PDA

View Full Version : Why I hate derivative lists (traits/doctrines)



cailus
11-08-2006, 00:30
I really hope the new Ork Codex goes along the path of the new Eldar codex and contains only 1 list, because I really hate alternative lists as found in the Space Marine and IG Codexes.

In the last month I have played against two players (one IG and 1 Marine) and in both cases they used totally illegal lists (one used Conscripts without an IG Infantry platoon and the other used Raven Guard Assault Squads as troops and was also about 100 points over in a 600 point list).

And in the past the same has happened with these derivative lists. I don't know whether players cheat or simply don't understand the rules, but these derivative lists open up the game to too much rules ambiguity, simply because they play too much with force organisation and unit rules.

It cannot be expected for opponents to understand these rules.

However it is very easy for the player to simply claim "I am using such and such traits/doctrines." And I as the opponent should not spend the next 10 minutes reading and deciphering doctrinal rules. And the bad thing is that one doctrine/trait will have unexpected influences on the way the army plays (e.g. Apothecaries instead of Vet Sarges can make Marines almost immune to leadership). The problem here is that the opposing player will not understand these subtle influences. So someone can claim something and they will be taken at face value simply because the opponent doesn't understand the implications of the claim.

The basic codexes do not provide this opportunity as the rules are spelt out clearly (though certain Chaos items do cause confusion e.g. Warp Scream).

There's also the issue of "something for nothing" - i.e. a Marine player gets elite assault squads with furious charge but doesn't take allies or something equally ridiculous.

Seth the Dark
11-08-2006, 00:56
Those things make armies interesting. It pays to know what other armies can take and besides, no one really wants 40k to be dumbned down any more.

cailus
11-08-2006, 01:01
The traits don't dumb down anything. They're poorly conceived freebies. As I said you get something awesome but lose something meaningless in return.

I can make a Crimson Fist or Raven Guard army without using the stupid traits.

The IG Doctrines aren't free but can confuse matters too. They too are open to hideous abuse from cheaters as well as misunderstandings.

The new Eldar codex is proof that GW think that the trait/doctrine systems confuse matters too much. The new Nid codex is the same as it got rid of the "build your own Hive Fleet" system.

As I said I hope Codex Orks doesn't have Klans in it. Again I can build most of the Klans without Klan rules.

cpl_hicks
11-08-2006, 01:05
the main problem is NOT with the doctrines of traits themselves, but the wording, if GW had made an effort to read them a couple of times it wouldnt be so bad

Helicon_One
11-08-2006, 01:10
Well, the Ork Codex should hopefully have Clan variations at least. No mix-and-match doctrine/trait system though, that would be a bad idea.

Tim

BodhiTree
11-08-2006, 01:32
I will agree that the We Stand Alone disadvantage is an extremely abusable choice, I think it was a really dumb idea. I think I will disagree on some of the other stuff though. I wanted 4 Assault Squads with Furious Charge, so I took Raven Guard traits. I can't do that with a straight codex list, and it is not a subtle difference from a pure codex list.

This stuff is on the same honour system as everything else in the hobby, be honest about your traits, don't load your dice, be honest about your army list, don't try to measure the board while playing etc.

UnRiggable
11-08-2006, 01:39
What makes it worse is when theres a xeno-fighter trait and players simply switch do a different one when playing against other amies.

devolutionary
11-08-2006, 01:42
Xeno-fighters should be WYSIWYG, so they should have the appropriate iconography. This is certainly the case with Marines, iirc.

Grand Master Raziel
11-08-2006, 01:44
I really hope the new Ork Codex goes along the path of the new Eldar codex and contains only 1 list, because I really hate alternative lists as found in the Space Marine and IG Codexes.

In the last month I have played against two players (one IG and 1 Marine) and in both cases they used totally illegal lists (one used Conscripts without an IG Infantry platoon and the other used Raven Guard Assault Squads as troops and was also about 100 points over in a 600 point list).



Those problems are not caused by trait/doctrine systems per se. They're caused by either players not properly understanding the rules or outright cheating. That can happen with any particular set of rules.

Brother_Falco
11-08-2006, 01:45
Which it specifically states you can't do, and demands they represent the type of xeno on the model. So don't play the cheating fools. yeesh.

Minister
11-08-2006, 01:46
And with the Guard too. If it's not represented on each squad that takes the upgrade, throw things at your oponent.

hellfire
11-08-2006, 02:08
marine traits aren't freebies there uassually +3 points a model which can get expensive fast
the xeno-fighters trait is for a specific race if your opponets have little magnetic heads of aliens and can switch them out each game they deserve that tactical advantage for going through the modeling

cailus
11-08-2006, 02:36
From another post


Sorry I'm cranking cause I got ripped off in a game last night. Guy BS'd the Marine traits he was using and then had a 100 extra points on top in a 600 point battle. Not sure if he was inexperienced or cheating, but he did try to rules lawyer with false rules (I kept on referring him to the rulebook). I'll talk to him about it next time.

My last club was full of cheats and I am hoping this new one is not.

The dude used the Raven Guard traits and claimed his Furious Charge Assault Squad was a Troops choice under this regime. In a handy manner he doesn't own a codex and instead has some photocopied sheets outlining unit summaries.

Turns out he overblew his points by about 80 though I don't know what he fielded exactly in terms of wargear. He had a 5 man Scout unit with 2 Sniper Rifles and a Missile launcher, Predator with autocanon and lascannon, 5 man assault marine squad with Furious Charge and a Sarge with a power weapon (taken as Troops because of his traits - I think this is wrong nut the traits are confusing), a fully tooled up Techmarine with 2 heavy bolter gun servitors and a Rhino and a Chaplain with a jump pack and plasma pistol. According to my calculations, that's 680 points in a 600 point game with only 1 troop choice.

Two weeks before that I am playing a guy who has 40 odd conscripts with a conscripts, a Heavy bolter squad, a 5 man grenadier squad, a command squad and a Leman Russ in a 600 point army. Tells me he is using doctrines. We start playing and nearly finish the game when someone comes up and says: dude that's an illegal army because you need 1 infantry platoon to be able to field any conscripts" (his argument was that he was using conscript doctrine).

I am going to start forcing my opponents to provide me with a list and a Codex so I can pre-check their armies.

Xurben
11-08-2006, 02:36
I don't think the traits are bad, it gives marines something to compete with the basic chaos codex.

Knowing the enemy is an important skill also.

Bronka
11-08-2006, 02:38
It's true to a certain extent with Marines - you get to pick positive traits that benefit the army, whilst the 'negative' traits, in practice, have almost no negative effects whatsoever. That said, they still have to pay the points for the positive traits, so you can't really complain.

With Guard you can complain even less, as there are no false 'negative' doctrines, and every doctrine (with the exception of Close Order Drill) is paid for in points.

What you're complaining about is people cheating, and that can be done with any army list. You can't blame the trait/doctine system at all.

cailus
11-08-2006, 02:58
My point was that doctrines and traits confuse the issue. The Marine ones especially can get very confusing as they modify the Force Organisation Charge as well as the way the army fundamentally operates.

Perhaps WSIWYG should be enforced more stringently in this case. For example Assault Marines taken as Elites should have special or additional markings - e.g. trophies, veteran squad markings

A problem I've encountered is that people don't build models around traits/doctrines. They apply them to best counter opponents forces and change them according to the opponent.

devolutionary
11-08-2006, 03:11
There is nothing to say that an Assault Squad taken as an Elite choice is any more Elite though.

To be perfectly honest, the entire problem you're having is not with the traits, which are tragically easy, but with cheaters and opportunists. Just as some people have multiple lists for different ocassions (magnetized models, for example), others modify their traits. It's not precisely good practise, but is the problem that they're doing it, or that you're not?

cailus
11-08-2006, 03:25
There is nothing to say that an Assault Squad taken as an Elite choice is any more Elite though.


The implication is there though. They are an Elite choice and have a special ability. Given that you can still pick ordinary Assault Marine squads, this implies that the Elite ones either have more experience or better training than normal ones. Hence some sort of markings should be in order that differentiate them from normal assault squads.

The problem is that these people don't want to use them as Veteran Assault Squads all the time. For example against Guard S4 and I4 is quite reasonable.

So the models look the same as normal Assault Squads.

The same applies to other traits.

And the ability to pick something totally useless a disadvantage is especially irritating.

Toppan
11-08-2006, 03:30
If i hear one complaint about feral orks i swear ill never turn the frown upside down. Dont make me do it.

Seriously man, think about it...what the heck would wh40k be without the little variations in armies? Would you rather see vanilla armies all the time, with all the same wargear, all the same stats, all the same tactics and whatnot?

Seth the Dark
11-08-2006, 03:34
So what? Some people might not be able to afford to by two of each squad and paint them accordingly. Last time I checked this game is about fun; if someone is cheating, then don't do it.

NakedFisherman
11-08-2006, 03:39
There's no such thing as 'Veteran Assault Marines' and modeling them as such is ridiculous. You don't need to model veteran skills because there's really nothing to model.

And, with that in mind, there's no reason the enemy should know. In WHFB magic items and such work this way. Sure, some people cheat, but it's usually rather obvious. Making yourself out to be a cheater is just plain bad, anyway.

cailus
11-08-2006, 03:44
If i hear one complaint about feral orks i swear ill never turn the frown upside down. Dont make me do it.

Seriously man, think about it...what the heck would wh40k be without the little variations in armies? Would you rather see vanilla armies all the time, with all the same wargear, all the same stats, all the same tactics and whatnot?

The Feral list is fair enough as it's a stand alone codex, just like Space Wolves or Blood Angels or Black Templar.

And people use vanilla armies all the time anyway. Not many people stray from the optimum internet endorsed lists. There were massive debates going on about cookie-cutter lists that utilise min-maxed squads, or maximum ordnance or whatever.

cailus
11-08-2006, 03:50
There's no such thing as 'Veteran Assault Marines' and modeling them as such is ridiculous. You don't need to model veteran skills because there's really nothing to model.

That's debatable. As I said skills imply either long service or special training. Both would be marked by something especially by the marines who go so far as to drill studs into their heads to mark centuries of service or utilise heraldry etc to denote members of significance.


And, with that in mind, there's no reason the enemy should know. In WHFB magic items and such work this way. Sure, some people cheat, but it's usually rather obvious. Making yourself out to be a cheater is just plain bad, anyway.

The problem is that in my experience 75%-85% of players cheat (my last club helped contribute to this total where if you kicked out all the cheats you would have a couple of people left out of 20).

Hence I think that exchanging lists is fair enough given that in my experience shows that most people are not to be trusted. Your experience may be different.

Outlaw289
11-08-2006, 04:22
What makes it worse is when theres a xeno-fighter trait and players simply switch do a different one when playing against other amies.

You are not allowed to do that. The doctrine specificalyl states you can only pick Tyranid, Eldar, or Ork, and MUST STICK WITH THAT CHOICE

cailus
11-08-2006, 04:54
Who follows that rule? People just use it whenever it pleases them. If you say no this sort of thing, then you also can't play against anyone that proxies anything (e.g. this melta gun is a plasma gun, but this other melta gun is a flamer).

WYSIWYG is usually ignored in this day and age.

tuebor
11-08-2006, 05:01
The problem is that in my experience 75%-85% of players cheat (my last club helped contribute to this total where if you kicked out all the cheats you would have a couple of people left out of 20).

Wow, out of the 3 clubs I've played at I've only come across 4 people who were intentionally cheating. There were a few people who had difficulty figuring out their list, but that was easily remedied. I think you just need to find a different club.

Oh, and it seems that the people in your club modify their lists based on what opponents they'll be playing against. These people deserve to be hit upside the head with the rulebook.

Grand Master Raziel
11-08-2006, 05:03
Cailus, maybe you've been playing longer than me, but I've been playing this game for 5 years, and in all that time I've only ever encountered one player that I'm sure was deliberately cheating. I've played against people who were unpleasant to play against for other reasons, and I've played against people who don't 100% know what they are doing, but are playing in good faith...and I've also played against people who know the rules, play fair, and are a joy to play against. I think the only real practical solution to your problem is to find somewhere else to play, because it sounds like where you're playing blows.

cailus
11-08-2006, 05:04
The new club is much better. I will talk to this guy to work out if he cheated.

And yes people do modify lists. Even in our league it was possible to change lists from week to week.

Xurben
11-08-2006, 06:13
Where I live must be an exception to all these statistics and rules..

Nobody cheats and we all play wysiwyg =)

We also dont tailor our armies to beat one person... well, most of us don't.

cailus
11-08-2006, 06:38
Where I live must be an exception to all these statistics and rules..

Nobody cheats and we all play wysiwyg =)

We also dont tailor our armies to beat one person... well, most of us don't.

Can your club adopt me? I am toilet trained and I know some hot chicks. I can set you up, but you will have to wait in line because Charcoal Chicken is pretty popular.

On a serious note, the new club I am attending isn't that bad. Mostly cool guys and this is the first case where there might be serious cheating (the IG guy really was within points and seriously didn't know).

tuebor
11-08-2006, 06:47
Where I live must be an exception to all these statistics and rules..

Nobody cheats and we all play wysiwyg =)

We also dont tailor our armies to beat one person... well, most of us don't.

That's how my club is, although a fair bit of proxying goes on. The majority of us are college students, and as such are often rather broke. However, anyone trying to switch xenofighters every game would get slapped in the head with the rulebook.

Here, we consider tailoring your list to beat a specific person's army to be almost as bad as cheating. Unless, of course, it's something you both agreed to beforehand.

BrainFireBob
11-08-2006, 07:09
There is also the issue, especially with noobs learning their list, and trying to improve them, and how that can go too far.

Me, I think some of the doctrines shouldn't be there, or rather not combinable with the other doctrines in a single system. Same with the disads. Some of the combinations just aren't that great. And really, you shouldn't be allowed to take "We Stand Alone" unless you're playing a 3000+ point game. Y'know, where it actually matters.

I do rather like the IG system, where you have five points to buy traits- but those same five buy back all your "non-standard" units.

Agamemnon2
11-08-2006, 07:31
Who follows that rule? People just use it whenever it pleases them. If you say no this sort of thing, then you also can't play against anyone that proxies anything (e.g. this melta gun is a plasma gun, but this other melta gun is a flamer).

Well, if you don't follow the rules, then whatever happens is pretty much your own fault. I wouldn't allow proxying in the manner you describe, either. If one guy's melta gun is representing a flamer, then the other guy should have his plasma gun be represented by something else.

Yorrik
11-08-2006, 09:30
Wow, out of the 3 clubs I've played at I've only come across 4 people who were intentionally cheating. There were a few people who had difficulty figuring out their list, but that was easily remedied. I think you just need to find a different club.

Oh, and it seems that the people in your club modify their lists based on what opponents they'll be playing against. These people deserve to be hit upside the head with the rulebook.

I agree that changing your Xenos Hunters target in between fights is uncool (and against the rules) but when I sit down to play a friendly game of 40k, I write my list based on who I face. I mean, if I know my opponent is playing Marines, I'll give my guardsmen lascannons, but if he's playing Orks I'll grab the Heavy Bolters. It doesn't make sense to me that I only have one list that I play against all armies.

Simsandwich
11-08-2006, 10:00
Traits are open easily to abuse, but its quite sad, if all you want to do is win, my mate uses Xeno Fighters: Orks, as it lets him use my Ork bits and do some cool conversions, and in return, I get bits off his tank sprues for my Battlewagon and other bits. And we have fun EVERY time we play against each other.

Gen.Steiner
11-08-2006, 10:35
And people use vanilla armies all the time anyway. Not many people stray from the optimum internet endorsed lists. There were massive debates going on about cookie-cutter lists that utilise min-maxed squads, or maximum ordnance or whatever.

*waves hands in the air frantically*

I stray! I do! And I use Doctrines and Traits and stuff!

Doctrines and Traits are very easy to get the hang of. They get expensive fast and can often be worse than taking the 'nilla list straight from C:IG or C:SM.

What you're having an issue with is idiots. That is, people who have misread the rules (Grenadiers makes Stormtroopers a Troops Choice, so he presumably thought he could take Conscripts because he had a unit of Grenadiers) and/or people who are cheating.

All armies should be WYSIWYG anyway, so if you're having repeated issues with this, ask your opponent to make his/her army WYSIWYG and don't play them again until it is.

Simsandwich
11-08-2006, 11:06
Conscripts=White Stripe
Thats easy, £2.00 Pot of paint.
Xeno Fighters Tyranids: £18 Gaunts Box.
Sometimes money is an object for teens like me.

Gen.Steiner
11-08-2006, 11:08
Xeno-Fighters: Painted on Tyranid/Ork/Eldar silhouettes. £2.00 pot of paint, or paints from your collection.

It's not hard to be WYSIWYG!

marv335
11-08-2006, 11:14
i don't generally use traits/doctrines.
doctrines because they can get expensive fast (and i'd rather have more bodies shooting than a 4+ save for example)
and the fact than my marine army is crimson fists.
have you seen the traits for them??
i get the privilage of paying to get preferred enemy : orks and i lose 1 elite, 1 fast attack, and 1 heavy support choice. and that's a minor disadvantage :wtf:
so i don't use them.
and i have a fairly impressive win/draw/lose record
in fact i took out a doctrined guard army yesterday with a vp margin of 2849
vp.
(1500pt cleanse mission, i wiped him out completely, held all four table quarters, and lost one assault marine and a five man scout bike squadron)

Simsandwich
11-08-2006, 11:18
Xeno-Fighters: Painted on Tyranid/Ork/Eldar silhouettes. £2.00 pot of paint, or paints from your collection.

It's not hard to be WYSIWYG!

Damn I just got pwn3d.
My mate wrote "DIE GREENSKIN SCUM" on his Chimera.
With Ork heads beside it.
Looks good.

chickenuggets
11-08-2006, 11:37
if you play at a club then try to play small tournaments. then you cant hone your list to beat specific opponents, ie. SM's. we do this with my bunch of gaming friends, but as i play eldar most, and they play meq's, its all good with the star cannons.

Gen.Steiner
11-08-2006, 11:40
Damn I just got pwn3d.
My mate wrote "DIE GREENSKIN SCUM" on his Chimera.
With Ork heads beside it.
Looks good.

Told you it wasn't hard. :D

Sai-Lauren
11-08-2006, 13:34
I will agree that the We Stand Alone disadvantage is an extremely abusable choice, I think it was a really dumb idea.

Agreed, for a system that doesn't really support, and gives no advantages to, having allies, having something that disallows them isn't exactly the most earth shattering drawback.

However, I do think if you're using doctrines/traits, then it's your responsibilty to make sure your army is totally legal, and that you explain how each of them works before hand - I mean, how long would it take (this is my doctrined guard army, it's got mechanised, which means X, hardened fighters which means Y and support squads, stormtroopers and ogryn bought back off the restricted units list).

What's that, two minutes, and you can do it whilst you're setting up your army?

Bloodknight
11-08-2006, 13:44
I am also not a big fan of the Guard Doctrines. They´re partially too restrictive (Sanctioned Psykers need a doctrine point...sure...), partially too good and partially unbalanced in comparison to the other doctrines. I especially dislike the Drop Troops doctrine for free (when compared to light infantry and especially with Bionics, which are mathematically useless for their points) and I even more dislike the fact that the basic IG list is never as good as a list tailored with doctrines (which was something not supposed to happen, as the GW people said they wanted to make the basic lists the strongest, which worked with the Black Legion, e.g.).
Almost every Guard list I see in my gaming environment has at least Drop troops, most take CoD as well, which is possible as many restricted troops are not worth their doctrine point (sadly Ogryns, Sanctioned Psyker, the Techpriest).

Kriegsherr
11-08-2006, 13:56
Traits are open easily to abuse, but its quite sad, if all you want to do is win, my mate uses Xeno Fighters: Orks, as it lets him use my Ork bits and do some cool conversions, and in return, I get bits off his tank sprues for my Battlewagon and other bits. And we have fun EVERY time we play against each other.

Yeah, sounds like a good match. I'd do everything to encourage my pal who plays IG to get into closerange and maybe even CC.

I just hate when the opponent hangs back and tries to shoot my orks (or whatever army else I use at the time) to bits. And then complains when he didn't "catched the train" to get the objective while I win because my boyz skillfully evaded his fire while walking to the objective for the whole game.

I even use squads and mobz without pks or fists nowadayz.... and was really amazed when his 10 man stormtrooper squad killed and overran 10 chaos marines last week. Best CC ever! He should now model marine helmets as troophies unto them.

Anyway. Back OT: I like Variant lists. I like it when a common opponent uses different lists. Always playing against the same army gets boring, and I also try new stuff regularly. Altough I never go as far as really tailoring my list, I always use a balanced mix of weapons and squad types.

Gen.Steiner
11-08-2006, 13:57
I am also not a big fan of the Guard Doctrines. They“re partially too restrictive (Sanctioned Psykers need a doctrine point...sure...), partially too good and partially unbalanced in comparison to the other doctrines. I especially dislike the Drop Troops doctrine for free (when compared to light infantry and especially with Bionics, which are mathematically useless for their points) and I even more dislike the fact that the basic IG list is never as good as a list tailored with doctrines (which was something not supposed to happen, as the GW people said they wanted to make the basic lists the strongest, which worked with the Black Legion, e.g.).
Almost every Guard list I see in my gaming environment has at least Drop troops, most take CoD as well, which is possible as many restricted troops are not worth their doctrine point (sadly Ogryns, Sanctioned Psyker, the Techpriest).

The basic Guard list is the strongest. Cheap Guardsmen, and lots of them. Access to all the tricks - Psykers, Commissars, Rough Riders, Stormtroopers, etc - and the points to take them. Tanks. Conscripts. etc.

Doctrine lists are fun, but often a bit shaky. If everyone's taking the same set of doctrines, they're being boring. Encourage them to experiment!

Bloodknight
11-08-2006, 14:21
As I said; there are enough units in the Guard codex which you don´t want to take anyway, so why not take at least the two free doctrines? Also I believe that the "cheap" Guardsman is actually overpriced - or the weapon options are - but that´s material for another thread. After 10 years of Guard and 3 codices and one BBB list I just don´t like how everything basic just goes up in points with no benefits whatsoever.

LarryS
11-08-2006, 14:23
I agree that doctrines/traits can make an interesting themed army, as long as the player used the same army w/ few changes on all occasions. It only gets bad when someone suddenly adds/changes doctrines to get an advantage over a specific army.

On a side note, that makes it really funny to collect 2 completely different armies (in my case, eldar and necrons). If I think someone has retooled their army specifically for one army, I may pull a last minute switch...

"Wow, I've never seen so many heavy bolters in a single army list before. That would really destroy an eldar force." (place monolith on table) :evilgrin:

Insane Psychopath
11-08-2006, 14:44
cailus: No offence, but it pretty pathetic to hate Traits/Doc just because of TWO GAMES!!!

From my experince, I am thankful that GW have done this. You have no idear how boring it was in the 3rd ed of 40k with the normal codex Space Marines/Guards.

Now new one came out & I enjoy the new challege these traites/doc offer. Also like others I find it better theme a army.

This is why they brough out Index Astarties set to bring life into the armies by making them a little specil & why the clan list was in the WD.

Sure with out the traits & doc you could make that theme Raven Guard army or theme Cadain. But things make them cool are stuff like Sharpshooter or never dispair (just exsample from both Marines & Guard codex).

What I mean is, take Guards for exsample. You maybe able the theme them (say back in the older codex) but in all hosnty there was nothing specil. Like there is now with carpace (sp) armour, Sharpshooter & also the abilty to have a Guard army Deep Strike with Drop Troop. I like fighting a all out Drop Troop Guards or a all out Inflty Marine force because they make you think a little more on your own tactics.

DT: You have no idear since pretty much the whole army come on from Deep Strike & it is funny as hell when the oppent models scatter into your own or a full Vet sqaud kill them self by over heated plasma guns.

Inflty Marines: You have no idear if they will set right up close or far away. So you got to deploy a lot better & make no mistake other wise the oppent could use the weak deploment against you.

As to Orks, well I can see there being Clan list which should be pretty cool.

But again, you should not really hate somthing just because

1: You have two games (one Marines, one Guards)
2: because they cheated. If there list was wrong why did you not say before hand & show them the codex??? Or IF you agree then you should say "If I win it because that, if you win it because that".

But end of the day this gose for anyone really. If you do not like a codex or a army because it maybe to powerful & wipe you out. Then simple do not fight against it, you are not force to fight any army you do not want to.

But you should respect that, sure you may not like this army/type. Other do. Just as said IMO I find the traits/doc a great thing & enjoy fighting any 40k army & so do not want to see these great things gone just because few people had bad experince in games. My view has & alway will be it the oppent/games who should be judge & not there army as it pretty pathetic get upset over a army list, everthing has it weakness.

I do not mean to insult or offend anyone, but I just thing Traits & Doc are great & brought a breathe of fresh air into the gaming side for myself & enjoy the new challege of fighting as said a all out Deep Striking Imperial Guard army.

IP

sonoferis
11-08-2006, 15:32
i am fully in favour of derivative lists, i play a saim-hann list (which is going to die horribly in the onset of the new rules, so im going to have to give my wildrider chief and his kinsmen new reasons to live, chief probably becomes an Autarch). and i enjoy playing against them. if someone has hideously abused the system, thats their problem, they'll just find that eventually, the only people that play against them are noobs that dont really understand the system and have probably abused the system more. If you really dont like derivative systems, then dont play them, i look upon them as an interesting excuse to play with the green stuff.

Lord Humongous
11-08-2006, 18:45
I don't think the traits are bad, it gives marines something to compete with the basic chaos codex.

Knowing the enemy is an important skill also.

I'm not sure marines SHOULD compete with Chaos. When marine vet skills were introduced, they were given as being the result of many thousands of years of battle practice in a variety of (often demonic) environements. Now things like "furious charge" are widelly avaialable to troops that, while good, are much less elite / expereinced than originally intended. The end result is that units that used to be elite (normal marines) now seem sort of lame compared to thier specialist counterparts.
Even without traits, marines have many excellent things chaos can't match, or at least can't implement reliablely and afordably; landspeeders, assault cannons, chaplains (re-roll ALL misses??!!), apothicaries (ignore a wound??), really kick ass psycic powers (normal libraian > arhiman), etc.

As for knowing the enemy- it helps, but it should not be important. I don't have spare cash to spend on enemy codexes- and I'm 35, with a full time job (and bills). How can I get to know the enemy, when the enemy constantly changes?
Persoanlly, I'd rathe just trust folks to get stuff right, and not stress when they don't. Fights (outside of tournaments) don't have to be fair to be fun, and small mistakes (all the ones mentioned sound small) don't bug me in pick up games; I've done well in games where I fortgot to deply 1/4 of my forces, and gotten whomped when I accidentally took a 2000 point list in a 1700 point game (grabbed the wrong sheet) so who says you need a fair fight to have fun?

BrainFireBob
11-08-2006, 18:58
I think it rather works for Chaos and Imperial Marines. The vet skills, ets. regular marines can now take cost more than for their Chaos counterparts- so if Marines try just to play the Chaos game, they lose on points.

Xurben
11-08-2006, 19:49
my point about the new marine codex giving loyalists something to compete with chaos was this..

Chaos marines are marines, and veterens we assume. Space marines are veterens, they have to survive being a scout for pete's sake. If thats not becoming a vet I dont know what is..

A basic marine is 15 pts. (leadership 8, they shall know no fear)
A basic chaos marine is 14 pts. (leadership 9)

Thats fairly balanced. The problems arise quickly with squad upgrades, and the cost of them. A tac squad can take 1 heavy and 1 special weapon, a chaos squad can take 1 heavy and 1 special, or 2 specials. (Marines need a trait to do that) Chaos get to choose a mark, undivided being 1 pt for "reroll all morale checks" is pretty cheap!

I can go on and on, but what I was getting at is variety. The loyalist marines who are not "purist codex chapters" should be different. The traits, although lacking in my eyes, help achieve that. I am somewhat bitter though, as I used to play Salamanders and everything good about them went away with the new dex. They also got the worst disadvantage trait...

Malempo
11-08-2006, 20:50
That's how my club is, although a fair bit of proxying goes on. The majority of us are college students, and as such are often rather broke. However, anyone trying to switch xenofighters every game would get slapped in the head with the rulebook.

In my gaming group we also use a fair bit of proxy because we like to have vary greatly our lists and try new tactics.


Here, we consider tailoring your list to beat a specific person's army to be almost as bad as cheating. Unless, of course, it's something you both agreed to beforehand.

I don't understand this. Where I play we always tailor our list to beat not only a specific army but also to beat a specific player's style of play. It forces us to constantly adapt our tactics and change our lists to try to surprise our opponents.

I don't see why changing traits between game is cheating. After all the game is a game of war and in war you use the better tactical options avaible to beat your ennemies. Don't you think that if the SM know they are going against the Tau they will send more Assault guys than a fully mechanised army which stands no chance against the Rail Guns?When I play a Ciy Fight game I use the sisters and I pack it up full of flammers and faith points, I don't count on Multi-melta to destroy tanks, I charge with eviscerators.

Every Codex should be able to survive reasonably against any style of play providing the good tactical choices are made. In my group we didn't start the game because of the fluff, we started the game because we wanted a challenging tactical game to compete between each others. The purpose of the game is to beat the opponent and we tailor our list to do so. Of course, we are all aware of this fact and all take pleasure in that kind of play which I understand might not be suited for everyone.

On the trait subject : I play Sisters of Battle, Eldar and I am seriously considering modeling a Tanith First and Only army (with all the damned camo cloak!!!). I really like City Fight, in fact it's by far my favorite way of playing the game (I used to play Necromunda a lot back in the days when it was more popular).

I love the look and character of the Tanith and I find that with their doctrines they could be very competitive in a city fight environnement. In fact they would probably be way better than the vanilla IG list in city fight because all their squad can infiltrate and have a 3+ cover save. But you pay for it.

I love IG traits but I think the SM ones are a joke because you can make a list that suits your style of play for almost no disadvantage while the IG traits almost all cost something and you quickly lose access to a lot of units.

mattmanforever
11-08-2006, 21:09
I don't think the traits are bad, it gives marines something to compete with the basic chaos codex.

Knowing the enemy is an important skill also.

So in order to play the game, I need to own notnoylmy own Codex, but roughly ten other? Bad form.

I agree. The amount of "customization" in the IG and Space Marines makesfor an overly confusing game, and it's too often half-heartedly thrown together,both in development and application.

Seth the Dark
11-08-2006, 21:17
There is nothing wrong with proxing, some people simply can't afford the models right away and would like to try them out before actually buying the models. Remeber this game is about fun.

Sir_Lunchalot
11-08-2006, 22:16
I would like to point out that the Imperial Guard doctrines are not that hard to understand. If you're looking for wierd confusing rules in the IG list look at their platoons. As an IG player, I've seen more people confused by platoon organization than by doctrines. IG doctrines make the IG a very versatile army, and make it so you see IG armies that don't look identical. Hells, I own 2 IG armies, each of which has it's own style of play.

If you're angry because different armies have different special rules, go play chess. there's no ambiguity in those rules, and the armies are balanced. It's been said before and it can't be said enough. the problem isn't with the rules, but with people breaking them either by being cheating rats, or by being bloody idiots who haven't read their own codex. Either way, these people shouldn't be playing, and the issues go beyond army selection.

As for the space marine chaos space marine balance/fluff issue, I'm nto going to touch that with a 10 foot pole!

Snakebite
11-08-2006, 22:19
Well, lets start at the beginning, shall we?


And I as the opponent should not spend the next 10 minutes reading and deciphering doctrinal rules.

I agree with that completely - the trouble is it can be taken too far. While 3rd Edition was being played, I bought and read nearly every Codex GW produced. As a result, I was clued up on just about every army I would come up against. Nowadays, I have to make do with a single Codex - the army I play. When I play against an unfamiliar list, I take it as a challenge.


And the bad thing is that one doctrine/trait will have unexpected influences on the way the army plays

Nothing wrong with that. Playing with or against an army that has no variation is going to get real boring real fast.


(e.g. Apothecaries instead of Vet Sarges can make Marines almost immune to leadership)

The problem here is that the opposing player will not understand these subtle influences. So someone can claim something and they will be taken at face value simply because the opponent doesn't understand the implications of the claim.

What's to understand? You shoot at a squad of Marines and, despite them dying, they don't need to take Morale Checks. Surely you decide to target more of them, rather than stand there and scratch your head?


I will agree that the We Stand Alone disadvantage is an extremely abusable choice, I think it was a really dumb idea.

It is - it really is dumb. And yet, "Faithful unto Death" is far more severe than any of the three Major Disadvantages. Go figure.


the xeno-fighters trait is for a specific race if your opponets have little magnetic heads of aliens and can switch them out each game they deserve that tactical advantage for going through the modeling

Do they heck.

Not only does it say in the Codex that these Preferred Enemy details are NOT interchangeable between games, it is complete abuse of the system. Traits are there to add flavour to the army, not to make it all powerful. Marines that spend their lives (and sometimes deaths) fighting against Eldar for example are NOT going to be able to use their experiences against Orks. Rather than be congratulated, these "magnetic modellers" should be pitied for having WAY too much time on their hands.


I am going to start forcing my opponents to provide me with a list and a Codex so I can pre-check their armies.

A regrettably more and more common need, particularly in one or two of my previous games. I still prefer the idea of taking things on faith. Although, winning against illegal lists can be quite rewarding!


My point was that doctrines and traits confuse the issue. The Marine ones especially can get very confusing as they modify the Force Organisation Charge as well as the way the army fundamentally operates.

I really think you're making too much of an issue of this. I play Marines untraited at the moment, but I am looking to add traits when my army has more background. The traits will compliment the story.


Perhaps WSIWYG should be enforced more stringently in this case. For example Assault Marines taken as Elites should have special or additional markings - e.g. trophies, veteran squad markings

This is what the people who model magnets on their weapons choices should really be putting their energy into. I think it's a bloody good idea.


A problem I've encountered is that people don't build models around traits/doctrines. They apply them to best counter opponents forces and change them according to the opponent.

In this instance, I agree with you. Sadly, particularly in Tournament / competition play, you will always get this kind of behaviour.


And the ability to pick something totally useless a disadvantage is especially irritating.

No arguments there.


And yes people do modify lists. Even in our league it was possible to change lists from week to week.

For me, the fun is getting a list and figuring out how to use it correctly. At a recent local tournament, I was defeated to varying degrees in every game I played. I've played with that same list in the Medusa V campaign and have won more games than I've lost. I don't change my list.


I don't understand this. Where I play we always tailor our list to beat not only a specific army but also to beat a specific player's style of play. It forces us to constantly adapt our tactics and change our lists to try to surprise our opponents.

The other reason I don't change my list is expense. With the ever rising prices of GW kit (no rant, promise!) I can't afford to always be trying out new units. If someone is smart enough to adapt to my style of play, defeat me and then repeat the trick with the next guy, kudos to him. I'd rather beat different people with the same list, different tactics. Besides, knowing someone's style of play isn't always a good thing.

I think that covers everything!

Gen.Steiner
11-08-2006, 22:45
I don't understand this. Where I play we always tailor our list to beat not only a specific army but also to beat a specific player's style of play. It forces us to constantly adapt our tactics and change our lists to try to surprise our opponents.

I don't see why changing traits between game is cheating.

It's tantamount to cheating because your Chapter's Traits (or Regimental Doctrines) define that Chapter. It'd be like Blood Angels deciding between battles to not take the Blood Rage rule, for example. Chapter Traits should be chosen once per army, and never again. They're part of that Chapter's background, for crying out loud - the Righteous Fists have Death Before Dishonour because they're an Imperial Fists successor chapter, and are thusly flawed. They also have Trust Your Battle-Brothers because they have experience of several gruelling, hard-fought campaigns and a training system which encourages Marines to work together, and to practice with the bolter in close-in work.

They don't have them because I thought "Hurrr that am game-winning lol I take that lol" :rolleyes:

Lt. Mitch
11-08-2006, 23:21
I agree with Gen. Steiner regarding the changing of Traits/Doctrines between games. It would not sit well with me because I would feel that my opponent was reducing my enjoyment of the game by eliminating the fluff element completely. If playing 40k was only about winning or loosing I would have taken up Chess. I play and model 40k because I enjoy the whole hobby, not just the tactical element. However...


This is what the people who model magnets on their weapons choices should really be putting their energy into. I think it's a bloody good idea.

I have to disagree. Being able to change weapons to suit your enemy would be perfectly fine by me. Why would a soldier carry a heavy anti tank weapon if he was going up against guerilla fighters with small arms? Armies have chopped and changed there equipment to suit their enemy throughout history.

Why would a Tau Crisis Suit fighting a campaign against marines carry a flamer when a plasma rifle would be far more effective?

Razhem
12-08-2006, 00:00
It's tantamount to cheating because your Chapter's Traits (or Regimental Doctrines) define that Chapter. It'd be like Blood Angels deciding between battles to not take the Blood Rage rule, for example. Chapter Traits should be chosen once per army, and never again. They're part of that Chapter's background, for crying out loud - the Righteous Fists have Death Before Dishonour because they're an Imperial Fists successor chapter, and are thusly flawed. They also have Trust Your Battle-Brothers because they have experience of several gruelling, hard-fought campaigns and a training system which encourages Marines to work together, and to practice with the bolter in close-in work.

They don't have them because I thought "Hurrr that am game-winning lol I take that lol" :rolleyes:

Nice to see you ignored Malempo completely. That“s cute when your a fluff nut, in his gruop, they just want to play.
Has for doctrines and traits, I find them cute but unecesary, most of those things could be treated with equipment and special genric rules cutting the crap, apart from most of it being unecesary. Although I consider retarded that there“s 4 space marine so that migth condition my thougt

azimaith
12-08-2006, 00:11
I really hope the new Ork Codex goes along the path of the new Eldar codex and contains only 1 list, because I really hate alternative lists as found in the Space Marine and IG Codexes.

Looks familiar as another "Doom and Gloom thread from Cailus, if its not "40k fluff sucks" its something else I guess.



In the last month I have played against two players (one IG and 1 Marine) and in both cases they used totally illegal lists (one used Conscripts without an IG Infantry platoon and the other used Raven Guard Assault Squads as troops and was also about 100 points over in a 600 point list).

Your right, we should totally get rid of all customizability and players should just throw dice at each other. All models should have space marine stats so everyone will know exactly what the other can do any there is no ambiguity, background, or creative potential!



And in the past the same has happened with these derivative lists. I don't know whether players cheat or simply don't understand the rules, but these derivative lists open up the game to too much rules ambiguity, simply because they play too much with force organisation and unit rules.

Cheaters are cheaters, derivitive lists give as much chance for cheaters as having more than one unit type.



It cannot be expected for opponents to understand these rules.

Yes it can, ask for their codex and read them. If they don't have one don't play them again.



However it is very easy for the player to simply claim "I am using such and such traits/doctrines." And I as the opponent should not spend the next 10 minutes reading and deciphering doctrinal rules.

Just ask him what they do and then look at the relavent entry. It won't take 10 minutes.



And the bad thing is that one doctrine/trait will have unexpected influences on the way the army plays (e.g. Apothecaries instead of Vet Sarges can make Marines almost immune to leadership).

Zomg! Customization Alert, set all nerf cannons to full power, get the whaaaambulance ready!

Seriously, so what, its something new, your supposed to adapt.



The problem here is that the opposing player will not understand these subtle influences. So someone can claim something and they will be taken at face value simply because the opponent doesn't understand the implications of the claim.

You'll know better next time. Your not guaranteed to win every game, nor even that every game will be a fair match.



The basic codexes do not provide this opportunity as the rules are spelt out clearly (though certain Chaos items do cause confusion e.g. Warp Scream).

Yes they do. "Oh multi-meltas, like all meltas are assault weapons!"
"Necrons get WBB's and get up within 12" if there is a res orb!"
"My sentinel has a dreadnaught CCW as a walker!"
"Since my tyranids failed their IB test they can fall towards any synapse on the board!"

There are hundreds of rules, dozens per codex. I could put out an example for every army.



There's also the issue of "something for nothing" - i.e. a Marine player gets elite assault squads with furious charge but doesn't take allies or something equally ridiculous.
Thats because BA's Death Company is terribly unbalanced, not because of derivative rules. No one would bat an eye at a IG army that used Rough Riders or tyranids using adrenal glands.

cailus
12-08-2006, 04:32
Just on the variability of normal lists, there is variety in a basic list.

I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads
2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists
3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher
4. Scouts with shotguns - unless the shotguns represented bolters.
5. SM Bike units with Attack bike upgrade
6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo
7. Landspeeder Typhoon
8. Devastators with multi-meltas (put them in a Rhino with a Power Weapon equipped Sarge could be interesting)
9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.

During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

Many wargear options I never see used either - combat shields, power fists for IC's, lightning claws on IC's (too much of a modelling challenge for most people) etc.

As for the Guard, I've never seen Ratlings, psykers, priests or heavy weapon platoons. I have seen lots of Grey Knight Terminators in Guard armies though. As for the doctrines, I've only ever seen a few of them used even though I've played against the Guard many times.

The derivative lists maybe give variety but people generally don't even explore the basic lists. Most people use the same boring internet endorsed list.

BrainFireBob
12-08-2006, 04:49
I've only played for six years.

I have, however, fielded 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9.

Currently, I prefer 9, but it's the first area I'll strip points from.

I'm working on a list using 1 right now.

2 provided me my favorite 3rd Ed moment- when one DSing squad with 1 hvy flamer, using just the flamer, wiped out 7 Noise Marines in one go.

I always run 5, provided I run bikes (been awhile, they're awaiting repair).

Don't run dreads, though. And the only speeders I run are a squad of two or three (points dependent) with meltas.

8's ok, but really, you need a full squad, and it's almost as bad as the plasma cannon to put together.

Does that make you feel better?

tuebor
12-08-2006, 04:52
I don't understand this. Where I play we always tailor our list to beat not only a specific army but also to beat a specific player's style of play. It forces us to constantly adapt our tactics and change our lists to try to surprise our opponents.

The prevailing opinion in our group is that whatever list you bring should be able to take on anything from Deathwing to Orks. We change our lists from week to week, but it's considered bad form to change it on game night, unless you have no idea who you'll be playing next. I understand where you're coming from, but we just don't play that way here.

VetSgtNamaan
12-08-2006, 05:02
At our rogue trader store where we meet for our games night an insistance on printed army lists tends to certainly cut down on points abuse. If you can not afford a bazillion codexes I would recommend buying Wargear it is a pretty nice buy as it lists the stats for all armies and every piece of wargear you can buy for models and vehicles in 40k with the rules that go on with them.


As for what I run I tend to run 10 man squads of Dark Angels all with A stubborn Vet sargeant. I mean the look on peoples faces when they realise I automatically passed all morale and leadership tests is just priceless.

While 'WHat you see is what you get" would be the optimum state of affairs if they are up front about any differences I certainly do not have a problem with it. As for designing an army with a specific player in mind, well who does not do that if you have set a date to play with so and so and he always plays this army. In the group I play with I am probably the only player who can play multiple armies. Seeing as I have ravenwing, Deathwing, Dark Angels, Feral Orks and IG I can field in the standard 1700 points we tend to play.

I love paired lightning claws especially on a chaplain what not to love about that? My basic rule for 40k would be if the fun stops you probably should too until you find players that are well basically grown up enough not to well cheat. We all would like to win but it does not happen all the time (and hardly ever if I play feral orks. Unless there is a big creature tyranid army around then Orks eat them for breakfast.)

Rules aside if I was playing Feral orks and some one wanted to waste the points on hated enemy then go for it SM already only need a 3 to hit them so no biggie for me ;)

BodhiTree
12-08-2006, 05:07
Actually, this thread reminded me of one thing. I cannot for the life of me remember all of the neat little weapons the Tau get to use (And for that matter, Tyranid biomorphs.). I have a hard time matching the ability of the gun to the look of the gun. But I guess as I get my army handed back to me model by model by a Tau/Tyranid player, I'm going to expect that I'm going to learn and grow as a player. I don't see how the Traits or Doctrines are any different.

Bookwrak
12-08-2006, 08:18
I think the most appropriate response to cailus is: if you can't stand not knowing every rule ahead of time, and are gripped by the crippling fear that your oppenent is trying to pull one on you, throw out your models and just play checkers (I was going to suggest chess, but it's got all those differnent units and special rules...).

If you have a problem with people cheating, don't play cheaters. Even in checkers, people can try to cheat. It doesn't meant there's a problem with the game. It's a problem with the players.

Sekhmet
12-08-2006, 08:44
There's no such thing as 'Veteran Assault Marines' and modeling them as such is ridiculous. You don't need to model veteran skills because there's really nothing to model.

Blood Angels have Veteran Assault Squads. They're terminators that removed their TDA and grabbed jump packs instead.


Just on the variability of normal lists, there is variety in a basic list.

I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads
2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists
3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher
4. Scouts with shotguns - unless the shotguns represented bolters.
5. SM Bike units with Attack bike upgrade
6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo
7. Landspeeder Typhoon
8. Devastators with multi-meltas (put them in a Rhino with a Power Weapon equipped Sarge could be interesting)
9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.
[quote]
I've seen 2, 1 chain fist in a squad just incase, and someone using the old plastic terminator boxed set that came with a heavy flamer. Definately made its points back against a bunker. I've seen 4, the player said "scouts with shotguns kick ass." I've seen 9, mostly because they didn't know what min/maxing was.

[quote]
During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

I saw lots of librarians, mostly blood angels, but others were there too. Force weapons rock.



As for the Guard, I've never seen Ratlings, psykers, priests or heavy weapon platoons. I have seen lots of Grey Knight Terminators in Guard armies though. As for the doctrines, I've only ever seen a few of them used even though I've played against the Guard many times.

I always see doctrined IG armies... usually a combination of light infantry, sharp shooters and rough riders.

Lt. Mitch
12-08-2006, 08:50
I think the most appropriate response to cailus is: if you can't stand not knowing every rule ahead of time, and are gripped by the crippling fear that your oppenent is trying to pull one on you, throw out your models and just play checkers (I was going to suggest chess, but it's got all those differnent units and special rules...).

LMAO :D:evilgrin: :cries:

Snakebite
12-08-2006, 09:01
Just on the variability of normal lists, there is variety in a basic list.

I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads

Sadly true. However, for me it's Veterans all the way. The largest games I play are rare 1500pts - with the the majority of them being just 1000pts. Now, as fantastic as the new Terminator models are, I just can't see smaller battles including these elite units. It's the same with Dreadnoughts. You don't wake Bjorn the Fell Handed from his millenia-long slumber to help you boot some invading Eldar pirates from Fenris - that's what your TROOPS are for!


2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists

Can't really comment on this - I don't use Terminators.


3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher

Or Dreadnoughts.


6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo

Very useful in a Cityfight. I have one alongside my Heavy Bolter / Assault Cannon combo.


7. Landspeeder Typhoon

Okay, there you've got me. Although at the beginning of 3rd Ed., I had one converted up for my army. Not terribly effective against MEqs but still fun to use a customised vehicle.


9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.

My 500pts list has an eight man squad with three Missile Launchers. Very tactical in small games.


During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

Oh my God.

Just out of interest, what Chapter do you play? Despite the large number of Marine armies around here, I have NEVER seen this much-vaunted Las / Plas combo on the table top.


Many wargear options I never see used either - combat shields, power fists for IC's, lightning claws on IC's (too much of a modelling challenge for most people) etc.

Is it not possible that these are tactical choices? As it happens, I use a Combat Shield and a Storm Shield in my list.


I have seen lots of Grey Knight Terminators in Guard armies though.

That's just plain wrong. Guard armies can do just as well without them.

marv335
12-08-2006, 10:42
i use veterans, i have a unit of them in my 10th company list (the instructors ;))
i also use heavy flamers and chainfists in terminator squads (heavy flamers rock in cityfight)

my captain has a lighting claw, my librarian has a combat sheild.
(powerfists don't belong on IC)

and my dev squads always have at least 2 marines for every heavy weapon.

just because you havn't seen it it doesn't mean no-one does it.

Gen.Steiner
12-08-2006, 11:02
Nice to see you ignored Malempo completely. That“s cute when your a fluff nut, in his gruop, they just want to play.
Has for doctrines and traits, I find them cute but unecesary, most of those things could be treated with equipment and special genric rules cutting the crap, apart from most of it being unecesary. Although I consider retarded that there“s 4 space marine so that migth condition my thougt

No, I didn't ignore him. You misunderstood me. I'm casting aspersions on his group's changing of Doctrines/Traits between games. I find it to be heresy. :p Change the weapons fits, change the units, change the list - but if your Guard are the 234th Maleppan Light Infantry, I would be very miffed if in Game A they had Light Infantry, Independant Commissars, Special Weapons Squads, Ratlings; Veterans and in Game B they had Carapace Armour, Cameloline, Heavy Weapons Platoons, Drop Troops; Close Order Drill - but kept the same regimental name.

It's just... wrong. If, of course, you change the name of the unit/chapter between games as well, then fine, carry on.


Just on the variability of normal lists, there is variety in a basic list.

I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads
2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists
3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher
4. Scouts with shotguns - unless the shotguns represented bolters.
5. SM Bike units with Attack bike upgrade
6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo
7. Landspeeder Typhoon
8. Devastators with multi-meltas (put them in a Rhino with a Power Weapon equipped Sarge could be interesting)
9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.

I take Veterans or Terminators - they're the same 5 Marines, you see. If they're in Terminator Armour they can't also be in power armour, and vice versa. I use them in or out of TA depending on the points size of the game.

I have a five-man Terminator squad with two heavy flamers in my 'Deathwing' list. I have two Terminators with Chainfists in one of the two squads attached to the 2nd Company of the Righteous Fists.

No, I don't use a Dread with an A/Cannon and MLRS because it's a silly loadout. A/Cannons are close-in, and MLRSs are long-range. I'll take an A/C, DCCW and a Storm Bolter instead please.

Scouts with Shotguns? I have four of those, in a squad with four BP/CCW, a ML, and a Vet Sarge with bolter/power fist.

Attack Bikes in Bike Units? Guilty as charged! Assault Squad I of the 2nd Battle Company splits into two Demi-Squads - one in bikes (3 on Bikes and 2 in an Attack Bike) and the other with jump packs. Squad II is in Landspeeders/jump packs.

Speaking of Landspeeders, I have indeed got a MM/HF combo Landspeeder. Two, in fact - one 2nd Ed one in my Ultramarines Strike Force, one in the Righteous Fists 2nd Company. I have a Typhoon as well.

Sadly, however, I have no Devastators with MMs. I do have two in two Tac Squads, however, is that OK? Finally, also on Devastators, all my Dev squads (all three - two RF, one UM) are ten Marines strong. How could they be otherwise? :confused: :p


During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

Then you'll be pleased to know that the Righteous Fists used Librarians in 3rd Edition, and furthermore consider any squad size other than 5 or 10 to be heresy, and that they take to the field with ten-man Tactical and Devastator units as a matter of course.


Many wargear options I never see used either - combat shields, power fists for IC's, lightning claws on IC's (too much of a modelling challenge for most people) etc.

In the Righteous Fists, the only people who can carry Power Fists who don't are Chaplains, Techmarines and Librarians. Otherwise, every Captain, Vet. Sergeant, and Terminator totes a power fist. I don't use Lightning Claws at all (except in Assault Terminator Squads) because it doesn't fit the theme of my Chapter. Each Company Champion carries a combat shield, though. :D


As for the Guard, I've never seen Ratlings, psykers, priests or heavy weapon platoons. I have seen lots of Grey Knight Terminators in Guard armies though. As for the doctrines, I've only ever seen a few of them used even though I've played against the Guard many times.

I have armies with: Ratlings, Psykers, Priests, and Heavy Weapon Platoons. I have none with Grey Knight Terminators, and all bar one of my Guard armies (planned or otherwise) has Doctrines.


The derivative lists maybe give variety but people generally don't even explore the basic lists. Most people use the same boring internet endorsed list.

To be honest, the people in your area sound boring. Offer them a cookie or something if they'll change their lists or be adventurous with them.

Mr. Sir
12-08-2006, 15:07
You don't hate derivative lists. You hate cheats, which is understandable.

Gen.Steiner
12-08-2006, 15:15
And in just two sentences, Mr. Sir (fantastic name btw :D) sums up what we've all been saying. Hurray!

In sum: No to cheats, yes to interesting lists.

Mr. Sir
12-08-2006, 15:28
*Bows* Why thank you. ;)

Malempo
12-08-2006, 17:40
No, I didn't ignore him. You misunderstood me. I'm casting aspersions on his group's changing of Doctrines/Traits between games. I find it to be heresy. :p Change the weapons fits, change the units, change the list - but if your Guard are the 234th Maleppan Light Infantry, I would be very miffed if in Game A they had Light Infantry, Independant Commissars, Special Weapons Squads, Ratlings; Veterans and in Game B they had Carapace Armour, Cameloline, Heavy Weapons Platoons, Drop Troops; Close Order Drill - but kept the same regimental name.

It's just... wrong. If, of course, you change the name of the unit/chapter between games as well, then fine, carry on.


Well that's exactly what we do, since we don't really care about fluff, we don't really care about the names of our painted soldiers.

The exceptions are the guys who play BA, DA and SW but they have their own codex.

I am especially happy of the new eldar codex because the list will be very flexible, allowing lots of different strategies and option and you won't even need traits to do this or special simili-list. So no matter which color my army is painted I will be able to fully exploit the codex.

In another thread I spoke in favor of fluff, so this might seems in contradiction but I play in two group, my regular group who doesn't give a crap about fluff and just really like the look of the armies and the rules of the game while the other group is more loose and really care about fluff. So I can understand people who care about it but it's not the fluff that got me in the game nor the fluff which keeps me in it.

Gen.Steiner
12-08-2006, 17:42
Well, fair enough - each to their own. As long as you're having fun! :p

BodhiTree
12-08-2006, 18:28
Actually, wait, aren't Chaos Marine armies worse if you already hate the idea of Doctrines/Traits? I mean, you can freak out over the variations allowing you to field uber-tough/double wound/all infiltrating/uberDaemon troop types, not to mention how insane you can make your HQs, and not to mention how you can make any sort of Daemon you want in an undivided army pop up right when you least expect it.

AventineCrusader
13-08-2006, 01:28
I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads
2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists
3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher
4. Scouts with shotguns - unless the shotguns represented bolters.
5. SM Bike units with Attack bike upgrade
6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo
7. Landspeeder Typhoon
8. Devastators with multi-meltas (put them in a Rhino with a Power Weapon equipped Sarge could be interesting)
9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.

During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

Many wargear options I never see used either - combat shields, power fists for IC's, lightning claws on IC's (too much of a modelling challenge for most people) etc.

As for the Guard, I've never seen Ratlings, psykers, priests or heavy weapon platoons. I have seen lots of Grey Knight Terminators in Guard armies though. As for the doctrines, I've only ever seen a few of them used even though I've played against the Guard many times.

I have definately seen every single thing listed here. The only thing worth mentioning is I haven't seen an IC with a power fist who did not also have a power weapon. I also haven't seen a Typhoon in a while. And I don't think I've seen a Dev squad with less than a one Marine to one heavy weapon trooper ratio in over a year.

You don't need to buy all the army books to know all the rules. Why not just ask someone to borrow a book while you're between games? Get real nice and aquainted with it.

Yes, it seems the consensus is that you play with people that are what is called stupid and/or boring. I'll go ahead and make the logical jump that derivative lists really have nothing to do with this. You don't even need to know all the rules to pick out an illegal army.

And if the army is illegal, so what?
Won't you feel that much more accomplished if you beat it?

Crusader

Grand Master Raziel
13-08-2006, 03:32
Just on the variability of normal lists, there is variety in a basic list.

I have for example in 10 years of 40K never seen any of the following Marine units fielded in any game I've witnessed:

1. Veteran SM - people prefer Terminators and Dreads


I use Veterans every once in a while, but rarely in the role they seem to be intended for in the current dex - as a power armored assault unit. In that role, they're too similar to a Command Squad. I tend to use pistol-ccw armed Command Squads, and of course there are Assault Squads and pistol-ccw armed Scouts. So yeah, my Elites slots tend to go to other things.


2. Terminators - with heavy flamers or chainfists

More than one chainfist in a termie squad is kind of silly. When I used DA rules for my chapter, I used to stick a heavy flamer in all my termie squads. Not so much now, but I used a termie command squad with a pair of heavy flamers in a game I played a couple weeks ago. Killed a full mob of Ork Kommandos the turn they came in from reserve.


3. Dreads with assault cannon and missile launcher

You probably won't, either, because it's just a silly combo.


4. Scouts with shotguns - unless the shotguns represented bolters.

Maybe shotguns were worthwhile in 2nd ed, but in the current set of rules they aren't particularly. I do tend to use a few shotgun scouts - the figures are great - but only because I don't have enough pistol-ccw scouts to make two full size squads.


5. SM Bike units with Attack bike upgrade

When I use bikes, I always attach the Attack Bike.


6. Landspeeders with multi-melta/heavy flamer combo

That's my favorite speeder combo. I know everyone thinks the assault cannon speeder pwns, but I tend to find that the heavy flamer/multi melta speeder consistently outperforms it.


7. Landspeeder Typhoon

Again, I dunno about 2nd ed, but the Typhoon missile system was a weak weapon in 3rd ed, and it's weaker now with the nerfing of blast weapons. I see them on the table every once in a while, but my Typhoon rode around in my carrying case not getting used until I broke the Typhoon launchers off so I could use it as a regular speeder.


8. Devastators with multi-meltas (put them in a Rhino with a Power Weapon equipped Sarge could be interesting)

For the same price, you can get missile launchers. The same strength and twice the range. Multi meltas are all well and good on platforms that can move and shoot them, but are stupid for infantry. Regular meltaguns are better for infantry.


9. Devastators with more than 6 guys.

I used to only use 5-man Dev squads. Lately, I've been trying to make a point of using 8-10 man squads for the friendly games. I've even used full 10-man Dev squads with a power fist armed veteran sergeant.


During 3rd edition I never saw Librarians and since 3rd edition I've never seen 10 man tactical squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon - all tacitcal units are either las/plas min-maxed squads or assault units with 1 special weapon and a power weapon/power fist equipped Sergeant. The only person I know who uses traditional 10 man tactical units in a flexible role is myself.

People will use what works for them. If the heavy weapon in the Tac squad could fire at a different target from the rest of the squad, you might see more of the "traditional" squads hit the tabletop. As for Librarians, in 3rd ed they were just too damn expensive.


Many wargear options I never see used either - combat shields, power fists for IC's, lightning claws on IC's (too much of a modelling challenge for most people) etc.

I rarely use him, but my chapter master has a thunder hammer, and I made a chapter champion with a power sword and a power fist. The reason I don't use the t-hammer master very much is that in practice I found that he can do very little that can't be done almost as well for a third of the points by a veteran sergeant with a power fist. On the other hand, I have three ICs with a pair of L-claws, and I'm working on a fourth with a L-claw and a storm shield. My first LC-armed IC is the terminator captain figure with a pair of termie LC-arms. That conversion involved a bit of sawing. My second was a conversion that I made out of my old Emperor's Champion figure (from when any SM chapter could have one) with the pair of L-claws from the Veteran Squad. My third is a jump pack equipped captain with another set of those arms - that's a nice bit, BTW. Both arms come on one bit.



The derivative lists maybe give variety but people generally don't even explore the basic lists. Most people use the same boring internet endorsed list.

Not me, brother. The reason I currently own 7000+ points worth of stuff for my SM army is that I kept thinking of abilities that I wanted to develop for my SM army. At this point, the thing I can't field are Scout Bikes, and I've been thinking about them lately. I'm trying not to buy any more figures right now, though, because I've got so many in the pipeline already.

Where are these internet-endorsed lists, anyway? Admittedly, I don't go looking for them, but while I hear about them all the time, I never see them.

Kahadras
13-08-2006, 11:31
For the same price, you can get missile launchers. The same strength and twice the range. Multi meltas are all well and good on platforms that can move and shoot them, but are stupid for infantry. Regular meltaguns are better for infantry.


I always planned to take some with infiltrate. That should cause real problems for your opponant from turn one. Especialy if he has quite a lot of tanks.

As to traits, I like them a lot. It gives flavor to the army that you can field. What I don't like is people who take the easy way out when taking disadvantages. We stand alone was the most retarded idea ever. It screams 'pick me!' to unscrupulous players who are looking for an easy way around the disadvantage that is imposed on them.

Basicaly at the end of the day you will get people who use the trait system in a fun and interesting way and those who will use it to gain an advantage over their opponant. With the growth of the 'win, win win' idea propergated (in part) by tournaments this is hardly a suprise.

Kahadras

FlashGordon
13-08-2006, 12:09
I always planned to take some with infiltrate. That should cause real problems for your opponant from turn one. Especialy if he has quite a lot of tanks.

As to traits, I like them a lot. It gives flavor to the army that you can field. What I don't like is people who take the easy way out when taking disadvantages. We stand alone was the most retarded idea ever. It screams 'pick me!' to unscrupulous players who are looking for an easy way around the disadvantage that is imposed on them.

Basicaly at the end of the day you will get people who use the trait system in a fun and interesting way and those who will use it to gain an advantage over their opponant. With the growth of the 'win, win win' idea propergated (in part) by tournaments this is hardly a suprise.

Kahadras

Remember the AP1 rule? I would go for the Multimelta infiltraitors anyday.

noneedforaname
13-08-2006, 12:25
Ass cannon missile launcher dreads with tank hunter skill is much nasty versus vehicles. One strength nine shot and four strength seven shots with rending. Good against MBT's and light vehicle squadrons.

Kahadras
13-08-2006, 12:32
Remember the AP1 rule? I would go for the Multimelta infiltraitors anyday.

Yup. Even without the 2d6 ap, several multimeltas fired at the side armour of a tank could quite easily disable or destroy it. Having a vet sergeant with a powerfist and a few normal marines to soak up casualties/provide supporting fire and you have a very nasty unit IMO.

Kahadras

Grand Master Raziel
13-08-2006, 15:50
Yup. Even without the 2d6 ap, several multimeltas fired at the side armour of a tank could quite easily disable or destroy it. Having a vet sergeant with a powerfist and a few normal marines to soak up casualties/provide supporting fire and you have a very nasty unit IMO.

Kahadras

I must admit, that is kind of intriguing. The downside, however, is that multimeltas don't have the kind of versatility that missile launchers have. It's nice to be able to switch to those frag missiles when the need for horde-cutting arises.

That said, I may have to pick up some multimelta figures at some point. Damn you Kahadras! ;)

Kahadras
13-08-2006, 15:56
Damn you Kahadras!

Funny how oftern I hear that line... :p I do agree that the missile launcher is more flexible it has a better range and if you don't have anywhere good to infiltrate to then the shorter range of the multimelta can be a real drawback. There is also the option to fire frag but unfortunatly this is no longer as powerful as it used to be due to the new targeting/spacing rules in 4th ed. You have to get people bunching their army before you can do any real damage.

Kahadras

Hlokk
13-08-2006, 16:17
The traits don't dumb down anything. They're poorly conceived freebies.
No, their really not.

Look at it like this. Lots of people have marine armies which are based on Ravenguard, Whitescars, Deth Korps, whatever. The doctrines/traits list is a way of simply and easily allowing people to field these armies, as well as being designed to give people a bit more flexibility when designing their armies. Sure, you could make a ravenguard army by taking 3 assault squads and 2 scout squads, but how is that any different from an imperial fists army you could make withthe same combination?

Xurben
13-08-2006, 16:42
Well that's exactly what we do, since we don't really care about fluff, we don't really care about the names of our painted soldiers.

...... So no matter which color my army is painted I will be able to fully exploit the codex. .......
(Edited for space)

......

^^
That sentance bothers me. I just feel the need point that out.

Aegius
13-08-2006, 19:36
I ALWAYS take the same traits for my eagle warriors. I take see but dont be seen and cleanse and purify. My disadvantage is eye to eye. I know exactly how my army works and the trait disadvantage really does outweigh the two advantages that I have. I think the doctrines/traits system is great as long as it's not being abused.

sulla
13-08-2006, 19:52
I don't have a problem with the 'disadvantages' not being disadvantageous enough... I think the point cost of most 'advantages' is enough of a disadvantage.

UnRiggable
13-08-2006, 20:43
Except the one with the bolter ccw exchange. The 'no allies' is a freebie really, unless you play doubles

Damien 1427
13-08-2006, 20:47
Frankly, I'd be more willing to give Beakee Boys a go if I could just have every disadvantage in the book.

AmasNagol
13-08-2006, 20:53
you can have every disadvantage.

Just impose it on yourself.

BodhiTree
13-08-2006, 21:39
Hell, my list covers all three major ones. Only 1 Landspeeder, 1 Dreadnought and no tanks, Terminators/Veterans or bikes. If I could go without the Dread I would, but I think I can't equal its cost with a useful Devastator squad.

Edit: You could argue that my two Elite Assault Squads are Veterans, but as I understand it for the Aspire to Glory disadvantage it doesn't apply.

Kahadras
13-08-2006, 21:45
you can have every disadvantage.

Just impose it on yourself.

That, IMO, is the problem. The system is self regulated so for everybody who imposes these disadvantages on themselves there is someone else who is prepared to play the system in order to get the best return (in traits) for the minimum disadvantage to his/her army list.

Kahadras

UnRiggable
13-08-2006, 23:00
that's why so many people use the eye to eye disadvantage. Because nobody uses bikes in the first place

Grand Master Raziel
14-08-2006, 00:48
that's why so many people use the eye to eye disadvantage. Because nobody uses bikes in the first place

I don't think it's that so much. I think the more significant factor is that both the other Major Drawbacks have a main disadvantage plus a number of secondary disadvantages associated with them, whereas Eye To Eye only has a main disadvantage and lacks secondary disadvantages.

marv335
14-08-2006, 10:34
and for some reason the biggest disadvantage of the lot is one of the minor ones.
faithful unto death.
how can they call that a minor disadvantage?

wascloud
14-08-2006, 10:58
i cant beleive what im reading.
seriously guys, without doctrines or traits, all you would see is game after game involving completely vanilla armies, its BORING!. i play guard with donctrines and marines with traits, because it allows you to put background into ure army, without this every marine army is ultramarines and every guard army is the faceless masses. doctrines/traits are the best things to happen to their respective lists as they allow the rich background of 40k to be brought to the fore without cheesy online/stnad alone lists