the jeske Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 No one has ever said anything except cool not to offend anyone , but that may be because PB suck. and D are full of fleet+ rending goodness :P also the bases rulings are different for each tournament I saw . you are able to drop multiple MCs in one turn you will be at its mercy unless you can win HtH vs them. ok lets say you only play with heralds , dps etc that move 12" a turn . they do that . you shot [thats if your not playing a skimer list] . next turn before they move half their army comes in and can only assault [aka do nothing] so he moves his DP/heralds /GD closer . you board the transports [or fly away if your eldar /tau or have a very mobile lists] and move away . on his turn again units drop [the first way is now totaly out of range of anything] and do nothing he moves closer etc etc . But yeah anyone who plays a gunline lists [the non minimax one] should fear them like living hell, because normal sm gunline lists will truelly have few problems with taking them down with tons of rending and lascanons they pack . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskie Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 No one has ever said anything except cool not to offend anyone , but that may be because PB suck. and D are full of fleet+ rending goodness :P also the bases rulings are different for each tournament I saw . Plaguebearers do not suck. In 2nd Edition I proved mathematically they were better than genestealers. Since then the rulewriters have been less kind. But even in Codex 3.5 when Deamonettes and Bloodletters were fighting over the crown of best deamon infantry my plaguebearers still killed a lot. 7 plaguebearers have 21 attacks on the charge or had... When they had Aura of Flies or whatever they were really annoying to fight against, I guess that would be Codex 3, this was before "rending" had been invented. Supposedly overuse of assault cannons and other "rending" stuff has lead to that being neutered in fifth addition so before you write off the Talleyman of Nurgle, who have the coolest fluff by far, you might want to wait until the demon codex is actually out and fifth edition is in your grubby hands too. Nurgle psychics used to be good too, in 2nd Edition 40K or 4th Edition fantasy and units of deamons used to get one level of power per four models... So once again I would say you have extremely limited experience using deamons. I highly doubt you used them in RT times or 2nd Edition or even 3rd Edition. Clearly you don't have any allegiance and change to whatever gets the most abuseable rules at a give time. And as for tournaments. If someone tried to say my painstakingly painted army of all GW miniatures couldn't be used at a tournament once I showed up I'd raise bloody hell. And like I said in over 15 years of playing GW games not once has anyone said anything about my bases. This includes official GW grand tournaments where you get the t-shirt and got to quiz the game designer. So until Jervis Johnson picks up my models and says "No sir, I don't like it, take your toy soldiers and go home" and probably even after my deamons will stay on square bases so I have the option to use them in WFB and 40K. The last time someone from UK GW HQ/Studio picked up one of my models there comment and I quote was "Insane!". This was the model, an OOP rhino. So as I said earlier, I call bull$hit. Point me to anything published officially by GW that says you can't have square bases in 40K armies. My Nurglings are on square bases too, my beasts of Nurgle, my demon prince, my GUO... If you stick with a company's game for 15 years and spend a pile of money on their models they aren't going to forbid you from using them in their stores or tournaments. All those models came with square bases back in the day and I'm not ripping them off for some annoymous guy on the internet. Again I've talked to studio staff, they've seen my army, they may not love it, because it is old and I don't follow their fluff, but they certainly didn't forbid me from using it. Further proof of the idiocracy of this. I bought/traded for an old planquin of Nurgle then when rumors of codex 3.5 came out I schemed up a Lord riding it, I busted my ass painting that model, and you know what it is on a square base. GW not only didn't have a problem with this, I finished tied for third in presentation and that model was featured on their website, by Dirty Steve. So yah I call bull$hit. I've spent months painting one model and GW is not going to complain that it is old and the base is old, especially after I flew to play in their tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob the lurker Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 The rulings in teh BBB are "it must come on the size of base it comes with, or bigger" I've never seen anything about squard bases not being allowed, ever, as practically they make no difference. The 25mm square bases are also bigger than the 25mm round bases...well, in area. Awesome looking army, just ignore Jeske on this one! On topic - I will almost certinaly be getting one, dual WHFB and W40k - need a new army for 40k after pure (no daemon except DP) chaos IW and being able to use it in WHFB would be excellent. Probably khornate just because I love the new bloodletters -back to having proper weapons, swords ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 ref am not saying that the list or models is illegal or something , only that I have many things happen on tournaments , people geting kicked because they dreads or bikes didnt have bases [while back in the days of 2ed they were not bases for dreads] . I only said the people on most tournaments tend to overlook the hmm ... how call them... "less optimal options" and get really/judge rule intensive when it comes to models/options they see as powerful [aka those that can make them lose . i mean 17/0 is always better then 13/7 ]. I dont were the BL best in 2ed easiest to summon or maybe my memory plays tricks on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dammeron Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Considering that I've come up with my own means of creating any form of daemon your twisted little heart desires (a system that, despite GW's constant bleating about "page space" happily takes up about the same amount as that they've wasted on the truly horrendous -not in a good way- generic Greater and Lesser daemons), no, I will not be using this new "Daemon Codex," as it is entirely unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.