"Power Gaming" - why bother???

Ok, I'm going to have to question the the troop selction thing here. It says that troops are identical if they share the same single model upgrades. Mine don't have any. Since it doesn't specify number of models you are telling me then that for an army like mine who only has 1 troop selection I will automatically incur the duplication penalty? Or are you telling me I have to rules munch my firewarriors to have minor upgrades to satisy that rediculous requirement? This seems ironic to bring up in a thread where people are discussing power gaming and things scoring well on this list NOT being cheesy.

Btw, you just contradicted yourself in your own adding. If score are cumulative my troops selection would be worth a -6 for spending less than 20%, not -3. Make up your mind.

WOW.... Anyways. Those comp are old and outdated, and like HAS BEEN mentioned before not able to translate well to the new edition and certain armies. you compared it to your list first BTW...

And yes, if you keep everthing the same, they are the same. Upgrades are for weapons and sergeant upgrades. For the case of Tau, sergeants only...... Like it even matters

SO.. seems to have gotten a little heated there for a bit, but people have calmed down some.

I'm happy to say that the Den this wednesday wasn't as tense as I had feared it might be, I had several friendly discussions and a couple of very fun games (Yes, even Joes daemons corn-holing my Guard managed to be fairly entertaining). All in all, another good week at the Den.


I'm also glad to hear that we won't be using that checklist, though I am curious if I were to go to a tournament in another area, would something similar pop up or would sportsmanship scores be more of an objective thing based on your opponents views? I ask b/c I would like to go to a tournament or two someday (After I get the painting thing down), and would like to know what those of you who've been to them before would expect?

Thanks for the info, Robyn. Also, thank you for using the correct term, I keep using Objective when I mean SUBjective.

Veyure wrote:That comps score was from 2003. like robyn said, i posted it as an example of what USED to be way composition was looked at. the percentage of points i think is still good enough to look at though. For example Navy seals don't make up the bulk of the forces in Iraq and a couple units of regular army troops. Regular troops SHOULD be the bulk of your army. That was my main point of looking at that list.

I'm not argueing for the 40k, but on a historical point it depends on what kind of war you are fighting. In WWII, the blitzkrieg was successful because of a high concentration of tanks and fast vehicles that wouldn't be considered "troop" selections in 40k terms.

Ahhhh but, those were tank company's or armoured companies (and a troop choice if one was playing the old armoured company chapter approved, 40k wise), not support for what is considered a balanced army for a game. Besides the german army was like space marines! (the elite!) I could go on and on and on about the blitzkrieg of France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Denmark, being a huge WWII buff myself (if you, are there's a great minatures game called Flames of War that has a decent following in the city. And a great rule-set to boot!) but this isn't the place or thread. For 40k there are 6 troop slots, and the mechanics of the scenarios are mainly driven by troops.

Granted you do take troops but they are of minimum size and both times I played you, most of them spent the game hiding behind terrain. Arguments can be made for and against this and min/max or whatever. I understand why you are defensive there have definately been a lot of direct criticism for your army and style of play and none to you as a person, which I am glad. The two times we played (I even tryed to totally meta-game you the second time, but lost ) I found you very agreeable, VERY knowledgable, and a good guy. But would I want to play again, probably not if you took the list you've been using. Another list, then I'll have you a game any time. Your list, like others have mentioned is very, very frustrating, and veiwed by many as a abomination of 5th ed. rules intent, and an old codex that realy needs an update.

I don't know about others, but I am starting to think this thread may have run it's course and its intent is starting to get lost. It began as a warning to, if you bring the cheese not everyone is going to want to play you, or have fun when they don't expect it to be there. Also as a warning to the possible deterioration of the league if everyone starts to bring cheese.

I hope I got my points across without offending anyone, that is far from my intent.

Err, just to bring this one up.

"Your list, like others have mentioned is very, very frustrating, and veiwed by many as a abomination of 5th ed. rules intent, and an old codex that realy needs an update."

I must be misreading that. Are you talking about the guard needing an update? Because the guard codex is the 2nd newest in the game. o.o

Caros wrote:Err, just to bring this one up.

"Your list, like others have mentioned is very, very frustrating, and veiwed by many as a abomination of 5th ed. rules intent, and an old codex that realy needs an update."

I must be misreading that. Are you talking about the guard needing an update? Because the guard codex is the 2nd newest in the game. o.o

@Tyson

Thanks.....

Now this I cannot deny at all. Anybody who has played me can tell you I have a habit of minimalizing the participation of my firewarriors. Though for the most part I place them in a way that they can actually do something. In terms of our game however, half of my firewarriors bravely stood right in front of your space marine advance and died horribly upon contact (though by reserving them the way I did I did get a nifty shot at that landspeeder they shot down). The other two batches of firewarriors were sitting in the back corner for one simple reason. Them plus the crisis suit you placed over there made a nice juicy, defensless 3 kill point target that I hoped would pull some of your troops off from fighting farsight and give him some breathing room. Unfortunatly you did not end up taking the bait, leaving them off to the side where they couldn't participate in anything.

gluvzer wrote:

Caros wrote:Err, just to bring this one up.

"Your list, like others have mentioned is very, very frustrating, and veiwed by many as a abomination of 5th ed. rules intent, and an old codex that realy needs an update."

I must be misreading that. Are you talking about the guard needing an update? Because the guard codex is the 2nd newest in the game. o.o

@Tyson

Thanks.....

Ohhhhh! For some reason, (Probably the tank reference) I thought that it had been jim writing the blitzkrieg stuff. *Needs to read, then respond.*

ugggg, i wish this thread would die so i could stop feeling obligated to read it

You cannot escape its evil clutches.

LexMechanic wrote:ugggg, i wish this thread would die so i could stop feeling obligated to read it

Ok everyone. Take a mallet and a stake. Aim for the heart, or the beast will not truly die!

LexMechanic wrote:ugggg, i wish this thread would die so i could stop feeling obligated to read it

At 1 page per day I refuse to read it all