Powergaming/Whats Fair/What will you Play?

[Scout Sergeant Mkoll]

I really don't see the big deal about drop pods. I can't remember the last time they caused me a significant problem, and I play the same people you do Wargamer. Hell, in one game this edition my opponent gifted my First Blood by dropping in a Dread, which got glanced to death.

As Veq's said, if you set up your army well enough you can avoid anything in a drop pod becoming a major threat, and no, you don't need to sacrifice positioning to do that in a a lot of cases. Or at least, I don't seem to.

I think, to be honest, the biggest problem this edition faces isn't certain units, or even codexes, but playstyles and the fact that combat is so much more difficult to reach for a lot of armies now. Last edition the emphasis was on combat, but shooting could do quite well for itself with a sensible list. This edition I've had too many games that are over turn 2 (3 at latest) because I just don't have enough to make a difference. Admittedly, this may just be where I play, but there are some incredibly broken shooting options out there. Add that to the reduction in both cover saves and Feel No Pain, the inclusion of Overwatch and the fact that charging through cover is pretty much a no go and it's not a good forecast for lists that like choppy choppy rather than shooty shooty. I don't know how many others have found similar, but if what happens in my games is happening elsewhere I think we're going to see a lot more complaints about the firepower some units can put out.

[Arguleon-veq]

''Really, the Powergamer can be easily spotted by one simple rule; there's no background on the tabletop. Space Marines don't deploy Venerable Dreadnoughts or Sternguard Melta-squads unsupported into the middle of the enemy army. They don't deploy anyone unsupported into the middle of the enemy army! Moreover, if you're using Drop Pods you sure as hell shouldn't have anything in your army that cannot fit inside a Pod unless it can deploy under its own power... yet just about every army I see with a Pod has a Land Raider as well. Strange, seeing as Pods are pretty much exclusively used as a first wave assault vehicle, which precludes the deployment of ground vehicles...''

Thats not the case at all. With how vast the 40K universe is you will find plenty of actual existing fluff were this happens.

Landing some heavy armour out from a fortified town, advancing it towards it trying to time reaching the walls to happen as your strike cruiser in orbit unleashes a wave of drop pods to destabalise the defense from within the town to allow the armour to smash through the defenses seems pretty normal for marines.

You could label somebody as a powergamer and assume they will act and play a certain way just because their list doesnt match up with what you think should be somebody elses army fluff. When they could have loads of fun and interesting fluff for their army, a specific theme you dont know about and be a very friendly player.

[Waaaghpower]

About fluff... If you've ever played Warhammer 40k: Space Marine... they do indeed drop single five man units into enemy armies without support. Whatsoever. (In the game, like 3-4 space marines are dropped onto a massive ork horde and fight almost entirely by themselves, frequently breaking apart and going solo.)

[Paradoxrifts]

Of that list, only one unit is really useful - the Death Company. Tactical squads are a  waste of points and Dreadnoughts are pretty fragile. It's a huge point sink, and against the more typical forces you see these days it's a sink that pretty much costs  me the game before anything else takes place.

It's a real pity that Games Workshop doesn't bring in something akin to the Warmachine tier tournament system.  By taking certain thematically appropriate unit choices alongside your choice of HQ,  rewards are unlocked that include bonus abilities, unit upgrades and even additional units. It's not perfect by any means, but it functions a great deal more successfully than the halfhearted Special Character nonsense that they started to introduce with 5th edition.

[The Man They Call Jayne]

I don't mind Special characters so much, aslong as they are sensible and that they can only be unlocked by played the appropriate army. Seeing Ultramarines running with Vulkan shouldnt work at all. If you want Vulkan you should play Salamanders. Farsight changes your army composition entirely. Ahriman and Co change your troops to more expensive but fluffier options.

Some of the Special Characters just seem to be an excersize in show many rules can we fit into the fewest points.

[Aun]

Whenever it comes to who I play against, the thing that matters the most to me is how much fun I'm having, which isn't and shouldn't be correlated with how my army or my opponents army is built or even how the game is going. I've had plenty of games where I'm winning and had a terrible time, and even more where I'm losing and thoroughly enjoying myself.

There are four people at my LGS who I decline to play games against, however it has absolutely nothing to do with what they field and everything to do with their attitude in general. Playing against a poor sport whether its a sore loser or an gloating victor is the thing I hate more than any cheesy combo or beardy list.

[Wargamer]

About fluff... If you've ever played Warhammer 40k: Space Marine... they do indeed drop single five man units into enemy armies without support. Whatsoever. (In the game, like 3-4 space marines are dropped onto a massive ork horde and fight almost entirely by themselves, frequently breaking apart and going solo.)

That game runs entirely on the Rule of Cool. There is no disputing the Marines are awesome in that game, but it is debatable how "realistic" that is. For starters, the Captain makes the jump armed with nothing but a bolt pistol and a combat knife.

Marines do go into very dangerous engagements. That's part of their job. However, even then there is a difference between high risk and suicide. Imperial Armour Volume 2 had a prime example, discussing how a Space Marine force should assault a defended position. They use Devastators and/or Predator tanks to lay down long-range firepower, have the Tactical units advance alternately, supporting each other all the while, until they reach 'close range'. If present, Vindicators should be part of this advance.
The whole thing is a very methodical, but believable advance strategy, one you could see 'mortals' using. The fact that Space Marines are all but immune to small arms fire just makes it even more effective.
The only "suicide" unit are the Assault Troops, whose role in the plan is to leap ahead at a pre-designated weakspot and cause carnage amongst the enemy, drawing their attention long enough for the short ranged weapons to get close. Even then they expect high casualties from such a unit.

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

''Really, the Powergamer can be easily spotted by one simple rule; there's no background on the tabletop. Space Marines don't deploy Venerable Dreadnoughts or Sternguard Melta-squads unsupported into the middle of the enemy army. They don't deploy anyone unsupported into the middle of the enemy army! Moreover, if you're using Drop Pods you sure as hell shouldn't have anything in your army that cannot fit inside a Pod unless it can deploy under its own power... yet just about every army I see with a Pod has a Land Raider as well. Strange, seeing as Pods are pretty much exclusively used as a first wave assault vehicle, which precludes the deployment of ground vehicles...''

Thats not the case at all. With how vast the 40K universe is you will find plenty of actual existing fluff were this happens.

Then what's your fluffy justification for 10 sternguard marines to drop unsupported amongst a Tau Cadre to wipe out 2 hammerhead tanks, when their chances of survival is about 0.5%.

Whenever it comes to who I play against, the thing that matters the most to me is how much fun I'm having, which isn't and shouldn't be correlated with how my army or my opponents army is built or even how the game is going. I've had plenty of games where I'm winning and had a terrible time, and even more where I'm losing and thoroughly enjoying myself.

There are four people at my LGS who I decline to play games against, however it has absolutely nothing to do with what they field and everything to do with their attitude in general. Playing against a poor sport whether its a sore loser or an gloating victor is the thing I hate more than any cheesy combo or beardy list.

Again, this goes back to my lengthy rant a page back; attitude is generally what dictates whether rule 0 exists or not. Powergamers usually have a bad attitude, particularly when losing.

I think the whole drop-pod sidetrack is more about what's "fair" as oppose to what's powergamey. Due to their (questionable) rules, many people seem to be on either side of a fence of whether it should be kept as-is or seriously modified.

On a somewhat similar note, i believe that points limits should be brought in for specialist characters again. I cannot see Calgar being taken at 500 points with a few scouts as being a force that makes any kind of logical sense.

[Waaaghpower]

On a somewhat similar note, i believe that points limits should be brought in for specialist characters again. I cannot see Calgar being taken at 500 points with a few scouts as being a force that makes any kind of logical sense.

I totally agree. When I started the game, I had a 3rd edition Ork Codex (By mistake... I kind of bought the wrong one on Ebay. This was only a few months after the update, though, so my friends were cool with me using it until I got the new one,) and played two games with it. I lost both... But that might have been due to bad strategy.
Anyways, long story short:
That was the only Codex I've ever seen to have point limits, and they made a ton of sense. Mad Dok Grotsnik could only come in if there were like 2000+ points, Ghazkull could only come in on 2500+, and some Ork with a fancy gun and BS3 somehow only came in on 2250+. It made total sense: Yes, Ghazkull will only start knocking heads if his army would otherwise get slaughtered, but he'll also not bother fighting with nothing but forty boys behind him against an army made of matchbooks and twigs.

[The Man They Call Jayne]

Tau have those still. Farsight and Shadowsun are both 1500+

[loeldrad]

There's a lot of different ways to get enjoyment out of 40k.

So ultimately there's nothing wrong with only seeking the type of battles you'd like to partake in but there could be something wrong with how one goes about it. This is touching on a personal pet peeve of mine that falls under poor sportsmanship that I don't think gets talked about enough.

An example of this would be If a player prides them self on the painting quality of their models and terrain that they've made (a hobby driven player) and they take pics or video of battles for battle reps: then its understandable if the kind of games they seek are against other fully painted armies to help complete the look. Now when someone with an unpainted army just looking for a new opponent asks to get a game in with that type of player, It's fine for them to politely deny the match (I know I don't have a lot of time for 40k and I'd have even less if I was that hobby driven) but looking down on someone for not meeting their personal standards for the game isn't acceptable behavior and is too common of an attitude. Another example would be a lore driven player or a tournament player with the same scenario as above. This could even go down to not liking a specific match up for your army and choosing not play play against it (even though I personally disagree with this line of thinking). As long as you are courteous about it that's fine, it's your free time not mine.

I love those specific portions of the game, (hobby, lore, and tournament play). I feel like they set the game apart from "just another board game" and makes 40k stand out. But I'd rather you show me why Lore battles are awesome, or why fully painted battles with good terrain are so important, or why having a super competitive list and being challenged by your opponents list/tactics are important. Show me why you love to play the game that way rather than looking down on me for not playing that way as well and understand if I choose to enjoy the game differently. 

Crappy attitudes ruin the game for me more than any broken army composition and crappy attitudes aren't exclusive to sore losers or ungracious winners.

[Paradoxrifts]

''Really, the Powergamer can be easily spotted by one simple rule; there's no background on the tabletop. Space Marines don't deploy Venerable Dreadnoughts or Sternguard Melta-squads unsupported into the middle of the enemy army. They don't deploy anyone unsupported into the middle of the enemy army! Moreover, if you're using Drop Pods you sure as hell shouldn't have anything in your army that cannot fit inside a Pod unless it can deploy under its own power... yet just about every army I see with a Pod has a Land Raider as well. Strange, seeing as Pods are pretty much exclusively used as a first wave assault vehicle, which precludes the deployment of ground vehicles...''

Thats not the case at all. With how vast the 40K universe is you will find plenty of actual existing fluff were this happens.

Then what's your fluffy justification for 10 sternguard marines to drop unsupported amongst a Tau Cadre to wipe out 2 hammerhead tanks, when their chances of survival is about 0.5%.

My apothecary has a better chance to recover precious geneseed from my fallen if I strategically remove your ability to turn them into clam chowder at the start of the engagement.

What?