View Full Version : GW making it to easy to make broken armies?
foostoofoo
09-14-2009, 01:57 PM
Right guys, something Ive noticed in recent codexes. GW seem to be making more and more broken rules/units in the recent codexes. When the new marines came out th/ss termis were running around at the same cost as regular termis and laughing in their faces becuase they have 3+ invuns. Then the guard, capable of making an army that could wipe out entire marine armies in 3 turns, the amount of AP 2 and 3 blasts available is just ridiculous. The most recent, the Space Wolves, this new psychic ability which if placed well can destroy a third of an opponents army, its rules are stupid like place a straight line 24" long from the rune priest to anywhere on the board, any model under that line must take an initiative test and if failed you must remove the model, it doesnt appear to count as instant death either, so you can say bye to your carnifexes.
Okay by now I know a lot of you guys will say, but these armies can be beaten, you just have to play well and know what your doing etc..
Which is fair enough, these armies can be beaten, but in my opinion these new broken units and rules are now starting to turn even your most basic game, into a really competitive and unfun to play against armies, because they are now so easy to make. (I mean against someone you dont know, usually between friends you structure your games to be fun)
What do you guys think?
Culven
09-14-2009, 02:09 PM
I think that Gav's post helps to explain this. It would seem that GW is interested in rules that allow the casual player to have a fun game experience and they expect the player to impose their own restrictions to avoid fielding a broken army since doing so is a WAAC approach to the game that they don't share.
TSINI
09-14-2009, 03:23 PM
I think Culven has pretty much hit the nail on the head
GW may be making things more rediculous and extreme. but Tournement play has never been and never will be on their agenda. Its just not what they're about.
making armies that will smash your opponent into the ground is not playing in the spirit of the game. in fact its quite a pathetic attitude to have in a wargame.
What makes people play this way? Prizes. Non-GW tournements give out prizes, really nice ones, to the winner. which make people go crazy for the "Instant win stuff"
I have noticed that GW run tournements (or competitions as they're normally called) don't give out prizes to the winner, normally to the best army, or best sportsmanship. This is because the "winner" in their eyes isn't the person who won the most games, its the person who had the most fun. :D
so comparing the way people use the rules to win, to how GW intended them to be used, is null and void by the simple fact that they didnt design it to be played competitively.
Chumbalaya
09-14-2009, 03:44 PM
This is because the "winner" in their eyes isn't the person who won the most games, its the person who had the most fun.
How do they determine who had the most fun? I have the most when when I play a good game against a challenging opponent with a strong army. Or am I doing it wrong because that's not what you think is best? This whole tourney gamer = puppy drowning rapist idiocy is, well, idiotic. People play for different reasons and have fun all the same, who are you to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't tell me it's GW's game, because it isn't. Once you play it, it becomes your game and my game and we enjoy it how we like.
To the OP, I don't see anything broken about a single psychic power (hello Runes of Warding, or mech, or high I, or not being an idiot and group hugging your Carnifexes) or making a crap unit viable (who ever used Storm Shields before? Nobody) or giving a tank army some actual tanks (if Guard are tabling you by turn 3, stop playing foot gunlines).
I'm liking these new Codices a lot. 5th edition is hitting its stride and armies are getting released that work really well within the system. We've come from "herp a derp gunline" vs "durr, 1st turn charge lolz" 4th edition to a game focused on mobility and objectives and I am liking the latter a lot more. Start playing 5th edition with 5th edition armies and you'll see the difference.
crazyredpraetorian
09-14-2009, 03:58 PM
How do they determine who had the most fun? I have the most when when I play a good game against a challenging opponent with a strong army. Or am I doing it wrong because that's not what you think is best? This whole tourney gamer = puppy drowning rapist idiocy is, well, idiotic. People play for different reasons and have fun all the same, who are you to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't tell me it's GW's game, because it isn't. Once you play it, it becomes your game and my game and we enjoy it how we like.
To the OP, I don't see anything broken about a single psychic power (hello Runes of Warding, or mech, or high I, or not being an idiot and group hugging your Carnifexes) or making a crap unit viable (who ever used Storm Shields before? Nobody) or giving a tank army some actual tanks (if Guard are tabling you by turn 3, stop playing foot gunlines).
I'm liking these new Codices a lot. 5th edition is hitting its stride and armies are getting released that work really well within the system. We've come from "herp a derp gunline" vs "durr, 1st turn charge lolz" 4th edition to a game focused on mobility and objectives and I am liking the latter a lot more. Start playing 5th edition with 5th edition armies and you'll see the difference.
I agree 100%.
Dingareth
09-14-2009, 04:10 PM
How do they determine who had the most fun? I have the most when when I play a good game against a challenging opponent with a strong army. Or am I doing it wrong because that's not what you think is best? This whole tourney gamer = puppy drowning rapist idiocy is, well, idiotic. People play for different reasons and have fun all the same, who are you to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't tell me it's GW's game, because it isn't. Once you play it, it becomes your game and my game and we enjoy it how we like.
To the OP, I don't see anything broken about a single psychic power (hello Runes of Warding, or mech, or high I, or not being an idiot and group hugging your Carnifexes) or making a crap unit viable (who ever used Storm Shields before? Nobody) or giving a tank army some actual tanks (if Guard are tabling you by turn 3, stop playing foot gunlines).
I'm liking these new Codices a lot. 5th edition is hitting its stride and armies are getting released that work really well within the system. We've come from "herp a derp gunline" vs "durr, 1st turn charge lolz" 4th edition to a game focused on mobility and objectives and I am liking the latter a lot more. Start playing 5th edition with 5th edition armies and you'll see the difference.
Wow, I wish I could add anything here, but this is the best written explanation of how I feel about the last few codices I've ever read!
TSINI
09-14-2009, 04:20 PM
How do they determine who had the most fun? I have the most when when I play a good game against a challenging opponent with a strong army. Or am I doing it wrong because that's not what you think is best? This whole tourney gamer = puppy drowning rapist idiocy is, well, idiotic. People play for different reasons and have fun all the same, who are you to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't tell me it's GW's game, because it isn't. Once you play it, it becomes your game and my game and we enjoy it how we like.
To the OP, I don't see anything broken about a single psychic power (hello Runes of Warding, or mech, or high I, or not being an idiot and group hugging your Carnifexes) or making a crap unit viable (who ever used Storm Shields before? Nobody) or giving a tank army some actual tanks (if Guard are tabling you by turn 3, stop playing foot gunlines).
I'm liking these new Codices a lot. 5th edition is hitting its stride and armies are getting released that work really well within the system. We've come from "herp a derp gunline" vs "durr, 1st turn charge lolz" 4th edition to a game focused on mobility and objectives and I am liking the latter a lot more. Start playing 5th edition with 5th edition armies and you'll see the difference.
i'm not bashing people who enjoy tournements, i'm saying GW don't cater for tournements because thats not how they see the game. and these posts that are cropping up all over BOLS lounge are of people complaining that GW aren't putting in the effort to make a fully perfect rules system. I personally don't see why they should, they don't cater for tourneys so it's not their mandate to create a tourney perfect rules system.
EmperorEternalXIX
09-14-2009, 04:49 PM
Chumbalaya hit the nail on the head.
The only concern GW should have when making these armies, is whether or not they "feel" like their fluff. The newer ones (Orks, IG, the Wolves) all achieve this.
That being said, I think the problem is a growing pain. I too like the way 5th edition has armies winning because they are...you know...doing what they are supposed to. In 4th it was all meta game...the entire game was full of units that might as well not have had different stats at all. Assault units had one trick, MCs had one trick, vehicles had one trick, and it was very X/Y/Z.
If every book in the game has a power level comparable to guard or wolves, after we get more new-age dexes, then the game won't be very broken anymore, will it?
Culven
09-14-2009, 05:54 PM
In defense of those of us complaining about GW not producing tournament-level rules, I would like to say:
It isn't that GW doesn't want to encourage highly-competative play that bothers me, it is their claim that a solid ruleset will do so to the detriment of casual gaming that annoys me. They make it seem as though the casual players will not be able to use the rules for fun games if the rules are too well or clearly written. I have no idea what led to this "logic", but I just don't understand it. It just seems like GW is using casual players as a scapegoat for their lack-lustre rules writing and editing. In my opinion, there is apsolutely nothing that would prevent a group of casual gamers from taking a solid ruleset and modifying it to their purpose. GW could contine to support the casual gamers with campaign and alternate game/mission rules. Solid and balanced rules would also allow the competative players to have more enjoyable games by eliminating the arguements that spawn within the chasms of the current rules. Who knows, in time, the lower stess levels may even make tournaments fun as they will become a test of generalship instead of "who's the better rules lawyer?".
MajorSoB
09-14-2009, 07:28 PM
Personally I hate the way the new codexes are trending. Instead of being somewhat balanced each of the newer codex seems to have some ridiculously OTT units and powers that are almost too good to ignore in an army build. I think its a cop out on GW to state that the reason for this is to promote casual play. Bullcrap! I think the real reason is that GW currently lacks the talent and playtesting to come out with fair and balanced codexes. It is much easier to throw together a pile of rules and publish them rather than properly play test them and analyze the impact that they will have on the overall game. Sure broken OTT rules sell new product ( Why would you not want to buy and play Space Wolves if they are all that good? ) but at what cost? Tournaments can be fun when you face a wide variety of armies that are on par with yours, and you let strategy and the dice gods decide the outcome. No one, except the consummate power gamer, wants to play the "I win cause my army is better than yours" list. That being said I am unsure just how bad this power truly is. I heard alot of whining about Lash when CSM came out, and while its good, it can be nullify by psychic hood and the fruity Eldar wargear that makes you roll three dice. Let's all wait and see if GW made the new Wolves codex as crazy broken as anticipated.
Chumbalaya
09-14-2009, 08:29 PM
In defense of those of us complaining about GW not producing tournament-level rules, I would like to say:
It isn't that GW doesn't want to encourage highly-competative play that bothers me, it is their claim that a solid ruleset will do so to the detriment of casual gaming that annoys me. They make it seem as though the casual players will not be able to use the rules for fun games if the rules are too well or clearly written. I have no idea what led to this "logic", but I just don't understand it. It just seems like GW is using casual players as a scapegoat for their lack-lustre rules writing and editing. In my opinion, there is apsolutely nothing that would prevent a group of casual gamers from taking a solid ruleset and modifying it to their purpose. GW could contine to support the casual gamers with campaign and alternate game/mission rules. Solid and balanced rules would also allow the competative players to have more enjoyable games by eliminating the arguements that spawn within the chasms of the current rules. Who knows, in time, the lower stess levels may even make tournaments fun as they will become a test of generalship instead of "who's the better rules lawyer?".
Agreed, nobody loses out from a tighter ruleset.
Personally I hate the way the new codexes are trending. Instead of being somewhat balanced each of the newer codex seems to have some ridiculously OTT units and powers that are almost too good to ignore in an army build. I think its a cop out on GW to state that the reason for this is to promote casual play. Bullcrap! I think the real reason is that GW currently lacks the talent and playtesting to come out with fair and balanced codexes. It is much easier to throw together a pile of rules and publish them rather than properly play test them and analyze the impact that they will have on the overall game. Sure broken OTT rules sell new product ( Why would you not want to buy and play Space Wolves if they are all that good? ) but at what cost? Tournaments can be fun when you face a wide variety of armies that are on par with yours, and you let strategy and the dice gods decide the outcome. No one, except the consummate power gamer, wants to play the "I win cause my army is better than yours" list. That being said I am unsure just how bad this power truly is. I heard alot of whining about Lash when CSM came out, and while its good, it can be nullify by psychic hood and the fruity Eldar wargear that makes you roll three dice. Let's all wait and see if GW made the new Wolves codex as crazy broken as anticipated.
Easy there Chicken Little, I'd actually read the book before calling it broken. We got the same crap when Marines came out, Orks, Chaos, Eldar, IG and now Wolves. Nothing has broken the game yet, and Wolves definitely won't.
DarkLink
09-14-2009, 10:22 PM
I agree with Chumbalaya. Tighter rules would be nice, but I'd rather have a new codex than a new, tighter core rulebook (I'm a pure Grey Knight player).
GW has stepped up their game with the recent codecies, and all the new ones have lots of good options (yes, even you chaos players), and most have great, fluffy units (ok, now I suppose you chaos guys can complain). I'm impressed that they've done such a good job generally with having powerful yet still fairly well balanced codecies. They just need to go full cycle and get all the codecies updated.
EmperorEternalXIX
09-15-2009, 02:12 AM
I agree with DarkLink. The game will be fine once we are all on the same page. And not for nothing but they seem to have been pumping out the codex releases with pretty decent speed the past year or so (speaking as someone who knows the intricacies and difficulties associated with publishing, anyway).
I don't know what all this talk of "more solid rulesets" and "chasms between rules" is. I almost never have had a confusing moment in 5th ed's rules, and neither has most of my game group (outside of the Valkyrie...which is obviously a fault of the valkyrie, not the ruleset). I am completely serious about this -- I've had pretty much zero instances when a glance at the rulebook couldn't solve our confusion about any given thing.
The only thing was the other day, I fought a squadron of two Sentinels in CC, and destroyed one and immobilized the other, and it all happened at the same initiative step, so we couldn't figure out if the latter walker would be destroyed per squadron rules or not (since at the time it occurred, it was still a squadron).
Other than that, I can't think of a single thing that wasn't made pretty much 80-09% clear by just reading the rules carefully.
As for tournaments and hardcore players needing some kind of satisfaction...to be honest I don't get it. I know it is kind of rough to have GW's public line be about keeping the casual gamer interested...but part of the reason Warhammer is so successful is because it does just that. I very much fail to see the way the rules are written that is so prohibitive to tournament play. I also fail to see the validity of complaining that the ruleset does not encourage competitive play, when tournaments have rules for scoring based on paintjobs and sportsmanship. If you want the game's rules to be truly competitive than it should be purely about the win and loss, and the only fifth ed rule that makes that iffy is that whole "way too easy to contest an objective with a fast model" thing (I just drew a game because an army who I merc'ed drove a chimera into a wall and the tip of its hatch was within 2.98" of the objective I was holding...stupid).
It is perfectly simple enough to play competitively, and there's no reason the 5th ed rulebook is to blame if you can't, since basically the "permissive ruleset" route renders these complaints moot.
It sounds to me when people tout this line, what they really want is a ruleset that encourages elitism, not competition.
Aldramelech
09-15-2009, 10:25 AM
How do they determine who had the most fun? I have the most when when I play a good game against a challenging opponent with a strong army. Or am I doing it wrong because that's not what you think is best? This whole tourney gamer = puppy drowning rapist idiocy is, well, idiotic. People play for different reasons and have fun all the same, who are you to say who is right and who is wrong? Don't tell me it's GW's game, because it isn't. Once you play it, it becomes your game and my game and we enjoy it how we like.
To the OP, I don't see anything broken about a single psychic power (hello Runes of Warding, or mech, or high I, or not being an idiot and group hugging your Carnifexes) or making a crap unit viable (who ever used Storm Shields before? Nobody) or giving a tank army some actual tanks (if Guard are tabling you by turn 3, stop playing foot gunlines).
I'm liking these new Codices a lot. 5th edition is hitting its stride and armies are getting released that work really well within the system. We've come from "herp a derp gunline" vs "durr, 1st turn charge lolz" 4th edition to a game focused on mobility and objectives and I am liking the latter a lot more. Start playing 5th edition with 5th edition armies and you'll see the difference.
Right now Im having 67% more fun then you :p lol
Aegis
09-15-2009, 11:28 AM
One thing that crossed my mind in regards to the complaints/concerns about unbalanced rules and units, is that maybe they seem unbalanced because they are the first in the line codexes built around a new rule set. As has been agreed on, 5th ed. is a very different beast that the previous editions (again, Chumbalaya illustrated this very well), and the armies are slowly being brought in line with that edition.
I have to wonder, as more codexes are printed for 5th ed. will we start seeing a greater degree of game balance? Are this, as was posted earlier, OTT units just a complex game of rock/papers/scissors? Meaning, will each one have a counter in another list.
Right now, sure, there are some units that do seem to have too much power, but perhaps GW has more foresight than they are letting on... Or, perhaps I am just being hopeful...
Rapture
09-15-2009, 11:41 AM
I feel like some things are too powerful to ignore. These no-brainers like the rune priest, with his line of death, or the master of the fleet, that can cause infinite amounts of frustration, or lash wielders, that get to move my troops, just seem kind of unnecessary to me. Which is fine, because I don't have to play against people who use them.
Culven
09-15-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't know what all this talk of "more solid rulesets" and "chasms between rules" is. I almost never have had a confusing moment in 5th ed's rules, and neither has most of my game group (outside of the Valkyrie...which is obviously a fault of the valkyrie, not the ruleset). I am completely serious about this -- I've had pretty much zero instances when a glance at the rulebook couldn't solve our confusion about any given thing.
I think that the rulebook does well enough with implying intent in several areas, and most players just run with what they infer. It is only when carefully reading the rules that the voids and discrepancies become obvious (remember my arguements on why Shrike can't allow a unit to Infiltrate?). Intent is fine for casual play,and, to an extent, for competative play. However, there is always the chance that someone will face a hardcore RaW players, and intent will mean nothing. Only the intervention of a judge or conceeding the game will end the RaW player's argument. This is why I think that a better written set of rules would be beneficial. Then everyone can just play the game without anyone trying to bend the rules in their favour and everyone else worrying about having to deal with TFG.
I have to wonder, as more codexes are printed for 5th ed. will we start seeing a greater degree of game balance? Are this, as was posted earlier, OTT units just a complex game of rock/papers/scissors? Meaning, will each one have a counter in another list.
I certainly hope not. I would hate to see what happens if this were to come to pass. Any X point unit should have a chance against another X point unit. If there were rock/paper/scissors units, then an X point rock unit would smash the X point scissors units and be smashed by the X point paper units. This isn't balance, and I would like to think that GW isn't foolish enough to actually make such units.
However, I think that it is posible that the fifth edition X point unit is designed to be more powerful than the third and fourth edition X point units. At this point, when those units are facing each other, the fifth units may be OTT, but once everyone is using fifth edition codecies, then everything may very well become balanced again.
EmperorEternalXIX
09-15-2009, 03:02 PM
Part of the reason the Shrike thing is such an issue is because it doesn't say one way or the other at a glance. There is only a sliver more evidence against it then for it, that makes it so.
By the same stupid technicality, the second player in a spearhead deployment can read the rules
I don't consider any of this a hindrance to tournaments at all. Why? Because every tournament has to have at least one judge or organizer, and in this hazy areas, it should simply be their discretion. I've never run a tournament but I can't imagine someone doing so and being so foolish as to not include some kind of FAQ with their entry forms (which again, would need to cover basically the Shrike thing, the Valkyrie wings/tail thing, and the deployment thing I just mentioned...I think having only three things that need such a ruling in the midst of such a deep game is pretty good).
Also, as I pointed out before, if one is concerned purely with rules being too solid to bend (which can never happen, in anything in life, and I suggest you remove the idea from your mindset if you think it is possible to make an unbendable ruleset for anything), then the tournament scene can't be bogged down by things like painting and sportsmanship, either.
As a person who was new to 40k some time ago, I remember seeing the tournament setup at my first tournament and being completely confused. To me, a tournament is a bracket of elimination matches, with one person having risen to the challenge and bested several opponents in a row. When I arrived to find this chintzy little passive-aggressive "We play then score each other in secret and see who gets the most points" thing, I was really taken aback. It's not really a tournament at all. It's a vote.
Purely competitive 40k would be a nightmare of *******s, alpha nerds, and the utmost sociopathic power gamers. I would have zero interest playing those people. Especially since, to me, playing three games and getting a score isn't really a tournament anyway.
Firaya
09-15-2009, 06:09 PM
...Bullcrap! I think the real reason is that GW currently lacks the talent and playtesting to come out with fair and balanced codexes..
Here's a thought. Notice how many people have this same view of GW? I think GW has pretty much given up on balance, since there is always somebody out there who is never satisfied with GW's "balance". Realizing that it's a pointless war, why not let the experts out there, the players who can give reams and reams of pages on how to balance things, do it themselves? They've claimed for years on being able to do this, so well, why not let them have the power?
Casual gamers are never worried about facing OTT armies, and competitive players often have their own OTT units in their army to challenge other OTT armies. Worse comes to worst, players can always agree not to play each other right?
Servant
09-15-2009, 07:10 PM
Why would they ever trumpet something like a new army as "balanced" and "middle of the road"? Of course they're gonna tout all the new and powerful sh** that this new codex brings. Every new codex should theoretically up the power level of the army, not quite above and beyond the existing ones but provide some sort of incentive to play the army. That's what I see so far with 5e - with the exception of Chaos and DA, that is.
All this boils down to simple marketing. Broken? BS. There's overpowered stuff out there, but broken in the sense of some MTG combos - is almost impossible given the amount of variables in GW games.
I say bring it on.
Too much whining, I say.
avatar8481
09-16-2009, 12:28 PM
in defense of those of us complaining about gw not producing tournament-level rules, i would like to say:
It isn't that gw doesn't want to encourage highly-competative play that bothers me, it is their claim that a solid ruleset will do so to the detriment of casual gaming that annoys me. They make it seem as though the casual players will not be able to use the rules for fun games if the rules are too well or clearly written. I have no idea what led to this "logic", but i just don't understand it. It just seems like gw is using casual players as a scapegoat for their lack-lustre rules writing and editing. In my opinion, there is apsolutely nothing that would prevent a group of casual gamers from taking a solid ruleset and modifying it to their purpose. Gw could contine to support the casual gamers with campaign and alternate game/mission rules. Solid and balanced rules would also allow the competative players to have more enjoyable games by eliminating the arguements that spawn within the chasms of the current rules. Who knows, in time, the lower stess levels may even make tournaments fun as they will become a test of generalship instead of "who's the better rules lawyer?".
qft.
Any X point unit should have a chance against another X point unit. If there were rock/paper/scissors units, then an X point rock unit would smash the X point scissors units and be smashed by the X point paper units. This isn't balance, and I would like to think that GW isn't foolish enough to actually make such units.
can you please show me how my 4 naked guard squads have a chance against that 7 man plaguemarine squad? ^^
or the realistic chance the 2 firewarrior squads have against that leman russ?
rock-paper-scissors does exist and it is the only fun about the game.
if every x point unit could engage every other x point unit 40k would be the same stupid dice-only-brain-nothing game that the boardgame risk is.
40k is about realizing which unit is your rock and which your scissors to apply the right unit to combat the oponents stuff and suceed.
one funny thing from that department: have problems with SS/TH termies? apply the same solution a shooty bug army has to every terminator: torrent of fire.
on a per points basis its more efficient to shoot termies with bolter than marines. from 6 wounds you can kill 2 15pts marines (30 in total) or 1 40pts termi (40 in total).
Culven
09-16-2009, 03:07 PM
can you please show me how my 4 naked guard squads have a chance against that 7 man plaguemarine squad? ^^
4 10-man squads = 40 Lasguns at BS3
within 12" = 80 shots
2/3 hit = 160/3 hits
1/6 wound = 160/18 wounds
1/3 fail Armour Save = 160/54 wounds
1/2 fail FNP = 160/108 dead ~ 1.5 casualties
It would take a while to kill them all, but it is possible.
or the realistic chance the 2 firewarrior squads have against that leman russ?
2 12-man units = 24 Pulse Rifles at BS3
Within 12" in the rear arc = 48 S5 shots
2/3 hit = 32 hits
1/6 glance and 1/6 penetrate = 9 glance and 9 penetrate
1/3 of penetrating hits destroy it = 3 Destroyed results not including weapon destroyed + Immobilized = dead results.
It may be difficult to destroy them, but it is possible.
rock-paper-scissors does exist and it is the only fun about the game.
When I refered to rock-paper-scissors units, I was refering to units that will completely destroy a given unit with that other unit having no chance. Granted, there are pairings where one unit has no chance, and perhaps it is inappropriate to look at it at the unit level. In general, I have yet to find any unit that is the antithesis to any other particular unit, and it is this that I hope to never see. An example would be an anti-IG unit with S6 AP4 Template weapons and T7. The standard IG weapon, the humble Lasgun, could not wound this unit, and it would have weapons that ignore IG Armour Saves and Cover Saves that also cause Instant Death.
if every x point unit could engage every other x point unit 40k would be the same stupid dice-only-brain-nothing game that the boardgame risk is.
I disagree. Tactics and chance would still factor into the game.
40k is about realizing which unit is your rock and which your scissors to apply the right unit to combat the oponents stuff and suceed.
Perhaps I am looking at the RPS units in a different way. Yes, there are units better suited to specific roles and countering specific units, but the result of the two units engaging each other is not a foregone conclusion, and neither unit will always destroy the other without taking its share of casualties in return. To me, RPS units imply that one unit will always pwn the other. With the current units, tactics, and dice rolls dictating the result, this isn't, IMHO, the case.[/QUOTE]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.