PDA

View Full Version : Legally Rigged Armies?



elvinltl
13-11-2006, 10:16
I've seen many tournaments dominated by legally rigged army. The top 5 positions always goes to "lame" and effortless fighting army style. In case you people don't get the idea of what i am referring, here is an example of a legal and yet imbalanced army.

Eldar

HQ
Avatar 155

Troops
5 Dire Avengers 60

5 Dire Avengers 60

Heavy Support
Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Simply just a 405 points, imagine you have an additional 345 points to give your wraithlords all sorts of exotic shooting arsenal including costly brightlances, starcannon ect. With 345 points you can have a myraid of weps to deal with both Horde and highly amoured armies.

4 monsterous creatures in your army. :D You Dire Avengers can be just parked aside for display in one corner of the table. Is this fair?

Tyranids 750 points army
I am not too sure about this. But i encountered 3 monsterous creatures, i think hive tyrant have wings and will enter CC in turn 2. :( Backed by 2 Carnifexes and genestealers. No matter which one you focus fire on you are still dead. Requires absolutely no brain but just run forward and bash style.

The worst thing about this is it is invincible. I witness this army trashing horde ig army with 90 models in just 750 points. Much less other army style.

I seriously think GW need to relook their rules. I've seen 1500 point Necron armies with 3 monoliths!!!! How on earth is anyone gonna take 3 monolith down?

How about limiting 1-2 monsterous creature per army to prevent abuse? Or fix army points per army consitution? After experiencing this kind of rigged army fighting, i am quite discouraged at investing in warhammer 40k.

ss_cherubael
13-11-2006, 10:22
been done to death mate. all these armies are one trick ponies and when u find the weakness u pwn them hard

Darkseer
13-11-2006, 10:27
Talk like this is damaging the hobby. People complained about min/maxed size marine squads and now they’re gone. People complained about starcannons, they’re now weaker. People complained about Deathwing terminator armies with nothing but assault cannons. Now they can only have 1 per squad. Please stop complaining when you come up against a competitively minded player, because you’re making GW ruin my favourite game for me.
If you want to play competitively, play competitively, if you want to play for a laugh, play for a laugh.

ss_cherubael
13-11-2006, 10:49
totally agreeing with you here darkseer, can someone kill this thread? if u are having problems against a foe head to the tactics forum for some help.

Slaaneshi Slave
13-11-2006, 10:54
Cheap Palatine 45 Pts

5 Storm Troopers 50 Pts

5 Storm Troopers 50 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

550 Pts.

Hallo Mr Hive Tyrant. Bye bye Mr Hive Tyrant.

Any army can be beaten by another tailored army.

Setrus
13-11-2006, 11:02
Eldar army: Oh how cuuute...Snipers anyone? Or maybe just...you know...not engage them? You could just walk around them easily since they're so slow. (Or engage them with something unbreakable till they go home. )

Above poster got the idea with the tyrant and those guys. Bye bye little bug. :D
And besides: If it's made so that it requires no tactics to use...then it's likely that the guy won't actually USE any tactics. :D

Only one comment to the necron example: WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING THE MONOLITHS!? :wtf:

Latro_
13-11-2006, 11:05
Is that eldar army not illegal?
I thought you have to have a main weapon on wraithlords now...

Slaaneshi Slave
13-11-2006, 11:11
I'm sure you can fit at least Shurican Cannons with the remaining 95 points (I have never heard of anybody playing less than 500 points).

Xarian
13-11-2006, 11:21
welcome to 3 years ago, maybe someday you will catch up with the rest of us?

Slaaneshi Slave
13-11-2006, 11:23
There have been rigged armies since Rogue Trader, what do you mean "welcome to 3 years ago"?

Latro_
13-11-2006, 11:27
Flame me not, but its a no brainer to take these kinda armies in a tourney. The object is to win. Therefore you should take the most logical effective beardy army you can.

Racing car drivers dont turn up to a race in a 1995 ford fiesta.

This is why i dont goto tournies and why i play orks, hehe i'm into 40k for the fun factor these days nothing more.

still want my army to do well, but not at the expense of having fun.

Bookwrak
13-11-2006, 11:30
Except that the army the op posted would get torn apart in a tournament setting.

Venomizer
13-11-2006, 11:30
Talk like this is damaging the hobby. People complained about min/maxed size marine squads and now they’re gone. People complained about starcannons, they’re now weaker. People complained about Deathwing terminator armies with nothing but assault cannons. Now they can only have 1 per squad. Please stop complaining when you come up against a competitively minded player, because you’re making GW ruin my favourite game for me.
If you want to play competitively, play competitively, if you want to play for a laugh, play for a laugh.

100% agree with you DS,

to be honest I'm worrying about what they are going to do with the necrons when the time for their revision comes - since moaning about necrons is a popular past-time these days

Ultima
13-11-2006, 11:48
o dear...you think that that eldar army is 'too good' il beat that with ease and it took me roughly 30 seconds to think of.

archon
shadow field
agoniser
combat drugs
pistol

6x 10 warriors with 2 dark lances

thats roughly 750pts or a bit under. bring on your wriathlords and avatar it would be amusing.

Tanith Ghost
13-11-2006, 11:51
I've seen many tournaments dominated by legally rigged army. The top 5 positions always goes to "lame" and effortless fighting army style. In case you people don't get the idea of what i am referring, here is an example of a legal and yet imbalanced army.


Loosing to it does not make it 'imbalanced'. It just means you lost.




Eldar

HQ
Avatar 155

Troops
5 Dire Avengers 60

5 Dire Avengers 60

Heavy Support
Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Simply just a 405 points, imagine you have an additional 345 points to give your wraithlords all sorts of exotic shooting arsenal including costly brightlances, starcannon ect. With 345 points you can have a myraid of weps to deal with both Horde and highly amoured armies.

Unless of course they fight back, in which case your avengings will be in a world of hurt and those wraiths won't last long by themselves.

A marine captain with a powerfist and a bad additude backed up by las-flamethrower tac squads and and battery or two of bazooka armed devs.
To say nothing of the guard hammer I'd hit you with.



4 monsterous creatures in your army. :D You Dire Avengers can be just parked aside for display in one corner of the table. Is this fair?

Plenty fair. A player can make an army however their codex will permit and they wish to. This should be able to be done without people whining about it.



Tyranids 750 points army
I am not too sure about this. But i encountered 3 monsterous creatures, i think hive tyrant have wings and will enter CC in turn 2. :( Backed by 2 Carnifexes and genestealers. No matter which one you focus fire on you are still dead. Requires absolutely no brain but just run forward and bash style.


Wrong again. Run forward frothing and you'll be shot down after only taking two or three squads with you. Being hosed with lasfire hurts, to say nothing of bolter fire.



The worst thing about this is it is invincible. I witness this army trashing horde ig army with 90 models in just 750 points. Much less other army style.


No army is invincible. Say it with me cheif. No army in invincible. What you really need to do is stop using the same tactics and list hen you know you'll get beat.



I seriously think GW need to relook their rules. I've seen 1500 point Necron armies with 3 monoliths!!!! How on earth is anyone gonna take 3 monolith down?

Ah, no they don't. You deserve to loose if you can't figure out the achilies heel of a three monolith 1500 point list. here's a hint- necrons phase out if 75% of necrons on the feild are slain.




How about limiting 1-2 monsterous creature per army to prevent abuse? Or fix army points per army consitution? After experiencing this kind of rigged army fighting, i am quite discouraged at investing in warhammer 40k.

Good. Don't. GW waters down the game enough as it is without having to make things worse to pander to the 'zomg that cheese' crowd.

Chaplain-Librarian Marcus
13-11-2006, 12:05
They're talking about 40k in 40min.

Anyway, back to the thread - I've played against a LOT of Nemesis armies (i.e maxed out on killer weapons) and they all have their weaknesses. It all comes down to your own tactics. Your opponent close combat oriented? Make him come to you. Stay in cover (I 10 helps you stay alive...). Super firepower army? Pick blocked firing lanes. Assault, especially vs Tau.
My personal favourite was vs a Guard army - all 80 infantry and 6 tanks of it. Used their own deployment zone against them - bottlenecked between difficult terrain and 4 very nasty marine squads...
My HQ never made it to the battle. Or my dreads.

Back to basics, that's it. Use your stengths to exploit your opponent's weaknesses.

And don't forget the most important rule...

Have FUN!

Chaplain-Librarian Marcus
13-11-2006, 12:07
Ok, that looks lame now

Kriegsherr
13-11-2006, 12:10
Thats exactly the reason I never ever in my life would even think about entering a tournament. Armies like this make me puke, especially because I want to use my fluffy armies and have fun.

But to be fair, tournaments are held exactly fo this one reason: That powergamers can bring out the big hammer and hit each others head with it. Hey, so what if there are insane armies at tournies? If you enter it, I assume, you also are interested in winning. So why bringing the fun army to the tourny?

I don't have a problem with this armies popping up at tournies, other players abusing lists or doing one trick ponies.... as long as they don't want to play me with this stuff, they can do everything they want. I of course will have a little discussion over his army with my opponent if he brings something like the 3 WL in under 1000 points to a game.
Its my free choice to refuse a game as it is an opponents free choice to choose an imbalanced army.

Onisuzume
13-11-2006, 12:15
And don't forget the most important rule...

Have FUN!
Wouldn't that effectively counter those "Nemesis" armies out there?
Since those "Nemesis" armies are basicly tailored to win, and "The Most Imporant Rule" specifically mentions that both players are there to have fun, and that playing a game against one "who only plays to win at all costs" isn't fun. In which case you could step to an judge to get your opponent disqualified for not following the most important rule in the rulebook.

Curufew
13-11-2006, 12:16
He is now trying to start a Death Wing army. Bet that he is going to spam all the assault cannons

RampagingRavener
13-11-2006, 12:18
Tanith Ghost wins this thread.

Competative lists exist; deal with it. I don't play in the Competative scene so I've never come up against those lists, but in tournament style games those are the lists you can expect, and so you should be prepared to take them down when you do come across them.

If you don't want to play these sorts of armies, stick with freindly games and avoid tournaments like the plague (as I do). But Powergame-y, Tourneypowered army lists are a part of the hobby, and have as much right to exist and be played as any other.

Onisuzume
13-11-2006, 12:18
He is now trying to start a Death Wing army. Bet that he is going to spam all the assault cannons
Be happy that the Dark Angels get a new codex soon, quite possibly with a limitation on the nr. of assault cannons allowed per squad/army.

Achilles
13-11-2006, 12:22
Then again, winning against those 'Nemesis Armies' against all Odds, however slim the chance, is Fun.

I have a army which most of my regular opponents dread playing against, and i only dust it of to do a little 'Fright Hammer', against a good sport who likes the chance to survive the Smashing.

But i did stop playing tournaments. I like to use some non-sanctioned lists like Kroot, tho Old Harlequinn trial dex and Lost & the Damned.

Its a game... it should be fun. its not those lists that are bad, its how people (ab)use them..!

EDIT: for the record, i only use one such army... my other army's are all extremely Fluffy & Cool and never win a bloody game :D

elvinltl
13-11-2006, 12:44
Yes it is true a tailored army can beat this kind of rigged army, but you do not tailor armies to specifically counter certain armies. You create versatile armies which can handle MOST armies in tourney.Then comes this rigged army that has only X weakness and beats all others down.

The meaning of being imbalance and rigged army is when something requires an unreasonable counter to defeat it. Being able to defeat it does not mean it is balanced. Likeiwse i can be extremely lucky that day for my 10 Guardian squad to kill a hive tyrant.

The problem with tourney is that despite the fact your cheese army has a specific counter, out of 30 players who takes part, only 1 can specially counter you while you rigged army go ahead owning the other 28 players putting you at the top spot.

I am doing this thread because i just witness a tourney being spoiled by rigged armies. I don't go about whining because i lost(for your info i was not even in the tourney) and my friend who introduced me to 40k happened to be one of the abusers. The top 5 players have rigged army list that are legal but seriously imbalanced. I stood by and watch i was watching in disgust at how players abuse the gameplay skillessly by just pitting might against furtile skills. In fact, even the game master was in a helpless situation, he admitted it was quite an imbalanced tourney and the winning list is "****ed-up". In addition, i've asked around most of the players and they also felt their army list was pure imbalanced but nothing could be done. I was simply an observer as i am starting Eldar and wanna learn a trick or two from tourneys.

So from what Tanith Ghost(experienced player i guess?) said i can conclude that it is OK to abuse rules? Is winning all that important in 40k? Do you people play games just to win or play to learn and most importantly have fun? Winning is part of the fun but for both parties to win ultimately the game has to be fair. Is this <Life is never fair> attitude i am seeing?
Honestly, if i were to be playing a match with Tanith Ghost, i could just simply collect my models and walk off. I am purely disgusted at your gaming attitude,

Just wondering whether GW know about this kind of abuses in games? There must be some rules implemeneted to prevent such abuses. I am not trying to tear down the entire regime but want GW to refine it.

A good idea is to restrict troop type per point cost.
For Example
500 points
1 HQ
2 or more Troops
2 Heavy Support
2 Fast Attack
2 Elite

+500 points will entitle you to
+1 heavy support
+1 fast attack
+1 elite
etc.

Achilles
13-11-2006, 12:52
@elvinltl-
Easy sollution (and this has been mentioned to you): Don't play Tournaments...

Tournaments are crap: although 95 % of the player come to have a good time, 5% just come to WIN WIN WIN (and use their winning ability to overcompensate for absolute nerdyness).
Events are much cooler, generally have little 'tournament drive' player, and have a deffinate 'Fun Factor'

When i first joined the gaming group here, we had one such player who dominated the winning scene (in most games we played there). He was intelligent, Tacticly sound and a great Combo-maker. He rarely got a chance though to play for fun, as everybody hated losing against him. I never really care if i win or lose, although i am capable of making a 'Killer list'. So i played him a lot, always bringing the fluff back into the game... "At least my farseer got away to get reinforcements next time HAHAHA" after a while he stopped caring about winning to... and had fun playing.

And the system your sugesting? it exists... its called WHFB.
and dont get me started about cheesy army's in that game...

elvinltl
13-11-2006, 13:07
I will willingly lose to an intelligent player who uses skills and wits to outplay me. The problem is when you play against a player who sucks at tatica but excels at abuses and exploiting flaws and still lose, knowing your skills and tatics where superior.

Haha, like what you said about such a player. The entire tourney may simply just blanket party that guy after the tourney was over. Sounds fun isn't it?

Talking about events, where can i find it avaliable locally? I live in singapore and there only seems to be tourney. Maybe i can suggest to the ppol of players to organise events? Or retailers will organise it?

A neutral shade of black.
13-11-2006, 13:08
Plenty fair. A player can make an army however their codex will permit and they wish to. This should be able to be done without people whining about it.

No; or rather, yes, but GW should take steps to make sure that broken lists are removed from the game. That said, who cares, right? There are plenty of other games out there. Well, except for the fact that they still cost a fortune (though a smaller one than GW games) to get into, and there are no opponents since most wargamers nowadays are the brainless zombie followers of GW with no spine and no will to sample the whole range of what the Hobby (over which GW has absolutely no monopoly whatsoever, despite what they would have you believe, except the monopoly granted to it by said brainless zombie followers) has to offer. GW is throttling wargaming, slowly but surely. It'll be our collective undoing, eventually. You must go on a quest to save the wargaming world! ;)

And to the OP: you might consider buying and reading the new Eldar codex, eh? :rolleyes: You know, wraithlords having wraithsight, being compelled to buy at least one weapon, etc. - along with the fact that that list is pathetically weak, as TG briefly touched upon.

Slaaneshi Slave
13-11-2006, 13:10
If you have the option of playing a game of football with either A: 11 amature footballers, or B: 11 professional players, who do you take?

I can see why people take Iron Warriors of CheesyDoom lists, and other such armies. I personally don't, but thats my choice, I never said it was the right way.

Adept
13-11-2006, 13:10
Flame me not, but its a no brainer to take these kinda armies in a tourney. The object is to win. Therefore you should take the most logical effective beardy army you can.

Racing car drivers dont turn up to a race in a 1995 ford fiesta.

This is why i dont goto tournies and why i play orks, hehe i'm into 40k for the fun factor these days nothing more.

still want my army to do well, but not at the expense of having fun.


If you don't want to play these sorts of armies, stick with freindly games and avoid tournaments like the plague (as I do). But Powergame-y, Tourneypowered army lists are a part of the hobby, and have as much right to exist and be played as any other.


Don't play Tournaments...

Tournaments are crap: although 95 % of the player come to have a good time, 5% just come to WIN WIN WIN (and use their winning ability to overcompensate for absolute nerdyness).
Events are much cooler, generally have little 'tournament drive' player, and have a deffinate 'Fun Factor'

And thus we perpetuate the utterly false myths that A) All tournaments are boring, WAAC cheese-fests where players are not allowed to have fun and B) that all armys at tournaments are min-maxed abhorrences.

Having actually attended a good number of GTs and similarly sized tournaments, I can state that both myths are categorically false. I always have an excellent weekend, and play against a good mix of armies. Indeed, the very presence of comp and sports scoring prohibits those few sad individuals who take min-maxed armies from winning.

Zzarchov
13-11-2006, 13:17
The problem with "don't play at tournaments" is that tournament players use their lists in friendly games

friendly gamers therefore create tournament calibre lists to keep up.

And there aren't enough hobbyists that you can pre-screen everyones lists and choose the one you wish to play against if you want to get a game in.

In the end competetive lists are just that, competetive. All that I mind is how from the begining of third to fourth as now they are going in the same path that ruined 2nd edition. Making the basic trooper less important and resolving the games to weakness deprived super units.

5th ed will probably require a complete redo like third.

wingedserpant
13-11-2006, 13:28
I faced a guy who thought he'd done a cheesy necrom army. It was two warrior squads, a monolith and a nightbringer. I beat it in one turn. Against necrons like these you simply shoot the soft stuff. 3 monoliths will not leave much warriors so one round of shooting can phase the uber tanks out. The nidzilla list is slow and can be avoided as can that eldar list of yours.

RampagingRavener
13-11-2006, 13:38
And thus we perpetuate the utterly false myths that A) All tournaments are boring, WAAC cheese-fests where players are not allowed to have fun and B) that all armys at tournaments are min-maxed abhorrences.

With all due respect, that's not what I said. Just that you're more likely to come up against a list purely designed for winning in a competative scene, like a Tournament (but just as likely a single "grudge match" between two people in a freindly) than you are in most other gamin enviroments. Not that all Tourney lists were like that, or even that the majority of Tourney lists are like that, and even less that Tournaments arn't fun. They're just not my thing, but that doesn't mean I think they're a bad idea or anything.

Adept
13-11-2006, 13:43
With all due respect, that's not what I said.

Duly noted. Of course, I was responding in general terms to all three posters whose comments stand out (to me) as baseless negative opinions with regards to tournaments.

Latro_
13-11-2006, 13:50
my point was it is logical to take pimped up armies to tournies... Because by the nature of the event... winning is the main objective. You can rosey that up with it being fun and a laugh and meeting new folks. Thats all cool and i agree but there is an element in those kinda events that breeds highly competative army lists and players that go with it.

for me its just not my cuppa tea. I dont have to pay money to play people locally, the only down side is you dont get the variety. However alot of the people i play against have many armies so its not all bad.

Kriegsherr
13-11-2006, 14:28
And thus we perpetuate the utterly false myths that A) All tournaments are boring, WAAC cheese-fests where players are not allowed to have fun and B) that all armys at tournaments are min-maxed abhorrences.

Having actually attended a good number of GTs and similarly sized tournaments, I can state that both myths are categorically false. I always have an excellent weekend, and play against a good mix of armies. Indeed, the very presence of comp and sports scoring prohibits those few sad individuals who take min-maxed armies from winning.

That might be true, even then tournies still not satisfy my hunger for campaigns, fluffy games and a nice table with a decent amount of terrain.

And of course, there are the players that will take on the one annoying WAAC Gamer that you might find at one of the better (meaning one of the least powergamery) tournies without complaining. I wouldn't.
I'm a quite sportive chap that doesn't mind to loose that much, but if there is a thing that gets on my nerves, its annoying players and armies designed to deny me any fun in the game. And of course armies that Kick the fluff in the ***. Nothing against "Themes" that maybe even contradict the canon fluff to some degree, but doing it to the extreme with no other reason than "because I can" is a little bit much for my liking.
Im not a fan of Samurai Marines, or other strange tournament (or non-tourny) "Theme" armies I've seen. Some were hilarious, and up to a very good level optically, but just not my thing. But I won't whine about it, I just will leave tournies and tourny players alone. All I expect from them is that they accept that this game was created for fluffnuts, roleplayers and beer-and-bretzel gamers, and therefore they should be cared about most when designing the rules. Heck, I would be okay if they would mark all "fun"-stuff like In nomine as "nontourny-rules"

I hold a grudge against Tourny players because I think THEY ruined my game (not the whiners).... I still remember the strange explanations why In nomine imperatoris died...

Curufew
13-11-2006, 14:44
Lol...what can you expect from those people at PI. They're well known to be power gamers. Even some of the old dudes in there admit that they're power gamers when I was still their forum member

Zerosoul
13-11-2006, 16:20
I've seen many tournaments dominated by legally rigged army. The top 5 positions always goes to "lame" and effortless fighting army style. In case you people don't get the idea of what i am referring, here is an example of a legal and yet imbalanced army.

Eldar

HQ
Avatar 155

Troops
5 Dire Avengers 60

5 Dire Avengers 60

Heavy Support
Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Simply just a 405 points, imagine you have an additional 345 points to give your wraithlords all sorts of exotic shooting arsenal including costly brightlances, starcannon ect. With 345 points you can have a myraid of weps to deal with both Horde and highly amoured armies.

4 monsterous creatures in your army. :D You Dire Avengers can be just parked aside for display in one corner of the table. Is this fair?

Tyranids 750 points army
I am not too sure about this. But i encountered 3 monsterous creatures, i think hive tyrant have wings and will enter CC in turn 2. :( Backed by 2 Carnifexes and genestealers. No matter which one you focus fire on you are still dead. Requires absolutely no brain but just run forward and bash style.

The worst thing about this is it is invincible. I witness this army trashing horde ig army with 90 models in just 750 points. Much less other army style.

I seriously think GW need to relook their rules. I've seen 1500 point Necron armies with 3 monoliths!!!! How on earth is anyone gonna take 3 monolith down?

How about limiting 1-2 monsterous creature per army to prevent abuse? Or fix army points per army consitution? After experiencing this kind of rigged army fighting, i am quite discouraged at investing in warhammer 40k.


I'm...Not sure why you posted this list in my army list thread in that forum as well as here, quite frankly, but I am sure I don't appreciate you using my army list to springboard into some kind of anti-cheese list rant - especially considering my list is not cheesy under any reasonable definition of cheese. All that said, I run a Genestealer-heavy list and I would LOVE to play this list with it. I could have a win by turn four. The Dark Eldar list that's next up after my Craftworld Eldar are done would dismantle this even earlier than that - all those MCs are bait for Darklances. Just because something is a monstrous creature doesn't make it impossible or even hard to kill, and if you changed the Tyranids like you want you'd break the list, because they're balanced around the monstrous creatures.

The thing is this. I dislike lists that are intended to be fun for only one person - the usual suspects, the Siren-bombs, the 6-pie-plate-9-oblit IW list of doom, the all-Chimera-two-Hellhound-two-Russ sit-and-shoot. 40K is, at the end of the day, a two(or more) player game, and people should take that into account when designing lists. I always - always - ask another person "Would playing against this list be fun" when I'm in the design stage. If they say yes, I go forward. If they say no, I find out why, and if they have a point, I get rid of the list. I think the hobby would be better if more people did that.

But even all that said - I don't think there's a single cheesy list that's unbeatable, because if there was it would be the only thing you saw on the tournament circuit. The Siren-bomb list? One Demolisher shell later and you're sitting around for five turns waiting for the game to end. Your proposed 3-Monoliths-in-1500 list? Ignore the Monoliths like a smart person and go for phase out, since it's not possible to have more than, say, 30 Necrons in that whole list. The Eldar-MC-Spam list you posted isn't even a cheesy list - it's way too terrible to be cheesy, since every army out there can beat it without too much trouble.

40K isn't at its best or most fun when it's a simple kill-'em-all bloodbath. I've found that, while slugfests are great for learning the mechanics, the game is much more balanced when you insist on missions. Sure, sometimes you get a slugfest anyway - but other times you get Take and Hold or Recon that demands tactical skills besides the ability to prioritize targets efficiently. I also don't understand the wargamer reluctance in friendly games to say "You know, I don't think I'd have fun playing that list. No offense but I think I'll just try to find another game. Have fun, dude." Just because somebody turns up with a list doesn't mean you have to play them, unless you're in a tournament, in which case it's kind of silly to act shocked at the amount of min-maxed lists.

The Keeper of Secrets
13-11-2006, 16:31
Some people play to have fun and model, and some play to win. I say, live and let live. there is no army that has absolutely no weakness, so deal with it.

Saying that, it is very annoying when somone with absolutely no tactical ability writes 9 obliterators and 4 basilisks into ther army, and you're playing a hordey nid army.

charlie

Isambard
13-11-2006, 17:02
Actually, I took the Eldar MC cheestfest to a 500pt cheese flavoured tournament (ie abuse the list) and I won. The issue with ANY 'less than normal' army is that to beat it you usually have to take a 'less than normal' list yourself. You cant blame tournament players for taking what is needed to win, you blame the games writers for not thinking when the wrote the game/lists. If there was more structure in army selection then there would be less potential for abuse.

Zerosoul
13-11-2006, 17:09
Actually, I took the Eldar MC cheestfest to a 500pt cheese flavoured tournament (ie abuse the list) and I won. The issue with ANY 'less than normal' army is that to beat it you usually have to take a 'less than normal' list yourself. You cant blame tournament players for taking what is needed to win, you blame the games writers for not thinking when the wrote the game/lists. If there was more structure in army selection then there would be less potential for abuse.

Sure, if you play 500-point lists with the normal FOC and no restrictions you're going to run into problems, which GW has acknowledged and is far from a unique problem to 40K or even GW's games(Warmachine gets weird at super-low or super-high point values, no matter what fanboys tell you). The game is really balanced around the 1000-2000 point range.

ashc
13-11-2006, 17:13
The amount of times this sort of thing comes up never ceases to amaze me.

What does it matter if someone can build a power list? power players should play other power players as they are the most likely group of players to enjoy the challenge. fluff players should play other fluffier players, or people out to have fun play other 'fun and non-competitive' minded players.

Find groups of people who you want to play with because you have the same gaming mindset is basically what i am saying; then things like this just don't matter.

oh, and my sentiments are with Darkseer totally; thanks to whining, GW are going down the road of nerfing half the stuff competitive players enjoy using, by the sounds of it deathwing are going to be practically unplayable in a competitive setting and will be relegated to a fluff players dream if rumours are anything to go by.

a quite irate,

Ash

Ecchu
13-11-2006, 17:15
I don't think its super lame that people make tailored min/max lists... every army can do it. Like it was said before, all armies have their weaknesses. I've played a siren bomb army and they do great in some situations, but not against a Psychic Choir nid army or even against a Librarian in a Space Marine army. In the end, I prefer friendly games because i have min/max'd in the past to win games... but there is just no satisfaction.

However, in the case of 'nids i do think they are way overpowered for what they can pack into a 750 game. 3 dakka fexes, a hive tyrant, and a squad or two of 'stealers for troops... fleh. Lists like those drive me crazy because they are beatable but they don't rely on tactics at all... in fact most of the game there relies on terrain placement, since if you don't have more than 18" out of a forest and you are going to sit back and shoot you are gonna be screwed. I've destroyed lists like this before, but I've had to cheese it out myself and tailor a list specifically to kill this one army... 9 - 10 lascannons in 750 points is an awful lot and shouldn't be necessary. Tailoring a list that can only beat one other list just sucks and is no fun. End of story.

malisteen
13-11-2006, 17:43
In terms of the wraithlord list, under the new rules it would sufer badly from the new wraithsight rule (wraithlords not w/in 6" of a friendly psycher at the start of their turn do nothing until the start of their next turn, no moving, no shooting, and are automatically hit in close combat).

Unbalanced armies are what they are. Come up with a bunch of new restrictions and you simply set new standards for what is and isn't unbalanced, and ruin some armies in the process. And besides, I thought most tournaments had at least some rounds using escalation these days? I wouldn't want to run all MC's in that. The real eldar cheese list for 400 points these days involves as many warwalkers as possible, wraithlords are yesterday's news....

Not the point, I know. But you aren't going to come up with a set of gamewide restrictions that will balance players who build armies for competetive value against players who build armies for looks or fluff. It's just not going to happen.

A neutral shade of black.
13-11-2006, 18:25
The amount of times this sort of thing comes up never ceases to amaze me.

What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that regardless of how often this comes up, some people still fail to see the blatant difference that there is between people demanding a fair game that doesn't include the possibility to powergame and people wanting everything to be Carebear-friendly.

Once more, for sanity's sake: there is a just middle between powergaming and entirely noncompetitive fluff players. It's called building "hard" lists.

IJW
13-11-2006, 18:42
In terms of the wraithlord list, under the new rules it would sufer badly from the new wraithsight rule (wraithlords not w/in 6" of a friendly psycher at the start of their turn do nothing until the start of their next turn, no moving, no shooting, and are automatically hit in close combat).
Assuming the Eldar player rolls that 1 in 6 chance every turn for every Wraithlord...

ashc
13-11-2006, 18:55
What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that regardless of how often this comes up, some people still fail to see the blatant difference that there is between people demanding a fair game that doesn't include the possibility to powergame and people wanting everything to be Carebear-friendly.

Once more, for sanity's sake: there is a just middle between powergaming and entirely noncompetitive fluff players. It's called building "hard" lists.


Cheers Aneutralshadeofblack for adding fuel to my argument ;)

Ash

Hobgoblyn
13-11-2006, 19:04
Im not a fan of Samurai Marines, or other strange tournament (or non-tourny) "Theme" armies I've seen. Some were hilarious, and up to a very good level optically, but just not my thing. But I won't whine about it, I just will leave tournies and tourny players alone.

Why would you have anything against Samurai Marines?
Seriously, when there is an official and annoyingly overused Viking Puppy Space Marine legion from a planet named "Fenris" and a Mongollian horde Legion who go around on motorcycles instead of horses at what point does a samurai one become more silly or stupid?

I think you need to compare the 'unthemely' armies to the theme before judging them. Because the theme is pretty stupid, silly, uncreative and inane in many ways to begin with, maybe these 'unthemely' things fit right in.

NakedFisherman
13-11-2006, 19:10
Why would you have anything against Samurai Marines?
Seriously, when there is an official and annoyingly overused Viking Puppy Space Marine legion from a planet named "Fenris" and a Mongollian horde Legion who go around on motorcycles instead of horses at what point does a samurai one become more silly or stupid?

I think you need to compare the 'unthemely' armies to the theme before judging them. Because the theme is pretty stupid, silly, uncreative and inane in many ways to begin with, maybe these 'unthemely' things fit right in.

I think most people overdo their 'theme'. While the White Scars are Space Wolves are accepted as being based on Mongols and Vikings, often times Samurai-themed armies and such suffer from being too stereotypical and not blending well enough into the army; Space Wolves and White Scars are still Space Marines. Some people create Space Samurai.

electricblooz
13-11-2006, 19:29
After skimming the thread twice, I've noticed what I consider to be a glaring oversight among the "no list is too cheezy" arguments. As understand it, most of these arguments fall back on the concept that a "beatable army cannot be cheezy." From this premise, the proponents of this theory go on to state (and sometimes show) that any army can be beat. Since B not A....

The glaring error, in my opinion, is that beating these cheezy armies often requires tooling or investing in equally cheezy (or unfluffy) alternatives.

For instance, the Eldar MC Spam army mentioned in this thread (or any MC Hammer army, for that matter) can be easily beaten by an army sporting large numbers of sniper rifles. But speak honestly, how many posters on this thread can truthfully claim to "normally" run a large number of snipers? If you do not "normally" run a large number of snipers in your army and you add them specifically to counter an opponent you know will have multiples of MC's, aren't you "tooling" your list and behaving just as poorly and the individual with a "cheezed" list?

I think it needs to be acknowledged that 40k is a "rock/paper/scizzors" arrnagement, but that there are tiers of army types and that cross-tier competition (like taking a themed, non-optomized army to a highly competitive arena like a GT is a recipe for disappointment...)

BrainFireBob
13-11-2006, 20:46
The amount of times this sort of thing comes up never ceases to amaze me.

What does it matter if someone can build a power list? power players should play other power players as they are the most likely group of players to enjoy the challenge. fluff players should play other fluffier players, or people out to have fun play other 'fun and non-competitive' minded players.

Find groups of people who you want to play with because you have the same gaming mindset is basically what i am saying; then things like this just don't matter.

oh, and my sentiments are with Darkseer totally; thanks to whining, GW are going down the road of nerfing half the stuff competitive players enjoy using, by the sounds of it deathwing are going to be practically unplayable in a competitive setting and will be relegated to a fluff players dream if rumours are anything to go by.

a quite irate,

Ash

My disagreement is a pretty simple one, Ash- in my experience, it's overwhelmingly tourny players of the powergaming mindset with the attitude they're playing the game "right," and fluff players are wrong- in a casual setting.

Fluff players feel they're playing the game more true to its roots, perhaps, but they're not seeking out tourny players when there's no tourny around to bulk their manhood by running a "neuter the other person list" without warning them first, knowing full well they're playing someone who's more interested in a fluffy game.

Gen_eV
13-11-2006, 20:51
After skimming the thread twice, I've noticed what I consider to be a glaring oversight among the "no list is too cheezy" arguments. As understand it, most of these arguments fall back on the concept that a "beatable army cannot be cheezy."

Well, I don't fall into that category. Sure, I'm building my second 7*MC Tyranid list, planning a 14-MC Chaos List, and have an Alpha Lgion army with two Speedy Infiltrating Lieutnants, but I don't see the big deal.

The game is all about the players, not about the armies. As long as my opponent's friendly, cheerful, and doesn't try to cheat, I couldn't care less what he brings to the table. I'll get a good game any way I slice it, as long as my opponent's a decent chap.

Having been on the receiving end of armies seemingly tailored to rip mine to shreds, I speak from experience. (Saim Hann+Carninfexes= one dead Vyper, no more tyranids)

ashc
13-11-2006, 20:51
My disagreement is a pretty simple one, Ash- in my experience, it's overwhelmingly tourny players of the powergaming mindset with the attitude they're playing the game "right," and fluff players are wrong- in a casual setting.

Fluff players feel they're playing the game more true to its roots, perhaps, but they're not seeking out tourny players when there's no tourny around to bulk their manhood by running a "neuter the other person list" without warning them first, knowing full well they're playing someone who's more interested in a fluffy game.

You know what, I don't disagree with anything you said there BrainFireBob; I know there are people out there who player 'power' lists and specifically search for 'fluffier' people to play and wipe the floor with; to steal a phrase from our american friends: these sort of players are **********. :D

Real 'power' players search for other 'power' players to pitch their wits against; its the tactical challenge they enjoy, and certainly wouldn't get any pleasure from wiping some poor fluffy chap's army off of the face of the earth!

Like I said before mate, it should be horses for courses.

Ash

IJW
13-11-2006, 20:52
But speak honestly, how many posters on this thread can truthfully claim to "normally" run a large number of snipers?
Me, for one. :) Rarely fewer than 6-7 Rangers.

BrainFireBob
13-11-2006, 20:52
After skimming the thread twice, I've noticed what I consider to be a glaring oversight among the "no list is too cheezy" arguments. As understand it, most of these arguments fall back on the concept that a "beatable army cannot be cheezy." From this premise, the proponents of this theory go on to state (and sometimes show) that any army can be beat. Since B not A....

The glaring error, in my opinion, is that beating these cheezy armies often requires tooling or investing in equally cheezy (or unfluffy) alternatives.

For instance, the Eldar MC Spam army mentioned in this thread (or any MC Hammer army, for that matter) can be easily beaten by an army sporting large numbers of sniper rifles. But speak honestly, how many posters on this thread can truthfully claim to "normally" run a large number of snipers? If you do not "normally" run a large number of snipers in your army and you add them specifically to counter an opponent you know will have multiples of MC's, aren't you "tooling" your list and behaving just as poorly and the individual with a "cheezed" list?

I think it needs to be acknowledged that 40k is a "rock/paper/scizzors" arrnagement, but that there are tiers of army types and that cross-tier competition (like taking a themed, non-optomized army to a highly competitive arena like a GT is a recipe for disappointment...)

Sorry about the double post, but yeah- this is close to a key truth.

To my mind, an unbalanced army, unfair to an opponent, is one whose weakness- no matter how pronounced- is a weakness to an army so tailored it's weak against anything BUT the unfair list.

The all MC army in small games, as this post references. Weakness, say, snipers.

All snipers? Bad list. Bad bad list. Only worked with the disruption table. Too weak against vehicles.

MAINLY snipers- pretty good list, if you know what you're doing. All snipers, though, not so much.

Also, I'm going to pitch in that I'm less bothered by a hard list developed by someone on their own based on their gameplay experience- means they're playing to their personal strength in list design- then the lists that are effective downloads. Someone with a WAAC attitude that didn't design their list and doesn't even necessarily know why it works- why are they even playing?

UnRiggable
13-11-2006, 22:34
Here's some food for thought: 3 Basilisks? they are incredibly cheap and powerful (but easy to kill) so by the time youve shot em up theyve already made their points back. IG one is easy, one of the only tactics is to sacrifice a squad and when the other squad kills em they get flashlighted to death.

Diomedes
13-11-2006, 22:44
I'm still having trouble with the concept of "Legally" and "rigged" I mean if something is rigged, doesn't that make it Illegal?

Just thinking in terms of if you rig a football match or a boxer throws a fight?

Surely if its within the rules then its not rigged, just hard to beat?

Crimson Templar
13-11-2006, 23:36
Thank you Darkseer. I have seen this game get very simple minded in the last 2 generations. I miss the day when my Vet SGT on his bike could speed across the field and lob a vortex grenade at that hive tyrant/carnefex/ enter your biggest fear hear. If you have a buddy that is playing a stupid power army against you at the 500pt level......don't play that gay anymore. Or better yet, tell them that you don't want to waste your time playing against his/her army and would prefer to play against a more "rounded Army"!

I sound way too grown up huh!!

elvinltl
14-11-2006, 00:48
And yes, at 750 points tyranid is quite a pain in the ass. And it is true siam-han army can own it, the problem is how many Eldar actually uses siam-han? A fair game will entitle most versatile army to beat it. Tyrants and Carnifexes simply lumber their way through supported by gene-stealers in a 750 points army which is half table size. It won't take long before either 1 enter CC and you are doomed.

You people do know Imperial Guards right? They are famed for their numbers, at 750 points they can field 90 models and freakking highly amoured tanks.

How about this? Get 2 Farseer with Mindwar and spam it on these monsterous creatures? Sounds like and excellent idea and yet abit rigged, the only counter is perhaps anti-psyker armies.

A neutral shade of black.
14-11-2006, 00:52
Cheers Aneutralshadeofblack for adding fuel to my argument ;)

No problem. ;)


I'm still having trouble with the concept of "Legally" and "rigged" I mean if something is rigged, doesn't that make it Illegal?

It's called an oxymoron. And no; it's perfectly possible for something to be rigged and legal.

Diomedes
14-11-2006, 00:58
It's called an oxymoron. And no; it's perfectly possible for something to be rigged and legal.


You mean like Pro Wrestling? ;) Ok I get you but rigged to me says the outcome is pre determined, but no matter how beardy an army, every dog has its day and no army list is unbeatable.

Curufew
14-11-2006, 01:10
I've been to that place that our topic creator went to. They're all power gamers with no regrets to the fluff and stuff. They all try to do look for loopholes and try to outdo each other by making the most "power gaming" list. The guys there do things such as inflitrating Khnore Beserkers, A flying hive tyrant + genestealers + some canifex in a 750 pt NEWBIE tourney. What can you pack in a 750 pt list that can kill those stated? And the games are played in a 4 x 4 table.

UnRiggable
14-11-2006, 02:24
As long as we have a company that cannot make its rules clear enough, we will have jack-offs abusing loopholes. Some people have not grown out of the whole 'play for fun' deal and only enjoy the game by watching their opponent lose by a huge amount due to massed ass cannons or obliterators in big quantities.

Hokkaido23
14-11-2006, 02:43
When are we as a society going to get out of the mindset that when we lose, things must be unfair? If you use an AWP in Counterstrike, then you are being an unfair camper. If you create a first-turn deck in Magic, you are being unfair. If you bring 3 wraithlords to a 1000 pt game, you are being unfair. At what point do we say "thats legal and it kicked my ass, I need to play better / learn / do the same thing"? At what point do we say "I guess im not cut out for tournaments, as I only want to play against armies that fit my version of the storyline and I dont care about winning"? Is the answer that we really DO care about winning, but we want to do it with armies that meet our own predetermined limitations? The easiest way to make yourself happy within the hobby is to find people who play for the same reason you do. If youre constantly bouncing off these 'cheesy' or 'unfair' lists, then stop playing the people that bring them.

Tournaments are not provided for everyone to make new friends, sit in a circle and sing love songs to each other. Tournaments are a competition and if you do not come equipped with an army that has the best chance at winning then you are cheating yourself. Do not blame others who come to win by saying they are cheesy or beardy or whatever, they showed up with their best chance to win. Theres plenty of time for friendly games where winning isnt as important as having fun, and if thats more your speed then good for you. Everyone has the right to play the game any way they see fit as long as they follow the rules. I freely admit that I dont play friendly games because I only like playing against other tournament-style armies. I get zero satisfaction out of smashing someone's 'friendly' list the same way the NY Yankees wouldn't get any satisfaction from playing your little brother's t-ball team (although theyd probably lose against them). I also dont learn anything. Is it wrong that either of us play the way we do? No.

Quote what I'm about to say. Post it in your signature, read it at night before you go to bed, go to Tibet and study it's deeper meaning with the Dalai Lama. There is no cheese, there is legal and illegal. Play the game for yourself, dont make others conform to how you want the game to be played.

Diomedes
14-11-2006, 14:07
Quote what I'm about to say. Post it in your signature, read it at night before you go to bed, go to Tibet and study it's deeper meaning with the Dalai Lama. There is no cheese, there is legal and illegal. Play the game for yourself, dont make others conform to how you want the game to be played.

Thats what I was trying to say, be it cack handedly, I prefer your version! :D

Gen_eV
14-11-2006, 14:17
I do think it's rather amusing, how the complaints about unbeatable armies often come from people who otherwise claim they're not interested in winning.

hey, if the armies unbeatable, set yourself a new target - see how many guys your general can smash in hth, or how quickly you can flatten the rest of the enemy army when playing something like 3*Wraithlords. If you know you can't win, you can easily get more fun out of the rest of the game by winning your own little challenges.

electricblooz
14-11-2006, 15:11
Me, for one. :) Rarely fewer than 6-7 Rangers.

Actually, it's funny that you mention that because, with the new codex, I'm going to give in to temptation (see thread on worshiping chaos) and start an Eldar army. I've had harlies forever and I want to run a Guardian/Ranger/Harlie horde.

JaBoK
14-11-2006, 15:49
Well, there aren't many rigged armies out there. Necrons phase out, IC armies can be avoided or killed by snipers/rending. The only one that really bothers me is that stupid khorne demon prince, because you can't shoot it.

Adept
14-11-2006, 16:16
There is no cheese, there is legal and illegal. Play the game for yourself, dont make others conform to how you want the game to be played.

I agree, but only to an extent.

The entire point of having rules and army lists is to limit our opponents in some of their wilder machinations. It's basically our way of guaranteeing that our opponents are playing the same game.

However, in some areas, some people don't believe the rules are adequate. We have what the rules do say, and what we believe the rules should say. The end result is the creation of 'house rules' and comp scoring in tournaments, which I can't say I disagree with.

Kriegsherr
14-11-2006, 17:04
The only one that really bothers me is that stupid khorne demon prince, because you can't shoot it.

Errrhh, what?

You mean the slannesh Prince with the siren power?
Or do you mean the khorne prince with the berserk blade and feel no pain?

The first one you can't shoot most of the times (well, he has to pass a norml psi-test for that..... and he has to throw a dice to get the power in the first place, so even with 6 minor powers its not sure that he has the power ;)), the second one is near impossible to kill with normal weapons (including heavy weapons with a strength below 10)

TheWarSmith
14-11-2006, 18:30
Eldar

HQ
Avatar 155

Troops
5 Dire Avengers 60

5 Dire Avengers 60

Heavy Support
Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90

Wraithlord 90
.

Is that even legal? Don't wraithlords START at 90 points, and I believe their profile says they HAVE to take a weapon system, and they're around 30 points minimum i think.

There's also the IG army

HQ
1 Atlas recovery tank

Troops
2 sabre platforms

Heavy
3 leman russes

Zerosoul
14-11-2006, 18:42
As long as we have a company that cannot make its rules clear enough, we will have jack-offs abusing loopholes. Some people have not grown out of the whole 'play for fun' deal and only enjoy the game by watching their opponent lose by a huge amount due to massed ass cannons or obliterators in big quantities.

This is every company, though. Not just GW. No matter how clear your rules are, you're going to have jerks abusing them. Look at Warmachine.

Hokkaido23
15-11-2006, 14:03
Warmachine is for mental midgets. The 'page 5' excuse is like viagra for people who need to compensate.


What Adept said
Comp scoring and house rules further mitigate what is legal and what is illegal. I've run into some really smart and IMO necessary house rules, and I've had to abide by the opposite as well. My bolded text still stands, as long as we all have the opportunity to play by the same rules. Next time you run into the 3 wraithlord army, counter with your own.

LirEdinSun
15-11-2006, 17:52
Was under the impression that for tournies the rules where no models with more than 2 wounds (no Avatar, Farseers or Wraith lords) and no vehicles with a combined armor value of 33 (i.e. no Falcons, only Vypers and War-Walkers allowed).

Why not play a game of numbers use batteries of Vibro and D-cannons to hammer 1 Wraithlord. use a large squads of 20 guardians as cannon fodder to occupy/choke up the other 2 in CC, fleet if necessery. the WL only has 3 attacks it will take more than 6 turns for the Wraithlord to finish off the squad even is he kills with every attack.

Or how about 3 squads of 10 Fire Dragons with a Farseer with guide. thats 30 shots of str 8 AP1 and re-rolls.

if you want to go into the maths of it, thats 3+ (66% chance to hit) * 4+ (50% chance to wound) no armor save for AP1, thats equate to 33% chance, divide by three (three wounds for wraithlords) multiply by 10 (number of fire dragons per squad). that means that given the law of averages 1 squad of 10 fire dragons has a 110% chance of killing a wraithlord dead in one turn. 3 squads of fire dragons V 3 wraithlords, you could win that battle in 1 shooting phase flat. use any spare points on Guardians to act as cover and force the Wraithlord into leadership tests and coupled with the new wraithsight rules (roll a 1 and the WL cannot move or fire).

And you're complaining his army is rigged, not any more, if you get first shot you could almost win with 0 casualities in 1 turn flat.

guillimansknight
15-11-2006, 17:57
Cheap Palatine 45 Pts

5 Storm Troopers 50 Pts

5 Storm Troopers 50 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

Exorcist 135 Pts

550 Pts.

Hallo Mr Hive Tyrant. Bye bye Mr Hive Tyrant.

Any army can be beaten by another tailored army.


yes but not by a tactical army

TheWarSmith
15-11-2006, 18:31
Warmachine is for mental midgets. The 'page 5' excuse is like viagra for people who need to compensate.

You truly just proved your ignorance. Warmachine is VERY VERY VERY tactical. Anybody who isn't using carefully crafted tactics of making units work together in warmachine is going to lose BADLY to anybody who does. All the units are meant to function together.

The saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" applies GREATLY to warmachine, but not to 40k generally.

idinos
15-11-2006, 18:56
Yeah, that menoth steam-roller or the khador ambulatory abbatoir really take someone in the caliber of Guderian or Alexander the Great to play...

All games come with "abusable" lists (the worst that springs to my mind is a nomad horse-archer & medium cavalry army in WAB, they can outmaneuver and outshoot any army in the game), it is just a matter of choosing who to play. If you go to a tournament and complain about the armies, then the problem is yours, not the game's. If you go against the 9 oblit IW army in a friendly game, explain to the guy that you are not interested in that type of game, nobody put a gun to your head...

TheWarSmith
15-11-2006, 18:58
Not sure if that was sarcastic, but try playing cygnar vs. khador and the khador player will learn "hmmm, i can't hulk smash" and the cygnar player will have to bounce things around to win.

IncrediSteve
15-11-2006, 19:15
With the first wraithlordy army up there, no one [at least in the first 3 pages, sorry to skip if it has been mentioned] no one brought up wraith sight!

There are no warlocks or seers in that army! You roll three dice every turn, some of em are gonna be ones. And Each 1 you roll is essentially taking out 25% of your army for that turn.

Toast. And you can't fit enough guardians and co in there that any balanced opponent wont be able to frag effortlessly, especially when they can cut your army so badly.

CyborkKommando
15-11-2006, 19:39
Was under the impression that for tournies the rules where no models with more than 2 wounds (no Avatar, Farseers or Wraith lords) and no vehicles with a combined armor value of 33 (i.e. no Falcons, only Vypers and War-Walkers allowed).

Why not play a game of numbers use batteries of Vibro and D-cannons to hammer 1 Wraithlord. use a large squads of 20 guardians as cannon fodder to occupy/choke up the other 2 in CC, fleet if necessery. the WL only has 3 attacks it will take more than 6 turns for the Wraithlord to finish off the squad even is he kills with every attack.

Or how about 3 squads of 10 Fire Dragons with a Farseer with guide. thats 30 shots of str 8 AP1 and re-rolls.

if you want to go into the maths of it, thats 3+ (66% chance to hit) * 4+ (50% chance to wound) no armor save for AP1, thats equate to 33% chance, divide by three (three wounds for wraithlords) multiply by 10 (number of fire dragons per squad). that means that given the law of averages 1 squad of 10 fire dragons has a 110% chance of killing a wraithlord dead in one turn. 3 squads of fire dragons V 3 wraithlords, you could win that battle in 1 shooting phase flat. use any spare points on Guardians to act as cover and force the Wraithlord into leadership tests and coupled with the new wraithsight rules (roll a 1 and the WL cannot move or fire).

And you're complaining his army is rigged, not any more, if you get first shot you could almost win with 0 casualities in 1 turn flat.

10 one-third chances of dealing a wound on a 3-wound model does not equate to a 110% chance of killing it, it equates to an average of 3 and a third wounds, which means that in the average case they succeed in making the kill. Odds over 1 are meaningless and odds of exactly 1 won't exist if you have to roll dice at any point. Don't mistake an average result for a probability.

The actual probability is going to take me an hour to do by hand because I don't know any way but brute-force...

Lord Merlin
16-11-2006, 01:28
Does 6 dreadnoughts count as rigged I hope not Does A pair of librairians conunt as rgged once again I hope not

Hokkaido23
16-11-2006, 06:11
You truly just proved your ignorance.
Thanks, I can sleep now.

My reference to page 5 is meant to ridicule the players who go out of their way to make Warmachine as much of a competition as possible, and 'having fun' or 'a good game' equates to crushing your opponent as mercilessly as possible and rubbing it in their face -- "haha, play better" as it were.

Ive played Warmachine. I wasnt impressed. The models are hideous and the attitude Privateer Press presents, mocking the 'have fun' spirit of 40k, is silly. Its a wargame, and once you leave the table youre still a card-carrying member of the unwashed horde of gamer geeks.

LirEdinSun
16-11-2006, 06:54
Does 6 dreadnoughts count as rigged I hope not Does A pair of librairians conunt as rgged once again I hope not

I don't think thats a legal army, Dreadnaughts don't usually come in squads and you only have 3 slots on your force organasiation chart, Wraithlords come in squads of 1, but warwalkers come in squads of 3, so you can only field 3 wraithlords or 9 Warwalkers.

A pair of librarians isn't rigged you have 2 HQ slots, but double check to make sure they are not 'HQ 0-1', but if you make it too obvious that you trying to rig, by prepared to be peppered from all directions.

Using my maths as previously mentioned, 110% chance of killing a Wraithlord only means that you either have 1 too many in your squad, (99% chance with 9 Fire Dragons) or you have a little redundancy in the event of a below average dice throw.

The maths isnt complicated, it just too a while to figure out the formula.

Thinking now in retrospect of my last post, are fusion weapons now classed as ineffective against Avatars in the new codex? if they are, simply kill the Wraithlords, slaughter the Guardians and dance around the table for the rest of the game and win on points alone at the end.

Wraithsight is going to work against your opponant, an Avatar is not a Psyker and cannot help so you have a 50% chance that one of his Wraithlords wont be able to move/shoot for a turn.

(1/6)*3 =0.5 or 50% ---> roll of 1 on a D6 for 3 Wraithlords, there you have it, the maths isn't that difficult.

BrainFireBob
16-11-2006, 06:55
There's a Marine trait, lets you take Dreads as HS, as I recall.

ashc
16-11-2006, 08:36
There's a Marine trait, lets you take Dreads as HS, as I recall.

Heed The Wisdom of The Ancients, yeah 3 single-choice on the FO Chart dreadnoughts. 3 of them have to be venerable if you are doing that though.

Ash

Lord Merlin
16-11-2006, 11:46
Do you think you could make them All venerable If so I'V gotta get converting

ashc
16-11-2006, 13:06
Do you think you could make them All venerable If so I'V gotta get converting

Im not sure; im at uni with no dex :)

Ash

RampagingRavener
16-11-2006, 13:12
IIRC the Space Marine FAQ declared that the ones in Elites have to be Venerable, and the ones in Heavy Support can be Elite but don't have to be.

Still, I too am at Uni with no access to rule FAQ's, so I might be wrong. :p

ashc
16-11-2006, 13:23
IIRC the Space Marine FAQ declared that the ones in Elites have to be Venerable, and the ones in Heavy Support can be Elite but don't have to be.

Still, I too am at Uni with no access to rule FAQ's, so I might be wrong. :p

That sounds about right.

Ash

Kriegsherr
16-11-2006, 14:28
Does 6 dreadnoughts count as rigged I hope not Does A pair of librairians conunt as rgged once again I hope not

you mean as "legally rigged"?
6 Dreads? naaaa.... there is worse to make AC-Spam from Hell, its called land speeder.

I would altough look a little bit bored and bewildered at the same time by this kind of "spam" army.

Two libs is a different pair of shoes... as long as you don't try the cheap FoD-DS or FoD-on-Bike trick against me when I would play IG or Tau or the like, and just to be sure take two libbies, I would be okay with it. But some ofthe libby powers are quite broken (especially the FoD one).

intellectawe
16-11-2006, 15:28
I don't see any problems. What I see are armies using the FOC according to the rules.

I guess the only problem here is people actually waste their times playing games under 1500 points.

Kriegsherr
16-11-2006, 15:50
I guess the only problem here is people actually waste their times playing games under 1500 points.

Sorry dude, but playing below a certain value has nothing to do with wasting anyones time...

your statement just shows you never even tried it!

I for one have not played over 1000 points for a long time, and with 400 or 500 more than once.

I hate it when the whole table is filled with miniatures, I don't have the time painting a whole 2000 point force and I don't care about tournies. And of course, I don't have to much money and like to convert :p

Its true, below 1000 points common sense jumps in to stop the flaws of the FoC ruining the game... but:

- Spam armies are boring, no matter how you look at it. They are legal, thats true. They sometimes even are quite effective, also true. They are "themed", altough it is discutable if this is any theme derived from the background or just an "assault cannon" theme or "Monstrous Creature" Theme.
But in the end, most of the spam lists I've seen are boring. And while small points force often are made up of the standart and HQ for the most part and don't have much points left for the fun-stuff, I've seen very characterful armies, because even one of a given unit added give the army a distinct look-and-feel... add now three times this special unit, and it only looks cheap to my eyes. Its a personal opinion though, and I'm not responsible for any traces of peanuts contained within :p

Zerosoul
16-11-2006, 17:00
You truly just proved your ignorance. Warmachine is VERY VERY VERY tactical. Anybody who isn't using carefully crafted tactics of making units work together in warmachine is going to lose BADLY to anybody who does. All the units are meant to function together.

The saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" applies GREATLY to warmachine, but not to 40k generally.

My reference to Warmachine was definitely not to imply that it wasn't tactical. It appears very tactical, and were there players I could stand in my area I would love to try a game. I just think that there's a lot more of the CCG mentality in Warmachine - the building up of killer combos, etc. This isn't BAD - but it leads to the attitude I referenced in my first post. Warmachine is a lot tighter ruleset in some ways but people still are jerks and abuse it.

TheWarSmith
16-11-2006, 18:08
Well, you're right about the combos, but that makes the game both restrictive and tactical IMO, because unlike CCGs, warmachine requires careful positioning and it has a lot less luck and more counterplay.

Anyway, this isn't a conversation about warmachine, and I apologize for implying you were ignorant.

Onisuzume
16-11-2006, 19:46
I forgot if it was already mentioned or not; but are Deathwing armies also considdered to be "legally rigged" as the topic name says?
I have to agree that there are a fair number of assault cannons in there, but it's their only weapon that has more then 2 shots. And Deathwing players would still use them even if they didn't have the Rending special rule. (and one can, ofcourse, agree in friendly games that they don't have rending.)

Midknightwraith
16-11-2006, 20:15
I find this discussion both depressing and enlightening.

I find the biggest problem with so called spam lists is in smaller games. The reason; because the points are limited, and you can't have an answer for everything at the lower points levels.

A 3 WraithLord + 1 Avatar list in 750 points is wicked good, because without min/maxing or taking equally lopsided armies (4-5 dreds anyone). There is not enough in the opposing army to adequately deal with the threats. The same is true to a lesser extent with TMC lists at the same points level. In fact it is one of the reasons, IMHO, that the patrol rules were created. To keep games at the lower points levels from devolving into who's bad @$$ unit survives longest, or gets to CC first.

At 2000 pts there is no 3 WraithLord + 1 Avatar list that will do well against any legitimately balanced and competative list, because of the lack of both models and heavy weapons this will create in the list itself. In the 750 pts list you aren't sacrificing anything to get those MCs, at 1500+ you are.

Someone mentioned that setting up a tiered system of FOC slots on points level. This is not bad, but not perfect either. Most of my lists are designed with the idea that I need to balance Troops vs HQ vs other stuff. The problem with the limited FOC is that there are still choices that can dominate in a limited environment if even one gets on the table.

My suggestion for all you cheese mongers out their is that if you are at or below 1000 pts use the patrol rules. No compulsory choices, No models with more than 2 wounds, no vehicles with total armor above 32, nothing with T greater than 6. Baring that, how about no individual model that costs 10% or more of the total points limit, and no units that cost more than 25%.

If your opponent is obstinate about it, explain how that unit, because of it's better stats, will dominate the game at that low points level. Taking the fun out of it for both of you. I can honestly say I always enjoy a game that is closer, than a game that is a lopsided victory. If they still are obstinant it means 1 of 2 things, they don't have the models, or they are so desperate to win they aren't looking for a fun and challenging game, but rather to beat up on someone to make themselves feel better. 1 can be easily handled, let them proxy something, this has two benefits: one it gets the bad unit out of the small game where it has no business and it gives them a chance to try something new out, to help them make a decision on what to get next. It even has some fluff arguments for it, since awakening Avatars requires the sacrifice of an Eldar princling such a monster would not be awakened for a patrol battle (what amounts to a small skirmish). This goes likewise for the big IG tanks, and hordes of TMC. Think about it, such units are expensive in resources, and there might be something in the area that can bring it down easily. No commander in his right mind lets such a valuable asset wander around by itself without much in the way of support. Rather they send the smaller more expendable units into the area for that job.

For those in situation 2, well that really isn't the type of person you want to hang around is it? Not going to be much fun, no matter what you do, so don't waste the time. You gave it your best shot to convince them, such players usually don't find many people want to play them, well not at low points levels anyway, and when they graduate to the higher points levels they learn quickly the one trick ponies die quickly. Either way it's not your problem.

At higher point games the ability to abuse a list becomes much less of a factor, because it becomes harder and harder for a single unit to dominate the game.

BrainFireBob
16-11-2006, 20:55
Or a single lucky roll- it becomes much more a game of skill from 1500 on up.

TheWarSmith
16-11-2006, 20:59
I think this is where Warhammer fantasy is good. Instead of having one fixed force organization for all games, it has limitations depending on point values.

Low point(up to 1000 points) games can only take 1 rare(kinda like heavy support...kinda?) and no lords. They also only have to take 2 cores(troops) instead of 3 at 2000.

This promotes MUCH more balanced low point games IMO.

Eldartank
17-11-2006, 00:05
I've run 40k Tournaments locally (not Rogue Trader Tournaments, but tournaments nonetheless). One requirement I had was that your 2 compulsory Troops units HAD to be the maximum possible size. Once you had your 1 HQ and 2 max size Troops, then you added on the rest of your army. Tournaments were usually 1500 points. You also got points subtracted from your overall Tournament score if your total number of Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support outnumbered your total number of Troops & HQ. This rule cut down a lot of the abuse of rules in making armies.

There was also the sportsmanship scoring, where players scored each of thier opponents on sportsmanship, and this score was added (or subtracted) from your total tournament score. It was actually theoretically possible for a player to win every single battle and still not win first prize because of bad sportsmanship scores.
Of course, this "sportsmanship scoring" system created some problems of it's own. There was this one kid who was disliked by several others in the game store. In a couple of my tournaments, these people (some of them actually adults) would ALWAYS give this kid the worst sportsmanship score possible when they played him, NO MATTER HOW HE PLAYED OR ACTED. So finally I added a new rule that REQUIRED a player to give a reasoned, detailed explanation when he gave a bad sportsmanship score - and I would overrule that bad score if I decided there was no justification for it.
Eventually, I changed the Sportsmanship Scoring system so that your sportsmanship score had no effect on your Tournament score. There were two seperate prizes - one for best sportsman and one for tournament winner.
I later added a prize for best-looking army.

intellectawe
17-11-2006, 00:15
Sorry dude, but playing below a certain value has nothing to do with wasting anyones time...

your statement just shows you never even tried it!

I for one have not played over 1000 points for a long time, and with 400 or 500 more than once.

I hate it when the whole table is filled with miniatures, I don't have the time painting a whole 2000 point force and I don't care about tournies. And of course, I don't have to much money and like to convert :p

Its true, below 1000 points common sense jumps in to stop the flaws of the FoC ruining the game... but:

- Spam armies are boring, no matter how you look at it. They are legal, thats true. They sometimes even are quite effective, also true. They are "themed", altough it is discutable if this is any theme derived from the background or just an "assault cannon" theme or "Monstrous Creature" Theme.
But in the end, most of the spam lists I've seen are boring. And while small points force often are made up of the standart and HQ for the most part and don't have much points left for the fun-stuff, I've seen very characterful armies, because even one of a given unit added give the army a distinct look-and-feel... add now three times this special unit, and it only looks cheap to my eyes. Its a personal opinion though, and I'm not responsible for any traces of peanuts contained within :p

From my experience, 40k is not like fantasy. Fantasy you can have very balanced fights at low points, but in 40k, the lower the points, the more unbalanced the game gets.

I personally only play 1500 - 2000 point armies in 40k.

And obviously, I have player games under 1500, hence my opinion on it. 3 wraithlords were NEVER an issue with me as I tried my best to play such armies at higher points, thus, negating the power wraithlords have in a 800 point game.

UnRiggable
17-11-2006, 00:16
Or a single lucky roll- it becomes much more a game of skill from 1500 on up.

Not really, there's a lot of tactics involved in combat patrol (as long as you use the rules and don't go rigging it up). Especially when the players get radically different units, like, say you're playing Space Marines, maybe a 5-man squad of assault marines, a commander with command squad and two meltaguns, and a five man squad with CCW/BP combo (the trait) and a razorback with heavy bolters. That's fair and very tactically challenging for the player as it's not focused on anything and the loss of a unit won't cost you the game. Combat patrol just uses different types of tactics, more on a basic level, such as what to shoot, how to use leadership against the opponent. Now I wanna play a game...

intellectawe
17-11-2006, 00:22
Not really, there's a lot of tactics involved in combat patrol (as long as you use the rules and don't go rigging it up). Especially when the players get radically different units, like, say you're playing Space Marines, maybe a 5-man squad of assault marines, a commander with command squad and two meltaguns, and a five man squad with CCW/BP combo (the trait) and a razorback with heavy bolters. That's fair and very tactically challenging for the player as it's not focused on anything and the loss of a unit won't cost you the game. Combat patrol just uses different types of tactics, more on a basic level, such as what to shoot, how to use leadership against the opponent. Now I wanna play a game...

Combat patrol is ALOT different than just plopping down 500 points on both sides and playing cleanse.

Combat patrol and kill teams are fun, yes for me they are, but not a "regular" game of 40k at 500 points.

Eldartank
17-11-2006, 00:36
Another thing I want to add: I used to play Flesh Tearers (a Blood Angels variant Chapter). Once, I decided to make a 1500 point "joke" army, which I never actually intended to play. I really went to extremes in min-maxing and otherwise grossly abusing the rules to make this army. Then I showed it to a couple friends for laughs. The army was something like this:

(I should mention that this is before they revamped the rules, and you could do the one-turn Rhino-rush and assault with Blood Angels)....

HQ:
Decked-out Sanguinary High Priest, with 9-man Honour Guard (no jump packs), in a Rhino.

Decked-out Chaplain with Jump Pack, with whatever Death Company was rolled for that game (I had plenty of painted up Death Company models with jump packs)

TROOPS:
Several 5-man squads of tactical marines (at least 3 or 4, a can't exactly remember), each with Veteran Sargeants with NO wargear. The Veteran Sargeants were there so I could put them in the Death Company with a free power weapon (assuming that unit rolled to have someone join the Death Company). Under Flesh Tearer rules, the Sargeant ALWAYS had to be the first guy in a unit to go to the Death Company. And the large amount of small squads was obviously to maximize the size of the Death Company.

So this was basically my cheesed-out min-maxed army, with the rules unfairly exploited. One day, there was a tournament going on at the local store where I was at. This guy wanted to get into the tournament, but didn't have his army on him. So I let him use my Flesh Tearers, as I already had several pre-written lists (I was playing one of my other armies). He saw my min-maxed "joke" army, and insisted on playing that. And, against my better judgement, I let him. His first opponent was a young kid with a nicely balanced Imperial Guard army. The kid got the first turn, and used indirect fire to lob a shell from his Basilisk onto the Rhino containing the Sanguinary High Priest and Honour Guard. The kid scored a direct hit, then penetrated, then rolled a 6 (under ordinance rules, a roll of 6 after a penetrating hit means that all models in the target vehicle are insta-killed, with absolutely no saves of any kind allowed). I will NEVER forget the look of utter shock and despair on that guy's face when he saw what was basically a full third of his army get vaporised with a single dice roll. It was absolutely great! The Imperial Guard kid proceeded to cut down the Death Company to a more manageable size with fire from various heavy weapons. A Leman Russ took out the lead Troop Rhino, bottlenecking the others behind it. Mind you, this was only the FIRST turn. The Flesh Tearer guy was so demoralized by that trouncing that his heart just wasn't in the rest of the tournament. He got a draw on his second game, and lost the third game.

Yeah, it was my army, but I was happy to see it get so brutally trashed, as I never intended for it (that particular min-maxed "joke" list) to be played in the first place.

Skyth
17-11-2006, 01:00
One requirement I had was that your 2 compulsory Troops units HAD to be the maximum possible size.

Way to screw over Chaos and Guard

Personally, if someone brings a weak army to a tournament, I'm feel rather insulted when I have to play them.

Actually, I'd prefer to play someone bringing hard armies all the time...Better challenge. I'm still trying to figure out how to beat my friends 'nids with my Alpha Legion...

I will say the Eldar MC list doesn't scare me at all. Most of my lists would take it pretty easily.

I'd love to get the chance to play a fluffy Iron Warriors list (6-9 oblits, 4 Pie Plates). (And yes, that list DOES fit the Iron warriors Fluff...Just like a Godzilla Choir list fits the 'nid fluff).

elvinltl
17-11-2006, 01:14
Maybe for 1000 points and below, what tourney can do is forcefully impose patrol rule into the game and maybe for some extra punch and kick, allow 1 heavy support or something awesome.

Above 1000 points then players are allowed to form the convention armies.

Legally Rigged means that the army is legal and yet imbalanced, it is not oxymoron. Simply put it that way players are lawyers that exploits the written rules to bring anout unreasonable situations and turn what is morally wrong into politically right. :D

Lord Humongous
17-11-2006, 01:37
I've run 40k Tournaments locally (not Rogue Trader Tournaments, but tournaments nonetheless). One requirement I had was that your 2 compulsory Troops units HAD to be the maximum possible size. Once you had your 1 HQ and 2 max size Troops, then you added on the rest of your army.

I don't think I'd want to participate in a tournament like that. It sounds like it skews army comp hugely for certain armies, and not much for others.
Hell, it pretty much makes running any chaos "cult" list (except maybe death gaurd, with 2 units of 10 nurglings) pointless; if you can't take your troops in favored numbers, why bother?

Nkari
17-11-2006, 02:30
Dude, anything below 1500 pts is unbalanced between the armies.. thats why so very FEW tornys go below 1500.. most prefere 1750 or more.. Personally Id prefere 2000 in tornys since then you have something to counter everything.. more or less..

LirEdinSun
17-11-2006, 15:43
There is not one unbeatable army out there. I already proven mathimatically that 3 squads of 10 Fire Dragon can kill 3 dreadnaughts in one turn. turn two kill the Avatar, turn three mop up the guardians, jobs a good-un.

so we know 10 Fire Dragons will kill 1 Dreadnaught because of their Str 8 Ap1 weapons.
20 Guardians will kill 10 Fire Dragons because of the 'assualt 2' str. 4 weapons against toughness 3 (40 shots).
and finally 1 wraithlord will kill 20 guardians because str. 4 weapons won't touch toughness 8.

Neither of these squads are the best, whatever army you have there is always an army that can beat it. even rigged ones. either match his army model for model and then rely on skill, or exploit a weakness and wipe the smugness of his face, but don't get complacent, you can still be beaten.

one finally bit of philosiphy to explain this concept: paper-scissors-stone.......

play it your way and do your best, it you cannot win by skill, win on style.

OnnO
17-11-2006, 19:09
Well it has been said before and to be able to make my point I'll repeat it:
Tournaments are competition, so expect competative armies.

Now I've played in this years and last years 40K-GT Benelux and had a ball!
I lost almost evey battle (1st year I brought an overpriced marine army, 2nd a necron army without Orb or Lith) but had great games.

I'm not competative and don't feel the need for cheese, but I don't blame people for doing it, if you come to win give it your best shot!

Great thing about GT's is: the Swiss-system, after two battles the die-hards fight each other and the casual (or just plain bad) players face each other.

Ok the first round can give a random slaughter, but after that ballanced battles are more and more likely.
Hmmm.... I'm babbling now, I'll shut up :)

And I don't remember the point I wanted to make.... oh well

Midknightwraith
17-11-2006, 19:34
The problem with paper-scissors-stone, is that it applies differently in different circumstances. Additionally, every human, whether they admit it or not, is competative to some degree. And for a competative human, playing a game where you know the outcome, and you know that your strategy is going to be frustrated from the get go, is not fun. Plain and simple. Remember the most important rule, "Games are for Fun!". If the game isn't fun, noone will play. If noone plays, you and I will not play. If you enjoy the game, you should desire that it continues. It's continuing will allow you to continue to enjoy it. Simply brushing aside the problem of game balance at low point levels with the wave of a cliche solves nothing. Worse it ignores the problem, which I and others have stated repeatedly.

Realize that most beginers start at this low point level. How long are they going to continue if they get thumped repeatedly, and there is nothing they can do about it? Even GW recognizes the problem, and addresses it. The patrol rules, in fact, exist because of it.

Further, allowing it to continue postpones the tactical development of the individual using the high powered unit. He will have grown so reliant on the unit, that when it dies he has nowhere to go, and to be successful again will have to re-learn the game. Assuming he does not just quit.

40k Veterans should be encouraging the newbies to play more balanced armies, especially at the lower levels. Encouraging the use of Patrol rules now, will help them progress faster, and encourage them to continue playing. The result will be a better overall skill level, and thus the games you play will be more enjoyable. And the hobbie will flourish.

Appathy can kill just as easily as malice!

Skyth
17-11-2006, 19:45
What makes the game the least fun is listening to people whine about the army they're fighting.

Eldartank
17-11-2006, 19:54
I don't think I'd want to participate in a tournament like that. It sounds like it skews army comp hugely for certain armies, and not much for others.
Hell, it pretty much makes running any chaos "cult" list (except maybe death gaurd, with 2 units of 10 nurglings) pointless; if you can't take your troops in favored numbers, why bother?

Actually, in a Chaos "cult" army, the 'favored number' was considered 'maximum size' for the purpose of the rule requiring 2 maximum size Troops. Also, a Troop unit in a designated transport (like 10 Guardians in a Wave Serpent) was considered legal, even if the normal amount of models in a unit was larger (like the max number of Guardians normally being 20). And I didn't push the issue with Imperial Guard players, as it is generally impossible to squeeze in two full-size troop units in a 1500 point army and still have room for some of the other stuff. I tried my best to avoid screwing over players in my attempts to avoid abuse of the rules.

Eldartank
17-11-2006, 20:00
Way to screw over Chaos and Guard

Personally, if someone brings a weak army to a tournament, I'm feel rather insulted when I have to play them.

Actually, I'd prefer to play someone bringing hard armies all the time...Better challenge. I'm still trying to figure out how to beat my friends 'nids with my Alpha Legion...

I will say the Eldar MC list doesn't scare me at all. Most of my lists would take it pretty easily.

I'd love to get the chance to play a fluffy Iron Warriors list (6-9 oblits, 4 Pie Plates). (And yes, that list DOES fit the Iron warriors Fluff...Just like a Godzilla Choir list fits the 'nid fluff).

Actually, I did make exceptions for Chaos and Guard, as well as some other exceptions to avoid screwing over certain armies. Check out my reply to Lord Humongous. I never did have any trouble getting people to play in Tournaments. ;)

CherryMan
17-11-2006, 23:36
I have faced allot of "3 ordnance weapon" and "min/maxed" out csm armys. and allthou i hate to face them, it gives 10 times the plessure when pounding the living "doo-doo" out of ure oponent;).... cus u gotta admit, it cant be fun just relying on pure stats when playing a game??... and it sertanly wont be more fun loosing a game of powerplay to someone who basicly outtactics u:D...

In my thinking, i say any powerplayer can be taken down with solid tactics and a bit of luck! (ok.. if one incist in taking the lousiest army choises one can get its hands on, it will be hard XD hehe... but i still say that it is possible to overthrow the powerplayers)

Skyth
18-11-2006, 01:44
Actually, in a Chaos "cult" army, the 'favored number' was considered 'maximum size' for the purpose of the rule requiring 2 maximum size Troops. Also, a Troop unit in a designated transport (like 10 Guardians in a Wave Serpent) was considered legal, even if the normal amount of models in a unit was larger (like the max number of Guardians normally being 20). And I didn't push the issue with Imperial Guard players, as it is generally impossible to squeeze in two full-size troop units in a 1500 point army and still have room for some of the other stuff. I tried my best to avoid screwing over players in my attempts to avoid abuse of the rules.

So undivided either is forced to mechanize even if it's against type (Alpha Legion) or use huge squads (Which again, is against Alpha Legion background)?