Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Ok people, what is wrong with this list posted by BW??
GW Online : Warhammer 40,000 : Space Marines : Getting Started with Black Templars
so then, did you spot what is wrong with the list, hmm, its posted by GW, but how can the Emperors Tomboy be the main HQ, I thought he could not?
Im pretty sure that a black templar army must take a emperors champ and its a hq choice so i guees all you need is him.
(><)This is Bunny. Copy Bunny and this message into your signature to help him on his way to world Domination!
But the thing is I was under the impression the Emperors Tomboy cannot be the Armies HQ, at least thats how I remember it and thats how lots of people remember it.
The Emperor's champion doesn't actually take up an HQ slot, so can never fill your mandatory HQ choice on the force org chart. So the army is indeed "wonky".
Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.Originally Posted by amishcellphone
Yeah its wonky, while the Emp's Champ is in the HQ section of the army list and IS mandatory, he doesnt actually take any part of the FOC so you HAVE to take the Champ and either a MoS or the Marshall.
Sometimes I wonder about these GW employees.....:rolleyes:
"I am the architect of fate!"
As this is not the only case of 'misnterpriting the rules' in GW own publications ,by its own staff.In the biulding where the rules are 'developed'.
It sort of substansiates my theory that GW do not take thier own 'rules 'seriously as some gamers.
40k is just a fun game to use GW 28mm sci-fi minatures and models in.
You throw some dice ,move some models ,you may or may not have painted,and most importantly have fun.
40k is not ballanced for competative play.The rules are hardly written for clarity,and the only definate result of a game is you played and hopfully enjoyed playing the game.
Honestly some gamers take the game far too seriuosly.
Ok so some spend alot of time and money on GW hobby.But GW is not under any obligation to provide anything other than inspiring 'fluff' and nice looking minatures.
'Marketing' I think they call it.
Player: "I so can use this Forge world Baneblade in my tournie list, after all its not meant to be competitively balanced, only fun"
GW judge: "Look for the 20th time no you cant now don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"
Rules are rules, yeah you can have fun but not at the expense of the rules, GW are just crap at writing lists and pretty inconsistent at writing rules, I don't think I have ever seen a good GW sample list (player featured ones yeah, but GW no).
'GW are under no obligation to provide balanced competitive games' HUH right thats a new way of looking at a company who sell games where the sole purpose is to beat the opponent in a WAR (you know wars are ever so slightly competitive) and they are selling a product, the product happens to be a game, think about it if you bought say Monopoly and took it home and found it totally unplayable because the rules were nonsensical, what would you do? yeah exactly you would get your money back and GW games are no different.
I have to say that the bit about 40K not being balanced for competitive play, (as if GW have somehow planned it that way), is probably the daftest theory I have heard on this forum, are you actually saying they planned to make a game with 2 sides that are competing against each other to win, so unbalanced as to make the game uncompetitive why? they would be committing commercial suicide INTENTIONALLY, incompetence is one thing stupidity in business is quite another.
How in gods name could anyone enjoy a game if its unbalanced to the point of being uncompetitive and why would anyone sell such a game, I can just picture it:
"well that game was crap, it was so unbalanced and the rules are so unclear that I simply cannot resist spending lots more money on it, just so I can play more crap games and stay confused. :rolleyes:
Last edited by Rikimaru; February 7th, 2007 at 01:48.
Its not the first time nor will it be the last.Yeah its wonky, while the Emp's Champ is in the HQ section of the army list and IS mandatory, he doesnt actually take any part of the FOC so you HAVE to take the Champ and either a MoS or the Marshall.
Sometimes I wonder about these GW employees.....
I remember an old dark angels army list, it might even have been one of those 'here's a sample army list' things, on the main site listing things such as deathwing terminators and characters without buying the mandatory stubborn upgrade.
And during the medusa campain, there was a 2000 point Vostroyan army list in which an officer had TWO heavy weapon teams in his own personal squad.
There are many other examples, although these are the only two that come to mind at the moment.
So all in all, unless you are playing at a serious event (such as a tourney), then I would simply go with what you want. So long as everyone agrees.
Its all about fun anyway.
"Pickles, the drummer, doodily doo. (Ding-dong, doodily, doodily, doo.)"
Also, you should google "garfield minus garfield". Awesome.
Yes perhaps my earlier post was not worded that well.
GWs main focus is not 'clearly defined rules that are suitable for ballanced competative play.'
This is why they refer to thier games as Hobbygames NOT wargames.
It IS all about the models/minatures.
Providing inspiring and detailed background,and astheticaly high quality models ,minatures.
And the rules for the game are seen as an 'added extra','the icing on the cake ',as Mr Jervis Johnson put it in a recent interview.
So after the development of the background,and the asthetic of the models/minatures,they have look at the rules and try some fixes that seem to work during thier 'limited' playtests.
To playtest all possible configurations of 'allowable armies,' then thousands of games would have to be played,just to play each possible configuration once.
So it is obvious that the dev teams play some games with the army selections they think are 'ballanced armies'.
And as some gamers are more competative or more influenced buy the background of the armies than the dev teams.
We have the 'power-gamer,fluff-gamer divide.'
So as long as gamers of 'similar mind- set ' play each other ,fun games result.
Its just when the players of opposite ends of the 'gamer mind set' play against each other unballanced games result.
In 'wargames suitable for ballanced competative play,' the rules set and the army composition lists ARE the main focus.(To the point where many games are not tied to and specific range of models or minatures).
So ANY list is as tactically viable as any other selected from the composition lists.
No 'rock ,paper scissors' of 'fluffy/ power-gamer' type match ups.
They have things like measuring conventions,(where do you measure from and to, when firing.)The PV are based purely on the units abilities in comparison to other units.And the composition list stops 'too many overpowering units' being included in any army.
Plus many have 'for ballanced competative games we suggest the following conventions are used...'
So 40k is designed mainly for 'fun' .Anyone who thinks 40k is 'well balanced' has not realy compared it to anything else.