Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

B&C Stance on non PA Allies


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
117 replies to this topic

#51
FashaTheDog

FashaTheDog

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,198 posts

As for a xenos forum, they should have one;

 

Don't get me wrong, I have never once suggested that Xeno races get their own subforum here.

You completely took that out of context and as such all humor was lost from my joke. sad.png


[url=http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=253135][color=#FFFF00]Dornian Heresy Imperial Fists[/color][/url]
[url=http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/279575-a-wip-thread-with-as-much-reason-and-logic-as-the-warp/]General Work In Progress[/url]
[img=http://fortressofunforgiven.homestead.com/ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03A_Custos_Fidei.jpg][img=http://image.bolterandchainsword.com/uploads/gallery/album_9303/gallery_29004_9303_5739.png][img=http://www.fortressoftheunforgiven.com/Img_CH00_08Awards_06_ETL_2013A.gif][img=http://www.fortressoftheunforgiven.com/Img_CH00_08Awards_03_ETL_2012A.gif][img=http://www.fortressoftheunforgiven.com/Img_CH00_08Awards_07_CoC_2013.gif][img=http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae257/Pendragi/40k%20art/gallery_52275_4552_20046.png]
 
[color=#00ffff][u]P⑨P QUIZ[/u][/color]
A bus left the Scarlet Devil Mansion; three people boarded at the start.
At Hakugyokurou, one left and half a person boarded.
At Yakumo-san's house, two people left; so how many passengers in total?
The answer is zero people because there are no buses in Gensokyo!

#52
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Don't worry, it made me lol. ;)


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#53
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,198 posts
Daemons aren't human, but they aren't xenos. The reason they have a separate forum here is because they used to be part of the Chaos Space Marine codex up until the time they were given a separate codex.

Xenos will not get forums here. Period. End of discussion on that.

As for the widening of options based on the formations, etc., the real issue is whether or not our current allies policy provides clear guidance on what can and cannot be done.

While the gist of the suggestion is to open things up, keep in mind that a possible outcome of this discussion is that things might get tightened up a bit.

So let's see some reasonable examples of what can and cannot be done with regard to army lists, then compare those possible army lists with what our policies currently do and do not allow, and then determine what is really necessary in order to meet our mission statement.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#54
Brother dean

Brother dean

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,989 posts

Most of your brothers in the specific forums will not be okay with that and dont want to have to wade through tons of unfluffy, problematic lists. 

You're painting with a very broad brush there to think you know the character of the various faction boards. I doubt you haunt them all, or I would know you better.

That argument goes both ways...  You are obviously not posting in the forum I am seeing or I would know you better too... teehee.gif

 

 

Yes, it is spam and will get one of them deleted.  However you are
creating armies that greatly resemble Frankenstein's Monster.  Most of
your brothers in the specific forums will not be okay with that and dont
want to have to wade through tons of unfluffy, problematic lists.  That
is not the kind of thing most of us go into the specific subforum
sections for.


 


 


 


You will find more persons open to your ideas in the rules and tactica forums.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more...

 

I've spent a very long time in the GK subforum.

Then you have a very light forum moderator (a good thing) and a good community (also a good thing), that does not change the black and white of the rules that were quoted to both of us...

 

 

Yet I'm getting responses like;

 

 

Quote

And yes, an Inquisitor playing with only Tau allies is playing a Tau
list and would be under the responsibility of TauOnline... (if they
still exist..)

 
Since it isnt obvious that I have officially changed my stance upon further reading of the site rules because I am a learning engine and can admit my mistakes, I declare my previous statement quoted here null and void.  It is allowed here.
 
But why would you want to discuss Tau tactics on a primarily Space Marine forum?  Granted some here play Tau also, but I would think you would get better responses from a broader audience?  Asking here will get you opinions similar to your own and will not help you grow your tactics...  Help me understand that distinction...ermm.gif

"deans somewhat less rarely updated log" (ammobunker) DA, GotC and PA follies (B&C plog)

 

4500pts of Deathwing...   Quantity is a Quality all it's own.

 

 

 (TheShadowGuard)
On wings of death they shall ride, to unleash hell and fury from above
Sons of Johnson shall roll like a tide, in memory of the father and the lord they love

 

 


#55
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

So let's see some reasonable examples of what can and cannot be done with regard to army lists

 

Brother Tyler, the lists suggested here are all reasonable.  The Quad race one was listed by The Jeske.  The Quin version is based on the existence of other Formation, which we currently know very little about.  But there will be a Space Marine one, based on Ravens/Talons.

 

Why do you think a list made of an Inquisitor, and then cherry picking from the best Formations unreasonable?  It might seem unlikely now, given there aren't many Formations.  But we can only expect the number to grow.

 

but I would think you would get better responses from a broader audience?

 

There are a lot of very good/informed players here.  I value their responses on 40k.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#56
Black Cohort

Black Cohort

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,248 posts

So let's see some reasonable examples of what can and cannot be done with regard to army lists

 

Brother Tyler, the lists suggested here are all reasonable.  The Quad race one was listed by The Jeske.  The Quin version is based on the existence of other Formation, which we currently know very little about.  But there will be a Space Marine one, based on Ravens/Talons.

 

Why do you think a list made of an Inquisitor, and then cherry picking from the best Formations unreasonable?  It might seem unlikely now, given there aren't many Formations.  But we can only expect the number to grow.

 

 

>but I would think you would get better responses from a broader audience?

 

There are a lot of very good/informed players here.  I value their responses on 40k.

 

 

I think you are confusing reasonable with possible.  From what I have seen many people on this site are more concerned about background then finding the latest ubercheese build that completely ignores everything ever written about the setting, including some of the abominations that have happened in recent years.

 

Personally I would rather lose badly than have a list that grabbed stuff from every supplement that I could possibly use to create a ridiculous list with 4 different factions for all the broken stuff they have with none of their downsides.

 

And I wouldn't be shocked if tournaments started banning stuff or imposing rules like primary detachment must be 50% or greater of your total points.


Follow the link to help make "A Better 40k"<p> http://www.bolterand...types-finished/
ETL_2014_Banner_V2_03D_Custos_Fidei.jpg

#57
Aegnor

Aegnor

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,056 posts
I'm against further loosening of standards and would personally vote for Chaos Daemons, Imperial Guard and Codex: Inquisition being thrown out.

THAT SAID - I find the hostility being shown to Gentlemanloser in this thread pretty disappointing, questioning of his motives, accusation of him being a troll. Absolutely unmerited by him asking a question in my view.
Fbm7BxJ.jpg SWyTedd.jpg

WIP - Salamanders and other randomsIt's not more guns or tactics this army needs, it's Thunder Hammers, and lots of them!

#58
KingKurama

KingKurama

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 8,632 posts
I will agree that xenos have their own sites, admech should really be only in the heresy sub forum and I personally disregard most human counterparts that's why I came here rather than dakkadakka.

6th edition is a joke currently with the idea that SM and chaos for that matter would ally themselves with xenos is a joke.

Even making a pact with chaos most chaos space marines despise the filthy xenos, the only time they ally is when it's in all necessity and even then they still kill them.

It's a joke allowing these formations as it is let alone allowing an army of all forms of races.

This is grimdark not world peace.

Prejudices xenophobia and religious fanaticism and hate are key to 30k & 40k

Edited by Jaspcat, 05 December 2013 - 05:41 AM.


#59
Hellios

Hellios

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,163 posts

I don't know... I would rather allies were not a formal part of the game (what people do for fun, and house rules and so on are fine), that being said it isn't against the fluff as such. I can think stories where  Imperial orChaos forces have allied with one of the following; Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar in reasonable ways. I'm sure they have worked with the Tau as well. I'm not up to date with the current Necron Fluff... SO I don't know if that makes sense or not.



#60
KingKurama

KingKurama

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 8,632 posts
Yes but in 99% of cases betrayal extermination or something else happens.

The whole thing is making the universe really messed.

It used to be you would collect an army for taste, now it's I'll buy 3 riptides 3 wraith knights and an inquisitor here's my army.

#61
Hellios

Hellios

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,163 posts

Yes but in 99% of cases betrayal extermination or something else happens.

The whole thing is making the universe really messed.

It used to be you would collect an army for taste, now it's I'll buy 3 riptides 3 wraith knights and an inquisitor here's my army.

 

Oh, I agree. Whether allies are fluffy or not, many of the people who choose to take them are not taking them for the fluff or theme of their armies. It is a shame that the system is so poor. Some armies don't really need allies, while some forces (such as Chaos) could really do with some.



#62
Chaplain Dosjetka

Chaplain Dosjetka

    ++ TUTATOR MONTEM ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 11,368 posts

Codex: Inquisition and Formations have really blown apart the notion of single race armies.

 

For competitive players, perhaps it has. For many of us though, things have not changed one bit and I personally hope that it'll stay that way* :)

 

*Some people may like C:I and Formations, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just one person who doesn't like those items that much and have expressed it. No bashing, criticising, etc. intended!


Edited by Battle-Brother Ludovic, 05 December 2013 - 07:40 AM.

+ Oathbreaker +

 

- Emissarius Ignis -

A Legio Invigilata project (Adeptus Titanicus)

 

"Suffer not the Heretic to live."


#63
facmanpob

facmanpob

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,476 posts

So let's see some reasonable examples of what can and cannot be done with regard to army lists, then compare those possible army lists with what our policies currently do and do not allow, and then determine what is really necessary in order to meet our mission statement.

Here's an example to try to generate a discussion.....

I want to discuss the tactics for a:

Primary Detachment from Codex: DA, and an Allied detachment from Codex: Imperial Guard.

No problems so far, according to the forum rules I can discuss them "wherever it is appropriate for that". So I could post it in the DA sub-forum if I wanted, or in the IG forum if I want to get some IG expertise.

Now let's utilise one of the new formation things that GW has released....

Primary Det: DA; Allied Det: IG; Formation: Tau Firebase Support Cadre

Now, because I have brought Xenos into the army I can discuss it in the Tactica forum only. I can put "reference threads" in the IG and DA sub-forums to try to generate traffic, but I can't specifically discuss the combined army tactics outside the Tactica area. At the moment, the Tactica area is mostly concerned with Codex:SM discussions, with the odd smattering of other B&C armies to taste. So I generally wouldn't get specialist tactics advice from DA players, for example, because most of them don't frequent the Tactica area.

My question is this: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we, as a community, be actively trying to pull people into the Tactica sub-forum or should we be encouraging wider topic discussion within the specialist sub-forums?

The answer to that question, in my mind, will determine the need or desire to alter or amend the forum rules.

smile.png

EDIT - spooling eerroooorrs!

Edited by facmanpob, 05 December 2013 - 09:27 AM.

PtR_Black_Pearl_Badge.jpgBHoA_Eternal_Banner.jpgChapter18_Guardians_of_the_Covenant.jpgETL_2013_04_Primus_Inter_Pares.jpg


#64
BrotherCaptainArkhan

BrotherCaptainArkhan

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,860 posts

I'm against further loosening of standards and would personally vote for Chaos Daemons, Imperial Guard and Codex: Inquisition being thrown out.

THAT SAID - I find the hostility being shown to Gentlemanloser in this thread pretty disappointing, questioning of his motives, accusation of him being a troll. Absolutely unmerited by him asking a question in my view.

 

I agree with the first sentiment, but I don't think my allegation was unmerited at all. I think present ting the impact of a few supplements upon a minority of the overall player population as radical and game-changing in the extreme is misleading. Don't get me wrong, I can be quite a competitive player, and am still searching for a forum to discuss certain things I can't on the B&C, but that doesn't mean I act as if the B&C has some kind of obligation to alter its mission statement purely to fit my own ends. I think questioning his motives was completely reasonable.  I'm pretty sure he isn't a troll but I do disagree heartily with his view that the B&C should alter itself so readily. Call that hostility if you will.


B0BsTLO.jpg   vV378By.jpg
 


#65
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

It's not my own ends...

 

It's to adapt to the state of the game.

 

The B&C might not want to do anything, but GW have changed the game as we know it with recent releases.

 

And I'd rather the B&C stayed relevant, rather than stagnate due to an inflexible mission statement.

 

(I own no Tau minis.  I dislike the design of them.  GW very much missed the boat with not updating the Tau range with its recent release.  How can this be in my own interest when I own *no* Xenos minis at all?)


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 05 December 2013 - 09:43 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#66
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,198 posts
The simple fact is that the B&C is not strictly a lore-based site. Competitive play is every bit as valid as lore and we have to consider the impact of the entire range of current rules in how we are structure and what we allow. That said, we still have a strong site identity and mission statement. The combination of these elements will be considered as we address the valid issues brought up by Gentlemanloser.

So there's no further need to debate anyone's motives.

Let's stick to the issue at hand so that we can come to a viable resolution.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#67
BrotherCaptainArkhan

BrotherCaptainArkhan

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,860 posts

It's not my own ends...

 

It's to adapt to the state of the game.

 

The B&C might not want to do anything, but GW have changed the game as we know it with recent releases.

 

And I'd rather the B&C stayed relevant, rather than stagnate due to an inflexible mission statement.

 

(I own no Tau minis.  I dislike the design of them.  GW very much missed the boat with not updating the Tau range with its recent release.  How can this be in my own interest when I own *no* Xenos minis at all?)

 

I wrote a long, long reply to your earlier statement about the formations lists being reasonable, and my computer ate it. Almost power fisted it into dust.

In order:

 

1. This is subjective according to individual meta; you are not likely to find multiple-formations lists outside of large points values tournaments (and there aren't a lot of those kicking around).

2. Pretty sure the B&C has changed massively in the last year. It's almost unrecognisable compared to what it was at its inception.

3. Stagnate? Really? What sign is there of the B&C stagnating? To what extent is the B&C not relevant? I see plenty of single-Codex lists being posted. Does the fact that they aren't hyper-optimised tournament-winning lists make them irrelevant? I don't think so.

Again, I think the issues of common sense and perspective need to be called into play more than they are currently.


B0BsTLO.jpg   vV378By.jpg
 


#68
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,198 posts
I realize that the two of you were posting while I made my last post, so your most recent replies are forgiven.

No more, though. Let's stick to what the game rules allow and how it might impact the site.

I'm going to temporarily close the discussion so that everyone has a chance to read the guidance and we don't continue with the distraction of he-said-she-said.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#69
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,198 posts
Okay, we've had an hour. Everyone involved should have read my previous guidance by now.

So the issue is what the game rules now allow and how to best set the B&C up to support constructive discussion of the hobby while retaining our core identity.

Also, I'm moving this to the Suggestions forum since the essence of the topic is a suggestion to reassess our allies rules.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#70
Kol Saresk

Kol Saresk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 15,011 posts
Okay, personally, I believe this should be said and done. This kind of thing is already covered and allowed within the Tactica and Army Lists Subforums. The topic is allowed there. That is BnC compliant.

Now, the issue Facmanpob brought up is exposure to the target audience, which occasionally does seem to be a problem. Sometimes a general question/topic about something(for example, a general chaos question) will be posted in the Amicus with the intent of trying to cast as wide a net as possible, and it usually isn't long before it winds up in the Chaos Ascendant where it is actually more likely to whither and die without being answered. Meanwhile, a general question about how Loyalist SM Chapters get their supplies is left alone without being moved to the Angels of Death. So exposure does seem to be an issue as sometimes a topic being where it is put to cast a net towards a specific target audience is either not allowed to be there(like a DA list with allied Tau discussing the Tau allies in the DA forum) or it isn't deemed allowed to be there.

So maybe we can do something(or allow) reference threads.

For example, going back to Facmanpob's post. If he were to post a DA list with Tau allies in the Army List/Tactica section, he might get the exposure from the DA community that he desired. So maybe it can be okay for him to just post a "Hey I want your opinions over here on this thread" thread?

Edited by Kol_Saresk, 05 December 2013 - 11:19 AM.

Nostraman_zpsf4be09e4.pnggallery_29004_9303_9178.pnggallery_29004_9303_5366.pngfriday-award.png


#71
facmanpob

facmanpob

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,476 posts
Hi Kol,

this is the sort of debate that I'd like to have, as I'd be interested in people's views about the use of the Tactica area. Do we want to keep the discussions in the Tactica area, and encourage people to congregate there more? If so, is there a good mechanic that will enable this (and the reference thread idea may be exactly that)? Or do we want to open up the individual sub-forums to wider army tactics debates?

If it is appropriate then I'm very happy to trial a Tactics post with a combined PA/Xenos army in the Tactica area, with reference threads where appropriate, to see if anyone migrates into Tactica....

Edited by facmanpob, 05 December 2013 - 11:25 AM.

PtR_Black_Pearl_Badge.jpgBHoA_Eternal_Banner.jpgChapter18_Guardians_of_the_Covenant.jpgETL_2013_04_Primus_Inter_Pares.jpg


#72
the jeske

the jeske

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 19,518 posts

My problem with this being limited to tactica is two folds . First of all it is harder for people to follow tactica , then their own army sub forum . Second that people can already ask about xeno ally or even xeno armies in their army forums . they just have to ask "have can I beat DA led by an Inq with ally X" in the faction of their choice . they will get the same anwsers and can ask the same questions as the topic progresses + they will be getting anwsers from people with insight in to  their faction .

 

GW clearly went away from mono codex armies . So should we . But that of course doesn't mean people should ask how to build a taudar army . This is and still should be a power armor [as in fluff] army , but we shouldn't limit people in asking questions. If an army can take army X as ally , people should be able to ask questions about it be it in the list or faction forums . Limiting it only to tactica seems , well too limiting .


"Felix wondered how Calgar might feel about the primach's unilateral altering of the Codex Astartes. The captain could not help but feel that, in his drive for victory and efficiency, Guilliman had been careless with the feelings of his existing sons. Increasingly, Guilliman looked to the Primaris Space Marines as his first solution. He made no attempt to hide the fact that the days of the older space marines were numbered."


#73
Kol Saresk

Kol Saresk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 15,011 posts
Hmm, maybe that's the solution. Maybe we just do this like the Call of Chaos thread and how it is the exact same topic linked through multiple subforums, or how this topic specifically can be reached through the Amicus or Suggestions subforum because it was moved from one to other and there is still the leftover thread title. We could do something like that. Pin a topic in each faction's army list subforum, for example "Chaos with xenos allies" and then make a pin for it in the Tactica subforum and the Chaos subforum(s) that redirect back to the army list topic, but can be seen in all three subforums. That way we can hit the target exposure, keep the topic where it is already allowed within BnC rules and keep from running basically two of the same topic within two different subforums. Possibility?

Nostraman_zpsf4be09e4.pnggallery_29004_9303_9178.pnggallery_29004_9303_5366.pngfriday-award.png


#74
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,198 posts
You guys haven't included the tags functionality as a supporting element. msn-wink.gif

And note that we have resources topics pinned in each of the faction-based forums, and each of these resources topics includes a category for tactics. Can these resources topics be leveraged in this effort?

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#75
AdamR

AdamR

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 509 posts

I'm playing devils advocate here, as I'm not sure its a great idea, but what about an allies sub forum?

Take allies out of the tactica section, and move it here. Maybe out of army lists too and have an allies army list child forum.

Maybe stick guard in there too.

 

This would keep the majority of the board PA focussed, but if you were intersted in allies/crazy detachment shenanigans, there is a dedicated area for it.


Flintshire Gaming Club ---------- in the area and fancy a game? FORUM