would be nice, e.g. extra VP for each Wraithknight/Helldrake/Riptide/Vendetta/whatever your sick of seeing/etc might encourage a bit of restraint when list building.

Szalik
04-01-2014, 17:20
No super heavies under 2000 points.
Random events like mysterious terrain and objectives rolled before the game starts or none at all.
No D weapons.
Some restrictions on the number of Flyers, 2-3 per army list ? Number depends on points being played.

General ban and restriction list of units both GW and FW, a la Magic The Gathering. I'm more in favour of 0-1 restriction than ban here.

-Totenkopf-
04-01-2014, 17:38
I would not ban D weapons, however, I would modify them so that they are only "D" on a roll of 6. Or something to that effect.

Raverrn
04-01-2014, 17:56
But the Dreadknight isn't even that big?

duffybear1988
05-01-2014, 00:51
1 flyer per 750 points. Including FMCs. Flyers that can hover may over rule this, but must hover as their movement for the entire game. FMCs also over rule this but cannot fly for the game and instead count as jump infantry. Any extra flyers over the 1 per 750pts rule must be noted down as non flying or hovering on the roster when picking army. This way you can take the hovering flyers if you really must.

Up to 25% may be spent on allies.

Up to 25% may be spent on fortifications.

No AV15 buildings until 2000 points. Then 1 per 2000 points.

No super heavies until 2000 points. Then 1 per 2000 points.

0-2 of every unit that isn't troops or a dedicated transport.

No random objectives/terrain.

Weaken D weapons so they are S10, AP1, fleshbane, armourbane, ignore cover. Still allow invulnerable saves.

When selecting a warlord trait let people roll for which chart and let them choose a trait from that chart instead. If they have a chart in the codex they can automatically choose from that instead of rolling to see which chart they pick from. This at least lets you pick a slightly useful trait.

All FW stuff allowed as long as it has the suitable for 40k mark from FW.

Nkari
05-01-2014, 01:12
No limitations, except all allies needs to be battlebrothers.. Cause it just does not make sense to have Tau allied to necrons etc..

Tarax
05-01-2014, 10:13
I guess "bland" too is a flavour.

-T10

To each their own. I like a more tactical game, where the focus is on the 'common soldier' and not the big monsters.


why not NOT limit anything, and learn how to play within the new environment. It's been around less than a month.

I like the game, just not everything in it. Is it wrong to agree with friends to do something a little different? I'm not implying that everyone should do what people come up with here.


I think that spamming things like wraithknights, riptides, Helldrakes etc is slowly ruining the game.


Other than that, some incentives to not take too many OP units would be nice, e.g. extra VP for each Wraithknight/Helldrake/Riptide/Vendetta/whatever your sick of seeing/etc might encourage a bit of restraint when list building.

It's these remarks that made me start this. Thanks for reminding everyone. :shifty:;)

Inquisitor Kallus
05-01-2014, 11:11
I se where your head is at Tarax and agree its nice to have those kinds of games too. I think variety is the key and indeed it can be achieved if the hobbyists youre with have slightly larger collections rather than just an army as they can choose other units to replace the larger things. It helps if youve been in the hobby a few years.

Id recommend some kind of campaign fighting with sepcific slots/units for different games, maybe a city fight game with dense buildings to make it difficult for large things to move around, people would probably leave their vehicles at home, maybe some heavy cloud or storms to give the idea that using flyers would be risky (hit by lightning? BRB P367) or no flyers rule since it would be impossible to fly in those conditions?

Tunnel/zone mortallis/spaceship fighting. Only models upto a certain height may be used because of low ceilings, etc etc. I think the main thing is talking to your opponents, less doable before a pick up game though. Thats why its a good idea to have a group of friends who you game with and can talk to.

The Highlander
05-01-2014, 12:21
Personally I would go with anything not in the standard codex should only be used with prior agreement and full rules for any 'extras' should be explained before the game starts. This gives both sides the chance to adapt their armies (if necessary) and avoids unnecessary confusion during the game.

yabbadabba
05-01-2014, 12:27
You limit the game to what you and your gaming group agree- whether as a tournament, pick up or campaign game. There is no reason to limit anything in terms of the game itself, but they may well be reasons that your gaming group needs to limit some behaviours and attitudes amongst its members.

FraustyTheSnowman
05-01-2014, 12:55
Variety through limitations? Makes perfect sense.

I intend on playing games with no D weapons and other than that not putting any further restrictions on what my opponent runs. Granted, I'm unfamiliar with the new fortification book, as the 15 armor thing is news to me.

Personally if I was going g to limit things I would say no possessed, no conscripts, no blood angles or sisters, chaos loose land raiders, and various other horrible sub par options are no longer available, and opponents who purposely hamstring themselves because of their god awful fan fiction are told to leave at the door. Anyone who mentions the words cheese, over powered, nearly, broken, or similar nonsense gives their opponent an extra victory point at the end of the game. And after the game if you've lost you don't mention dice screwing you, you don't talk about point and click armies, and you act like a good sport and shake your opponents hand.

T10
05-01-2014, 13:02
To each their own. I like a more tactical game, where the focus is on the 'common soldier' and not the big monsters.


When I say "bland" I don't mean "inferior". I'm just pointing out that removing the exotic playing pieces from the game doesn't "add flavor" as claimed in the OP. It may add "realism", though seeing as how we are talking about futuristic fantasy armies there may be as many ideas of what constitutes realism as there are players.

Now, there's nothing wrong with fielding an army that consists solely of infantry units and their transports. But is this something you want to reduce the game to forever?

-T10

tuebor
05-01-2014, 13:31
I'm pretty glad my gaming group allows everything. During the heyday of Chapter Approved back in 3rd the group I played in back then strictly forbade anything outside of the Codexes and only wanted to play Cleanse missions over and over again. There were a lot of neat things I always wanted to play with, Kroot Mercs, Armageddon Ork Hunters, Armoured Company, etc. that I never could because they weren't part of the core rules.

They even ended up putting in a comp system where 50% of your points had to be troops, no duplicates in HS and FA and some other things I forget, and every pickup game was understood to follow these rules. Literally everyone but me had the mindset of constantly preparing for their next tournament and never wanted to play a single game outside of these rigid restrictions. This wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't the only gaming group within a 5 hour drive.

While I'm glad my current gaming group allows these things I'm hesitant to drop hundreds of my hard earned Euros on things I'd really like to get like a Baneblade or a Wall of Martyrs GI Joe Playset because who knows if the next gaming group I end up with will actually allow me to use them and then they'll spend a couple of years collecting dust on my shelf until I move to the next place and maybe even then I won't get to use them.

Harwammer
05-01-2014, 14:28
My limitation for 'normal' is not taking armies where the game will revolve around one or two models.

For narrative or challenge games this is revoked, the important thing here is the armies fit the story/challenge (such as a couple of chaos warhounds ambushing an IG mechanised infantry train or 'I bet your chaos warband can't bag my titan').

Sappysid101
05-01-2014, 18:25
I don't play restrictions at all. They're not needed. If you put something down I'll find a way to kill it. Adds to the difficulty in what is otherwise an easy game to be good at with minimal skill.

- Sid

IcedCrow
05-01-2014, 18:31
Variety is the key to enjoying the hobby for me

IcedCrow
05-01-2014, 18:55
Variety is the key to enjoying the hobby for me

AngryAngel
05-01-2014, 19:30
I just need to say, if opponents all want the same game, you don't need limitations placed up for that as people will do it themselves. As well if you limit away all the new editions placed in, why not just entirely go through and make all your own rules and FOC assignments ? While I agree, there are some really bothersome and over the top units in game now allowable. More balanced book design would lead to variety better then all the imposed fan limitations in the world.

Some things should have been limited, like the lord of war with the 25 percent of your army part. Str D never should have been placed into regular games, for instance.

I myself wouldn't limit anything. I'd just find out what kind of game I'm playing, if its a no holds barred, list appropriately, if its a relaxed game, same story goes, list proper.

I can limit what I want to play with and use, but I won't limit my opponent if its in game, there is a chance it may be seen. For me its part of the mystery.

FraustyTheSnowman
05-01-2014, 19:55
Beautifully said AA.

AngryAngel
05-01-2014, 20:17
Thank you there Frausty.

Bubble Ghost
05-01-2014, 20:20
Variety through limitations? Makes perfect sense.

It actually does make sense. Legal restrictions, such as on killing people or on taking 4 heavy support choices, are about the freedom of some of the people not to be oppressed by the others. So, yes, restrictions are about freedom. In this context, restricting glaringly obvious "best" builds, or game-deciding wildcard army lists, reduces the advantage the replacement "best" builds have over the rest, making it more likely you'll see a greater range of builds. Theoretically, at least.

The bottom line for me is that I believe people are entitled to expect a roughly symmetrical experience from a game like this, unless they agree otherwise - and 40K now ecnompasses such a breadth of scale that it's more difficult than ever to guarantee this if you encourage people to spring anything they like on unsuspecting opponents. Playing the role of the Japanese army vs. Godzilla, or the mooks vs. a protagonist, or the ducks in a shooting gallery, might well be an interesting novelty if undertaken by arrangement, but it isn't fair to be able to leave people with no alternatives but to accept the role you have assigned them or not play. By shoehorning your opponent into a role, you're essentially saying to them: "This game is all about me. You are only here to serve the kind of experience I want." And that is just rude.

It's all a bit hypothetical, of course. I seriously doubt coming up with any hard and fast rules will be necessary for most groups - this kind of discussion is more just one about preferences. But if you've got people in your group likely to use the "doesn't say I can't, L2P n00b" defence for turning every game into a novelty scenario that is not representative of the game their opponent invested in, then I think people should feel completely entitled to ask them to tone it down.

Sir Didymus
05-01-2014, 20:40
I'd say limitations should be "if it looks cool, field it".

But if you insist on bringing some 1000 titan to win you the game over and over again, I'll be expecting you to bring the beer and snacks for me to enjoy, while you have fun rolling your dice :)

Zothos
05-01-2014, 21:24
We play:
No Allies
No Superheavies
No Dataslate Formations
No AV 15 Fortifications or Void Shields

Game remains awesome to us! Life is good.

FraustyTheSnowman
05-01-2014, 21:41
Bubble, I'm glad that works for you, but it doesn't for me. There's going to be a best build, no matter what restrictions you do, so knocking off the "best build problem" by imposing limitations is frankly idiotic. You just have different best builds. If some aspect of the game isn't fun for someone, that's different.

Bubble Ghost
05-01-2014, 22:04
There's going to be a best build, no matter what restrictions you do, so knocking off the "best build problem" by imposing limitations is frankly idiotic. You just have different best builds.

Which is a criticism that totally misses the point, because the relationship between these different best builds and the others has not changed at all from what it was previously. If Manchester United's manager retires and Manchester United suddenly start to suck - purely hypothetical, this:shifty: - it's not only Manchester City who benefit. It's everyone , because you have a much closer title race. Equality has increased.

It's not only the second best who improves, it's everyone.

Spiney Norman
05-01-2014, 22:33
Bubble, I'm glad that works for you, but it doesn't for me. There's going to be a best build, no matter what restrictions you do, so knocking off the "best build problem" by imposing limitations is frankly idiotic. You just have different best builds. If some aspect of the game isn't fun for someone, that's different.

This is an interesting point, whatever restrictions you put on the game there will always be a 'best build' because the balance between armies is rubbish.

So you don't like riptide/helldrake/wraithknight spam, so you say 'ok, no duplicate elite/fast/heavy choices. Ok, so instead I bring my necron scythe spam list, and everyone hates it, so you restrict flyer transports, so instead I turn up with my dark Eldar venom spam list or Eldar serpent spam list because its the new 'best' build under your restrictions, and everyone hates it. So you restrict the use of multiple transports, only now you have made the entire dark Eldar army (which lives or dies on its transports) completely non-viable and no-one brings it ever again, think we've gone too far yet?

The problem with restrictions is all you do is create a new 'OP build' and force people to adapt (which usually means buying new stuff), and every time they adapt and create a new power list within your restrictions you add a new restriction but every time you do that you are amputating another limb off the game that used to be so much fun until all you're left with is armies composed entirely of infantry troop units running across a board at each other and tearing each other to bits in the middle.

Restrictions are not the way to balance the game, writing well designed, even-handed army books is the only way to do that, and we all know how likely that is.

AngryAngel
05-01-2014, 22:47
Agreed, though I feel we've had this talk a little bit before.

Bubble Ghost
05-01-2014, 23:26
The fact that there is a best build is not a problem. Not ideal, but unavoidable, and not innately something that needs addressing. The problem just comes when consensus starts to mount that the best build is too far in front of the average - which is a view that seems to be getting some traction now. Pruning back the "best" build means you have a new best build, sure, but one that is not as far ahead of the pack. Whether it needs doing and when to stop is subjective, of course, and no one's suggesting pursuing some impossible-to-either-achieve-or-measure goal of geometrically flawless balance across the whole game. Stating that restrictions will never achieve such balance is a meaningless criticism of the concept.

Besides, this conversation about restrictions these days is as much about potentially unwanted wackiness in the game as it is about skewed chances of winning, which is a related but separate issue.



Restrictions are not the way to balance the game, writing well designed, even-handed army books is the only way to do that

Either GW say you can take 3 Riptides, or some tournament says you can take 2. I don't see the difference, personally. Sure, it would be nice if stuff rolled out of the factory fit for purpose, but I don't see adjusting rules to taste as being fundamentally any different from writing them in the first place, on a conceptual level.

FraustyTheSnowman
05-01-2014, 23:27
Bubble...No. everyone getting better is an illusion. Twelve is too high. We ban twelve. Eleven doesn't suddenly gain, it stays right where it is, as does its relationship to ten through negative infinity. Dropping twelve doesn't make ten any closer to equaling eleven. It doesn't make three suddenly a two digit number. It just means you have less numbers, less options, and less variability.

Norman...exactly. the guy playing dark eldar is fine banning fliers and psychers and super heavies, but doesn't understand where some jerk gets off wanting to ban transports. Someone on these forums had a Sig that reads something like "dear designer, scissors are op and should be nerfed. Rock is fine. Sincerely paper." And that Simms my thoughts up on it just about perfectly. Fliers don't strike you as something that belongs in the game? I understand that. But don't pretend the game is suddenly going to become more balanced if you don't use fliers. Obviously fliers here is just an example, feel free to fill in with any aspect of the game.

Bubble Ghost
05-01-2014, 23:43
Dropping twelve doesn't make ten any closer to equaling eleven.

Yes, it does! The army 10 is now 91% as good as the current best army, 11, when it was only 83% as good as the previous best, 12. 10 has a higher chance of beating 11 than it had of beating 12. And so do all other other numbers armies below it. This means that the chance that the current "best" army will lose any given game has gone up, and everyone except the deposed best army has fewer bad matchups. Equality has increased.

Look at it like this. If Usain Bolt breaks his leg, everyone now has a better percentage chance of beating whoever the new "best" guy is than they did of beating the old "best" guy. Everyone has an improved chance of winning gold. And in the context of wargaming comp style restrictions, the theory goes that this helps increase variety because a greater range of builds are now 'viable' in the wider environment of the game.

Frankly, in practice, I'm not sure that many people own so many models that it makes a great difference to the variety of builds you see, but what it does mean is that you get fewer obnoxious roflstompings from the guy whose model collection happens to be king of the hill at the moment, which I think is probably a good thing if managed properly.

Mikial
06-01-2014, 01:01
I don't think I'd bother with limiting anything in stand alone games. I might as part of a campaign, but the only reason I'd ever seek to impose limitations on available options for my circle of playing buddies would be time related issues, we have a finite amount of time at our club venue, so we need to squeeze setting up, playing and packing up into the evening.

I agree completely. People pay a fortune for their figs, and often build armies around a really nice piece, so they should be able to play with them as per the rules. If a tournament or campaign imposes limitations, that's different and fits into a very specific set up parameters.

Spiney Norman
06-01-2014, 11:41
Either GW say you can take 3 Riptides, or some tournament says you can take 2. I don't see the difference, personally. Sure, it would be nice if stuff rolled out of the factory fit for purpose, but I don't see adjusting rules to taste as being fundamentally any different from writing them in the first place, on a conceptual level.

But if you'd not playing in a Tournement (which I almost never do) then adjusting rules becomes something you can only do with your opponents consent, and someone who wants to field 3 riptides is unlikely to agree to the targeted handicapping of his army. See the problem? The application of any artificial restrictions entirely dependent on other players voluntarily agreeing to have their army handicapped in some way or another, and in my experience most gamers are very reluctant to agree to that.

Snake Eyes
06-01-2014, 12:09
But if you'd not playing in a Tournement (which I almost never do) then adjusting rules becomes something you can only do with your opponents consent, and someone who wants to field 3 riptides is unlikely to agree to the targeted handicapping of his army. See the problem? The application of any artificial restrictions entirely dependent on other players voluntarily agreeing to have their army handicapped in some way or another, and in my experience most gamers are very reluctant to agree to that.

That isn't really true. I will admit that I play a lot of tournament enviroments because I enjoy that style of play. The so called 'competitive' playing enviroment suits me and my gaming group.

My current tournament army does in deed include 3 Riptides and a Wraith Knight. Partially because the models work well in game play, but also because they are beautiful models. My army looks nice on the table. It is supported well by 3 units of Kroot with a Hound added to it, a couple of units of Eldar Jet Bikes and my Farseer on a Jet Bike.

However, most tournaments that you go to actually add restrictions to them. A lot that I attend say that you can't take more than 2 of the same none troop choice. My Third Riptide generally then stays at home. In friendly games I am happy to discuss and play with what the other bloke would like to do. If he is after a more laid back friendly game, then I will either not bring all 3 Riptides etc. Or I will bring my Armoured Imperial Guard force. I think the majority of people are quite happy to discuss with some one what sort of game they would like to play and find a compramise that suits both parties.

Generally the only times I get to use my 3 Riptides is in none tournament games. I guess I am lucky that my gaming group has the same attitude as myself and we are pretty laid back and will let anyone use what ever they want. The games are always enjoyable and have a competitive style flair to them.

I wouldn't restrict anything. I will admit I haven't played against D Weapons yet, but so far the BaneBlades and Lord of Skulls has been fun to play against and hasn't caused any futher game imbalance to usual.

duffybear1988
06-01-2014, 13:01
It actually does make sense. Legal restrictions, such as on killing people or on taking 4 heavy support choices, are about the freedom of some of the people not to be oppressed by the others. So, yes, restrictions are about freedom. In this context, restricting glaringly obvious "best" builds, or game-deciding wildcard army lists, reduces the advantage the replacement "best" builds have over the rest, making it more likely you'll see a greater range of builds. Theoretically, at least.

The bottom line for me is that I believe people are entitled to expect a roughly symmetrical experience from a game like this, unless they agree otherwise - and 40K now ecnompasses such a breadth of scale that it's more difficult than ever to guarantee this if you encourage people to spring anything they like on unsuspecting opponents. Playing the role of the Japanese army vs. Godzilla, or the mooks vs. a protagonist, or the ducks in a shooting gallery, might well be an interesting novelty if undertaken by arrangement, but it isn't fair to be able to leave people with no alternatives but to accept the role you have assigned them or not play. By shoehorning your opponent into a role, you're essentially saying to them: "This game is all about me. You are only here to serve the kind of experience I want." And that is just rude.

It's all a bit hypothetical, of course. I seriously doubt coming up with any hard and fast rules will be necessary for most groups - this kind of discussion is more just one about preferences. But if you've got people in your group likely to use the "doesn't say I can't, L2P n00b" defence for turning every game into a novelty scenario that is not representative of the game their opponent invested in, then I think people should feel completely entitled to ask them to tone it down.

Spot on Bubble.

MrZakalwe
06-01-2014, 13:12
The group I play with tend to play 1kpts so as you can imagine restrictions need to be placed. We never had set in stone rules just defaulted to 'don't take the ****' and as we are friends this worked fine.

Oddly the most fun series of game I played was on a heavy scenery board at 750pts guard vs guard. When your dudes only have flak armour then cover starts getting real important real fast. Add objectives placed mid field by a third person and the games were really, really fun.

P.S. the good bit about lower points value is that a unit like Terminators actually feels elite. The bad thing about it if somebody turns up with 2+ Riptides etc they are more or less unkillable.

IcedCrow
06-01-2014, 13:48
To be fair, in tournament mode if you had a lump of feces that did very well game-wise, you'd see it spammed as much as possible. Its appearance has nothing to do often with why its there. Just like pretty models that aren't that good in game are rarely seen.


So, yes, restrictions are about freedom. In this context, restricting glaringly obvious "best" builds, or game-deciding wildcard army lists, reduces the advantage the replacement "best" builds have over the rest, making it more likely you'll see a greater range of builds. Theoretically, at least.

I feel the same way. In its raw state, there are and always will be a small tiny percentage of builds that just dominate due to mathematics. It was like that in 3rd (i took advantage of it with my eldar starcannon army, won a lot of tournaments, nothing to do with me as a player but with me as someone that understands basic math), 4th, 5th, and today.

It also burnt me out hardcore and is the #1 reason why people I know quit the game (facing the same things over and over)

The more builds you see, the more fun for me at least, and it seems the longer people last in the hobby.

williamsond
06-01-2014, 14:17
I like my 40k as basic as possible with none of the new added stuff, but I'm old and grumpy though and really like to see fluffy armies. when i play at my local club I tend not to impose limitations on my opponents but do berate them light heartedly for being beardy gits if they turn up with cheese. As for tourneys i still tend to turn up with fluffy armies i just get beat lots.

Bubble Ghost
06-01-2014, 15:06
The application of any artificial restrictions entirely dependent on other players voluntarily agreeing to have their army handicapped in some way or another, and in my experience most gamers are very reluctant to agree to that.

Most gamers stick to the way their group plays if they want to join in.

That's not really the point though, because exactly how any given group or tournament achieves what they want to achieve regarding their gaming environment, and when it's appropriate to request that people stick to it, is not something I've been bothering talking about. That depends entirely on local conditions. I'm just trying to explain what such rules/guidelines/gentlemen's agreements regarding wackier builds are meant to achieve (and why "removing the best build is pointless because you'll just have a new best build" is a silly argument). No one wants to never see crazy stuff; the aim of comp type restrictions is not to be the fun police telling people they're not allowed to do things that annoy you. It's just about trying to avoid wasting anyone's time turning up for a "game" which is settled before a dice is rolled, or which deviates to an unacceptable extent from the experience one player may have been rightfully expecting. And a "restriction" can be something as simple as asking nicely.

Spiney Norman
06-01-2014, 19:03
Most gamers stick to the way their group plays if they want to join in.


Exactly, but this can work the opposite way as well, at our club the only restrictions on list building are the ones officially presented in the game rule book, and while I have only lived in three different towns, the clubs I was part in all of those places had the same rule on the basis that while the balance of the RAW game rules isn't perfect, it is at least impartial.

AngryAngel
06-01-2014, 21:14
You know, there was a historical group of people who imposed additional rules for society composition, I won't say who it was but it didn't work out very well for them. It also didn't lead to variety.

Bubble Ghost
06-01-2014, 21:15
Exactly, but this can work the opposite way as well, at our club the only restrictions on list building are the ones officially presented in the game rule book, and while I have only lived in three different towns, the clubs I was part in all of those places had the same rule on the basis that while the balance of the RAW game rules isn't perfect, it is at least impartial.

Why would suggesting additional restrictions be any less impartial than wanting to avoid them?




You know, there was a historical group of people who imposed additional rules for society composition, I won't say who it was but it didn't work out very well for them.

Fair enough, then I won't say what internet law you've just invoked.:p

You're going to have to explain what you believe the difference is between the authors of the game restricting things, and the end user restricting things. What unconditional, objective quality of truth are you ascribing the rulebooks that makes them worth adhering to, and makes deviating from them blasphemous, regardless of how awful they might make the game, and how much of an improvement users might make if they laid down to each other how to use the rules with restraint?

Scammel
06-01-2014, 21:25
You know, there was a historical group of people who imposed additional rules for society composition, I won't say who it was but it didn't work out very well for them. It also didn't lead to variety.

Godwin's Law in the purest form, inasmuch that the 'side' making the argument immediately, catastrophically loses the debate due to how pathetic the analogy is.

AngryAngel
06-01-2014, 21:34
I had to inject some comedy, it just felt too right.

How pathetic the analogy is, lies in the world of opinion Scammel.

In all fairness there really isn't much difference in those playing limiting things, and those who make the game. The only difference lies in the heart of the matter. If someone is doing it truly for betterment of everyone and not just his own enjoyment taken into account. If it is a change, everyone, agrees to, which as Norman has said can be very difficult to come to. Then I don't see any fault with it. Saying the game has issues and we need to take it in hand to change the game for the better of the group.

Too often however I've had people try to do such not for everyone's own good, but just to try and limit builds they didn't like, which is the dark side to it. How do you make it fair ? Does everyone agree ? Where do you draw the line ? Does the cure end up being more damaging then the problem in the long run ?

For the RAW crowd, its the most easy to just run with, as everyone has access to those rules what is and isn't allowable, no one persons bias can color it, and everyone knows exactly where they stand. I also think it leads to more variety in the long run as new fads drift in and out of favor, we haven't seen the Riptide and its ilk meet their hammer yet, but when we do, perhaps that too will fade a bit from prominence. It lies in freedom, and everyone loves some good old freedom.

For those altering it, they don't want to run into those problem areas and those issues, however how far do you limit it ? 2 ripetides ? 1 ? None ? As that would go to drain variety, not add to it. Though game balance may feel better, that's only because the built in balance from rules and books is so poor already.

If it can work, that's good, and both sides honestly have merit.

squeekenator
07-01-2014, 07:19
Blanket bans are silly. For the most part, people don't want to restrict fliers, and they don't think fliers are overpowered. They think vendettas, the necron air force and one variety of heldrake are overpowered, and want to restrict or outright ban them, but rather than targeting them specifically they hit every single flier in the game. Similarly, superheavies aren't universally overpowered, strength D weapons are overpowered. Hit the superheavies with D weapons with restrictions or bans and perhaps put in a % restriction so you can't bring a baneblade to a 750 point game. And if someone told you that they were restricting harpies you'd laugh at them (for another week or so at least, who knows what the next codex will do to them), but if you put a ban/restriction on all FMCs that's apparently totally reasonable and a good thing for the game. Blanket bans and restrictions are a lazy way of fixing the game, targeting the individual overpowered units and combinations is much better than taking dozens of units out of the game because of a single bad one.

Dkoz
07-01-2014, 10:00
I've never restricted any of my opponent, but if I do feel like I have absolutely no chance of winning a ill just turn down the game. AngryAngel it cool you can point out that communists and socialists are always trying to impose their will on people and historically all it has lead to is the deaths of millions of common folks.

Spiney Norman
07-01-2014, 10:16
Why would suggesting additional restrictions be any less impartial than wanting to avoid them?


Because you're not 'avoiding restrictions', you're just choosing to only use restrictions designed by an impartial 3rd party (the game designers) rather than someone who has a vested interest in the game (you or your opponent).

The game isn't unbalanced because the design team favours one faction or army over another, (Tau and Eldar as the most dominant codexes in the game are case in point of thise because their previous books were among the weakest codexes), the game is unbalanced because the designers just aren't competent and producing a balanced game. So your Tyranids might be terribad this week, but wait until next week and see how the balance shifts (see what I did there).

I can remember several times the suggestion has been made that an independent group of experienced players could be set up to put together an FAQ/Errata/Ammendment to the published game rules to achieve a better game balance and provide a new 'standard' comp restriction for Tournement organisers etc, the idea always gets shouted down because except for the design team who write the rules, no-one actually has the authority to impose their restrictions for playing the game on anyone else, if I don't like the restrictions you propose I can simply ignore them, so then what happens is you pack up your models and refuse to play me because apparently playing the way I want to play isn't 'fun' enough for you.

Take the thread about LoS blocking terrain where someone had the gall to tell me that I wasn't playing the game 'properly' if I didn't use 25% of my terrain pieces that can block LoS (despite the fact that GW don't sell any LoS blocking terrain at all).

Snake Eyes
07-01-2014, 10:42
I don't get your point about Games Workshop not selling any line of sight blocking terrain? A large portion of the fortifications block line of sight. Bastions, Wall of Martyr Bunckers, Just about any of the city ruins can be constructed to block line of sight and can all be mixed and matched beautifully. Fortress of Redemption certainly blocks line of sight.

I will admit that I only exclusively use the GW things because like many other people perhaps, my modelling abilities are not the greatest. I am a painter and a gamer. But I have no issue hiding some units out of line of sight in games. Can even hide a Riptide or 2 behind some of the terrain we use.

Spiney Norman
07-01-2014, 11:29
I don't get your point about Games Workshop not selling any line of sight blocking terrain? A large portion of the fortifications block line of sight. Bastions, Wall of Martyr Bunckers, Just about any of the city ruins can be constructed to block line of sight and can all be mixed and matched beautifully. Fortress of Redemption certainly blocks line of sight.

I will admit that I only exclusively use the GW things because like many other people perhaps, my modelling abilities are not the greatest. I am a painter and a gamer. But I have no issue hiding some units out of line of sight in games. Can even hide a Riptide or 2 behind some of the terrain we use.

While the fortress of redemption certainly does block LoS, would you really be happy putting it on the table without you or your opponent having paid points for it, that's a massive ingame advantage for whoever gets there first? Same with the Bastion, although obviously less so.

But we've been round this one a few times so its best not to open the whole thing again, what I object to is being told I'm playing the game wrong by someone I've never met.

Snake Eyes
07-01-2014, 15:53
Thats understandable. My query was more the fact that GW do provide ample amounts of scenery which can have line of sight blocking terrain if you wanted it. :)

I don't believe Line of Sight blocking terrain is required for 40k. But if you have some on the board and can add a new tactical level to the game.

As for the Fortress and Bastions causing big in game advantage? That could be a fun new twist. A bastion of 2 either side and the Fortress in the middle? Sure why not. Sounds like fun to me.

Harwammer
07-01-2014, 15:59
Treat em as ruins, say the defences are out of ammo / power. Plenty of ways to make things work.

IcedCrow
07-01-2014, 16:35
I've used the fortress of redemption as a ruin. It doesn't do anything but provide cover and block LOS. It doesn't have to be used as a functional fortress. Barring that I've also boarded up a lot of my GW buildings windows which also provide ways to block LOS from everything. Alternatively it can be fun to put it in the middle of the table and whoever owns it can use it.


what I object to is being told I'm playing the game wrong by someone I've never met.

I don't think anyone should tell you that you are playing the game wrong. I know that in my experience I've been told many times that if I'm not maxing out my army list or if I am endorsing playing the game in a way where I encourage not powergaming, that I am playing the game wrong and ruining the community by playing soft and i know that rubs me the wrong way, so I can empathize.

However, if someone comes on and complains that the game is broken, favors shooting units way too heavily, combat is dead, all of the internet myths we hear on a regular basis, and then they say they don't use the things that help balance these out nor should they have to, they are essentially complaining to complain. Now I don't have a record of you complaining about all of those things, so that is not directed squarely at you, that's more in general.

Bubble Ghost
07-01-2014, 17:19
Because you're not 'avoiding restrictions', you're just choosing to only use restrictions designed by an impartial 3rd party (the game designers) rather than someone who has a vested interest in the game (you or your opponent).

If an army build is acknowledged by all present to be too powerful to result in a fun game, the decision to simply carry on using it is every bit as much a proactive choice as the decision to refrain from using it, and just as prone to partiality.

Besides, players have no more or no less a vested interest than the authors - unless you mean to suggest that all players are corrupt or incapable, and will manipulate their suggestions to help their own army win..?



I can remember several times the suggestion has been made that an independent group of experienced players could be set up to put together an FAQ/Errata/Ammendment to the published game rules to achieve a better game balance and provide a new 'standard' comp restriction for Tournement organisers etc, the idea always gets shouted down because except for the design team who write the rules, no-one actually has the authority to impose their restrictions for playing the game on anyone else, if I don't like the restrictions you propose I can simply ignore them, so then what happens is you pack up your models and refuse to play me because apparently playing the way I want to play isn't 'fun' enough for you.

I don't particularly like the idea of a universally accepted, psuedo-official "community FAQ" either. All I'm saying is that rather than whinge about game imbalance, groups, tournaments, or whichever is your own most appropriate unit of community, should take some responsibility for their own experience with the game.

This could mean hard and fast rules like "you don't take Formations in this club unless you ask first" - which absolutely does have authority that a player must accept, even more so than the rulebooks - or it could just be having a chat and agreeing that you might all have more fun if you pick less wacky armies for ad-hoc games. It's just about managing attitude - in whatever is the most appropriate and necessary way for your own particular context. One of the silver linings of such a clearly outlandish game environment is that it provides some impetus for players to overcome conservatism and take responsibility for it, which would be less the case with some worldwide standard "community FAQ" with bold claims to be better full stop.

Long story short, all I am saying is that you should not be afraid to articulate or formalise the "don't be a dick" rule if people are using the letter of the game rules as an excuse to ignore it, when the consequences of them ignoring it are greater than ever. I've been getting the impression that you would rather shrug and say "this game sucks, what are you gonna do" than simply ask your opponent if he minds not choosing his titan this week, because you have the sense that asking that is somehow not 'proper'. If that's not the case, we're probably not as far apart on this issue as it seems.

Brother Haephestus
07-01-2014, 18:39
I think the strength in the 40K line isn't in the package as a whole, but what you can do with it to create more narrative scenarios and games. I think looking at the entire product line and not seeing it in this manner is what is giving people grief. I've never had an opponent push back on game specifics, but rather we have embraced the game with whatever sort of limitations we have imposed.

I think you need to consider these various rules and products as TOOLS IN YOUR TOOLBOX. You don't always need a hammer, but if you do, you have one. Wire cutters? Soldering Iron? Flat-head screwdriver? Check, check, check. Just pull out the tools you need and move on.

And when you start fussing at me about not having a flat-head screwdriver in your toolbox, I'm going to point out a butter knife, while not the PERFECT tool for the job, is going to help in a pinch. So even if your opponent jumps in with a titan, you should have something that can make an impact, even if it isn't the best tool for the job.

Tarax
08-01-2014, 09:49
I know that in my experience I've been told many times that if I'm not maxing out my army list or if I am endorsing playing the game in a way where I encourage not powergaming, that I am playing the game wrong and ruining the community by playing soft and i know that rubs me the wrong way,

I am sincerely very sorry that you have to live in such an environment. An environment where it is deemed wrong to do things in a certain way you feel comfortable with. :(

Spiney Norman
08-01-2014, 12:09
If an army build is acknowledged by all present to be too powerful to result in a fun game, the decision to simply carry on using it is every bit as much a proactive choice as the decision to refrain from using it, and just as prone to partiality.
Quite simply, in my experience there is no 'universally agreement' that any given build is too powerful, perceptions of 'OP' are generally variable dependent on what army you play and which army you played against last and the kind of builds your army has difficulty against. The chaos players I know don't think the helldrake is excessively overpowered, nor do Tau players think that riptides break the game so any attempt to limit their choices through imposing artificial restrictions is just interpreted as an attempt to nerf their army for the sake of their opponent gaining an advantage.


Besides, players have no more or no less a vested interest than the authors - unless you mean to suggest that all players are corrupt or incapable, and will manipulate their suggestions to help their own army win..?
Of course they do, you don't have to be 'corrupt and incapable' just because you want to win your games, everyone would like to win, the only question really is how much money they are prepared to pay for that win. There is also no suggestion that anyone is trying to manipulate the game for the win, the general perception I run into on a daily basis is that the officially published rules with no restrictions is as close to a level field as you can get and that codexes come and go and you enjoy your army's 'time in the sun' and suck it up when someone else's codex is the latest powerful thing.

Did you know that a lot of gamers out there actually believe that GW still do play testing on their codexes and that they are actually trying to make a balanced game? Maybe we should just all move to the same town and start a warseer gaming club where we can agree on stuff like this. The vast majority of the folks I play against are not so obsessed with the hobby that they over-analyse all the units in the game to determine which they thing is 'overpowered', nor do they spend all their spare time reply to discussions about it on forums like warseer. We represent a tiny percentage of the player base and to most others the idea that we know how to balance the game better than the people who wrote it is the height of arrogance.



Long story short, all I am saying is that you should not be afraid to articulate or formalise the "don't be a dick" rule if people are using the letter of the game rules as an excuse to ignore it, when the consequences of them ignoring it are greater than ever. I've been getting the impression that you would rather shrug and say "this game sucks, what are you gonna do" than simply ask your opponent if he minds not choosing his titan this week, because you have the sense that asking that is somehow not 'proper'. If that's not the case, we're probably not as far apart on this issue as it seems.

The problem with that is that when I am calling for restrictions on other armies, its me who is 'being the dick' in the eyes of the majority of gamers.

Of course I could just take my restrictions and go home, put my figures in a cabinet and look at them instead of actually playing games, but that is a rather counterproductive solution at the end of the day because my collection is relegated to nothing more than an expensive collection of hand painted ornaments.

IcedCrow
08-01-2014, 13:30
I am sincerely very sorry that you have to live in such an environment. An environment where it is deemed wrong to do things in a certain way you feel comfortable with. :(

Its not the environment, it was a tiny handful of very vocal individuals who don't think you should play 40k in any other way other than min/maxing and that if you do that you are spoiling the group and making them weak. We have a great environment here overall.

Bubble Ghost
08-01-2014, 21:42
snip

OK, I think you're off base about a couple of things in there, but I've done enough long posts on this topic so I'll just get to the point. Which is that, I guess I was right - you would rather shrug and say "this game sucks, what are you gonna do" than simply ask your opponent if he minds not choosing his titan this week..?

So do you mind if I ask why? What unforgivable imposition do you imagine that you're making by suggesting to people that they don't necessarily have to hit each other with those hammers they've all been given?

Spiney Norman
08-01-2014, 22:17
OK, I think you're off base about a couple of things in there, but I've done enough long posts on this topic so I'll just get to the point. Which is that, I guess I was right - you would rather shrug and say "this game sucks, what are you gonna do" than simply ask your opponent if he minds not choosing his titan this week..?


That's not the choice, the choice is play or don't, and rage-quitting when you see three riptides/Helldrakes/wraith knights or a Revenant Titan is pretty undignified, so yep, I usually suck it up.

Charistoph
08-01-2014, 22:18
You know, there was a historical group of people who imposed additional rules for society composition, I won't say who it was but it didn't work out very well for them. It also didn't lead to variety.

You mean, like, all of them? At one point in time, every historical group has done this, and still do it today, in one form or another.


AngryAngel it cool you can point out that communists and socialists are always trying to impose their will on people and historically all it has lead to is the deaths of millions of common folks.

I didn't see him say that. Read above.

But On Topic, our shop's main restrictions are: Have the book, Be prepared to share it to show the rules, and Don't be a rectal orifice.

Bubble Ghost
08-01-2014, 23:08
That's not the choice, the choice is play or don't, and rage-quitting when you see three riptides/Helldrakes/wraith knights or a Revenant Titan is pretty undignified, so yep, I usually suck it up.

"Play or don't" is not the choice. I'm not talking about thrusting a banning order in anyone's face just as you start to unpack your armies here - option 3 is to talk about it like adults before you get to that point.

Spiney Norman
08-01-2014, 23:38
"Play or don't" is not the choice. I'm not talking about thrusting a banning order in anyone's face just as you start to unpack your armies here - option 3 is to talk about it like adults before you get to that point.

And a soon as the words "lets talk about how we are going to restrict your army list choices" come out of my mouth, I have chosen not to play. You might be from the kind of place where your opponent allows you to deliberately limit their list because you think its overpowered, but that's not how we do it because the majority of people don't recognise OP elements within their own armies and therefore don't regard any limitation on them as legitimate or necessary.

When we set up a game, we agree to play at the next club meet, usually we will agree the game system (i.e. Wfb, 40k or LotR), a points value and nothing more specific than that, occasionally we will agree on the armies to be used, but even that is usually left blank we turn up for the game to prevent list tailoring. That's just our club etiquette.

Ssilmath
08-01-2014, 23:42
And nobody is capable of saying "Hey man, I don't really want to play against any superheavies, you mind leaving your Titan at home?" And instead of talking things out like adults, you don't even bother?

Spiney Norman
08-01-2014, 23:51
And nobody is capable of saying "Hey man, I don't really want to play against any superheavies, you mind leaving your Titan at home?" And instead of talking things out like adults, you don't even bother?

Superheavies are a whole different ball game, most of our guys don't even have the escalation book let alone a SH, and no one is a jerk enough to spring a SH on someone else unannounced. We treat escalation like apoc or planet strike.

Triple helldrake/riptide/wraith knight is always a danger though.

Ssilmath
08-01-2014, 23:57
And once again, nobody is adult enough to talk things out? Say "Hey man, I know you like your Riptides, but my Sisters just don't have what it takes to give them a good fight. You mind only taking one? Oh, and do you mind if we count a couple of these ruins as completely blocking line of sight? I'd like to see what effect that has on things."

Nubl0
09-01-2014, 03:12
The above is super correct, just discuss hwo to make the game fun and challenging for both of you. It's no fun for anyone if the game ends in a turn 3 tabling.

AngryAngel
09-01-2014, 06:31
And a soon as the words "lets talk about how we are going to restrict your army list choices" come out of my mouth, I have chosen not to play. You might be from the kind of place where your opponent allows you to deliberately limit their list because you think its overpowered, but that's not how we do it because the majority of people don't recognise OP elements within their own armies and therefore don't regard any limitation on them as legitimate or necessary.

When we set up a game, we agree to play at the next club meet, usually we will agree the game system (i.e. Wfb, 40k or LotR), a points value and nothing more specific than that, occasionally we will agree on the armies to be used, but even that is usually left blank we turn up for the game to prevent list tailoring. That's just our club etiquette.

I understand what your saying, and have before as well. However, you have to know, nothing you say will change their minds. I've never asked an opponent not to bring something, as it comes out odd, as you well know. I've asked to play against certain armies if they have multiple however. If the army has access to annoying things I've just had to make lists to try and deal with or mitigate it. Like you, when we play its more a loose, what pt value you want to play ? Sort of affair, we don't even say what armies we're playing.

You and I and they, are playing different games in some ways and I don't think their is a way to truly see eye to eye on such.

budman
09-01-2014, 09:04
the two rules my reguar group and I play by
RULE ONE Just agree in advance of the game what is cool
RULE TWO Don't Be a GIT (replace git with word of choice)

Spiney Norman
09-01-2014, 09:41
And once again, nobody is adult enough to talk things out? Say "Hey man, I know you like your Riptides, but my Sisters just don't have what it takes to give them a good fight. You mind only taking one? Oh, and do you mind if we count a couple of these ruins as completely blocking line of sight? I'd like to see what effect that has on things."

And when he says, 'no that would gimp my army', my response should be what exactly? Or in the case of the more sarcastic gamers, the reply is more likely to be something like "and how about you don't bring any exorcists or Meltaguns..."

Taking my fun at the expense of someone else's is not something I would really want to encourage.

And changing something as fundamental as the LoS system is not something I'd really want to embark on, if you rule that ruins automatically block LoS you then have to make a ruling on every terrain type, then find a way of determining what a unit can see if it is standing on a hill in front of the ruin etc. LoS works ok as either representational or as True, but you really can't mix the two, and true LoS is at least simpler to decide in the case of arguments.

Tarax
09-01-2014, 11:25
Its not the environment, it was a tiny handful of very vocal individuals who don't think you should play 40k in any other way other than min/maxing and that if you do that you are spoiling the group and making them weak. We have a great environment here overall.

Then I'm feeling sorry for that micro-environment who put winning before having fun.
Good to hear you still have a great environment overall.

On topic though: I like to base my limitations not on overpoweredness, but on game style. A Riptide/Wraithknight/Dreadknight do not feel like part of the game I'm playing. Nor do Flyers (at least multiples :shifty:).

AngryAngel
09-01-2014, 17:39
Honestly I'd be all for only swarms of infantry having at one another. I think that is what we should do, get back to the real deal, that is 40k. None of this vehicle, MC, Flyer noise. Just battle like its 1915

Ssilmath
09-01-2014, 17:44
And when he says, 'no that would gimp my army', my response should be what exactly? Or in the case of the more sarcastic gamers, the reply is more likely to be something like "and how about you don't bring any exorcists or Meltaguns..."

Easy. Don't play them, and find somebody who is willing to be reasonable. Try and change the mentality of your group that the game is more important than the win.


Taking my fun at the expense of someone else's is not something I would really want to encourage.

That is why you have a discussion about how to make the game fun for both players. I've done it before, and once I get more ingrained at the new clubs I'm joining I'll start doing that once again (If necessary).


And changing something as fundamental as the LoS system is not something I'd really want to embark on, if you rule that ruins automatically block LoS you then have to make a ruling on every terrain type, then find a way of determining what a unit can see if it is standing on a hill in front of the ruin etc. LoS works ok as either representational or as True, but you really can't mix the two, and true LoS is at least simpler to decide in the case of arguments.

Just try it for a game or two. Remember that in 4th, LOS was representational. I'm suggesting it as an experiment that you and a like minded friend can play out. If you find it does make a difference, try it out with a couple other people. Maybe modify the terrain a bit (As has been suggested in other places) in order to make it jive with TLOS. I mean seriously, what can it hurt to give it a try, other than your pride?

IcedCrow
09-01-2014, 17:48
You shouldn't even need to change the LOS system. You simply build or buy online a couple of large factories or buildings that block LOS and use them.

Mixing LOS is as easy as saying "for this game these two ruins block LOS". That would be for those that don't want to build or buy large buildings already (which is the easiest solution). The second easiest solution is to apply balsa wood and glue it to the windows of the GW buildings, boarding them up and actually blocking LOS.

This idea that if you let a ruin in a game block LOS that that means you are bound to have to make judgement calls on every piece of area terrain out there is blown up exaggeration or something that The Rainman would do because he's Obsessive Compulsive. It really is as simple as saying "that ruin right there blocks LOS" and being done with it and moving on.

Beyond that its arguing for the sake of arguing.

T10
09-01-2014, 22:19
Easy. Don't play them, and find somebody who is willing to be reasonable. Try and change the mentality of your group that the game is more important than the win.

I agree. Some players are simply not compatible for playing with each other: Powergamers will always find a way to abuse the system. Fluff-players never learn to do so. These two types of players should mot be forced to play each other.

Perhaps instead of trying to introduce sweeping restrictions, why not use a ladder League system of sorts that consistently pits the "hardest" players against each other as they vie for the hollow glory of being the top ******* on the ladder? Let the "soft" players kick back on the lower rungs and enjoy the damned game.

-T10