News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Your 40K pet peeve?  (Read 42405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Benis

  • 77 Shades Of Decay | Lazerous Penguin | Death to the Emperor with a Pulse!
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: se
  • Getkilling
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2007, 06:14:25 AM »
GW's inability to balance armylist modifiers compared to their drawbacks (chaos legions, sm traits etc.). The only system they manage to do that doesn't feel to powerful is the IG doctrine system. As for WYSIWYG my group usually only care about obvious things (as I suspect most groups do) such as weapons, armour and clearly visable  wargear (bikes, jump packs, terminator honours etc.) while grenades and small things like that (targeter, some daemonic gifts etc.) doesn't have to be present. Although I usually give my models all their wargear if I'm likely to always field them that way.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is people who try to turn the terrain to their advantage when you're discussing how you think different parts of it should work before the battle. I once played against a jungle fighter imperial guard army who wanted to count ruins as forests and another Iron Warrior palyer tried to suggest that a giant wall (1' high) did not disturb line of sight. To but it simple it's mostly people who doesn't play to play but play to win that gets on my nerves when it comes to 40k.

Offline Cesium

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • Never trust your pears
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2007, 07:36:40 AM »
As I haven't played "for real" yet is has to be the completely messed up scale of the weapons contra the minis carrying them. A 1.5 meter lasgun? :-[
"People with big signatures must be compensating for something..."

Offline skalnok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 837
  • i like harlequins they make me laugh
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2007, 07:47:15 AM »
my pet peeve is every1s hatred for space marines. i mean like ya their common but when a new kid is playing one they are easy enough to beat and they are fair game when a vetran gamer is playing them.



P.S. not all MEQ players whine constantly
98% of the weed smokers on this site bug the 2% non-smokers on this site about why they should.  Maybe the 98% should lighten up, go smoke one and leave us to our choices.

"OMG, did you see that, the big melty thingy melted bob, OMG it's walking this way.  OH DEAR GREATER GOOD, RUN!"

If I eat your brain, do I gain your talen

Offline Andro Ist Keine Schwedischen

  • Da Biggest; His Fluffiness; Warboss
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5466
  • Country: 00
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2007, 12:08:50 PM »
i refuse to let terminators charge after firing a heavy weapon, the local GW staff back me up, as do everyone bar SM players.

As a contrast, I hate people who argue that rule.  Clearly Terminators and Bikes can move while firing heavy weaponry or rapid fire weapons, so why can't they assault?  It just screams stupid to me.

Good thing I've never actually used bikes or Terminators in the pasty 6 or 7 years (bar last week when I used the store's Dark Angels army, and I wasn't the one doing the assaulting).

~Andromidius
aka. Boris the Bear

Offline Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)

  • Ride Like Lightning, Crash Like Thunder | Infinity Circuit | Pork Sword of Mod-Justice | Took the basket, nuts and lol | Good grief, ye hennie pennies
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13225
  • Country: 00
  • Turtleposting At The Speed Of SHift
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sigmarines, Chaos, Demons
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2007, 02:57:45 PM »
Rule discussion moved to here: Terminator Heavy Weapon shooting and assaulting.
You are
What you do
When it counts
     -The Masao
"Getting what you want can be dangerous.

Offline Sergant Alexi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 507
  • Its a funny world
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2007, 05:13:05 PM »
Mine has to be people in friendly games lying.

This one game i played i asked the opponent can you see my chimera i believe that is is invisible behind the ruin (8 inches thick)  He goes yes, yes.  His shooting phase he fires 3 lascannons at it destroying it saying that if he measures from this angle (his weapon was then firing in an arc.  This is when i still had plenty of movement left to get out os LOS.

The next game we played he wanted to get his assualt marines into combat with my guard command section of a platoon.  I was in cover and he didn't want to see his guys die on a one so he walked in.  WE measure before he rolls so we can say what he has to roll to get in so no arguement.  He needed a sixs.  He rolls a four shouts that they are in range (about an inch out) and bundles them in getting attacks from everyone when some moved 10 inches.

I refuse to play him any more
Gari Fireguard 12th Company
500 pts
W/D/L
-

Last Game
-

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2007, 06:18:15 PM »
Tiresome people who simply don't know how to play and insisting they do annoy me. Like idiot kids that turn up with with random models, no army list and a forge world whirlwind assuring people that it costs the same but is STR 9 AP 3.

People who knowingly cheat whenever they can.

And people who think they're really skillful when they turn up with Blood Angels.
Curiously some people tend to combine all three of these flaws... *shrugs*
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Khaleth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2007, 01:28:13 AM »
The way Games Workshop has disowned Dark Eldar. See my post, NEW GRAND CAMPAIGN, for more on this issue.

Offline Admiral Stukov

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2007, 01:41:53 AM »
i was playing this kid who decided to pick up my land raider in the middle of the game and he ended up droping it on the ground as the plastic/metal shatered everywere.

i wasnt that inmpressed as to say the least after that night nether was he as he required plastic sergery from an "accident"


“Okay, so basically, be afraid of everything…” I said, panting. Just helping a Space Marine stand was hard work.

“Hey, you’re a Guardsman…” began Saladin, snidely. “You’re should already be afraid of everything!”


Offline Noble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
  • Everybody else was doing it...
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2007, 02:10:41 AM »
The thing that I hate most is the concept of area terrain. I mean, just because its got ruined walls around it, it shouldn't mean that. I particularly remember one game when I was planning to charge my Hormagants through a seemingly open path, then to be told that there was virtual rubble in the way, and i had to roll difficult terrain test. Then, in the same game, i was told that my zoanthrope could not shoot through the empty space over a ruin. I mean, if he can see it, surely he can psychically immolate it. It just goes against my previous understanding of LoS!

And I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned paper armies. My friends used to hate it when i used a paper army, but now they all do it too. I don't use paper any more, but i still don't have any Zoanthrope models, so I have to use substitutes. <Please note, if I had the funds and the time, I would buy the proper models, it is entirely unintentional> Personally, I see nothing wrong with paper/substitute armies, or any of WISYWIG, as long as I know beforehand what things are, but I still rather playing a proper army. As long as I see progress, it doesn't bother me.

Sometimes WYSIWIG problems can be funny. I was playing Tyraninds ages ago with like all substitutes, and a mate teleported some necrons right in front of some Saurus models. He sure got a surprise when my genestealers ripped him apart.

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered after looking at someones chess topic. I HATE it when my mates try to explain warhammer to my other mates by saying 'Its a bit like complicated chess'. ITS NOT! I can see no resemblance to chess, apart from that its a stategy game, and you play it sitting/standing at a table.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 02:15:09 AM by Noble »

Offline myles

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2925
  • Country: 00
  • This is my game face
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2007, 02:20:42 AM »
EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered after looking at someones chess topic. I HATE it when my mates try to explain warhammer to my other mates by saying 'Its a bit like complicated chess'. ITS NOT! I can see no resemblance to chess, apart from that its a stategy game, and you play it sitting/standing at a table.

Oh my god, so true. With me it's always, "It's like Risk." No matter what the game, 40k, Axis and Allies, any tabletop wargame, every single person that comes by is like, "Oh, so it's kind of like Risk then." WTF people. No it is not Risk, it is not chess, it's a whole seperate thing. Jeez.
The first problem is the creation of meaningless e-personas. Such personas are undesirable because they lead users to prejudge a post and its content based on their impressions of the author. One is predisposed to criticize a perfectly legitimate comment or praise a stupid one simply because of preconceived notions about who wrote it. Anonymous posting avoids this situation by removing identity from the post, making any praise or criticism directed solely at the content.

Offline Noble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
  • Everybody else was doing it...
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2007, 02:30:06 AM »
Myles'
Mine, in my eyes, is worse. These are collecters and players of the game, like myself, and still they say to people who don't know the game 'Its like Chess'. I mean who is going to be interested in complicated chess. They're just going to walk off thinking 'that guy plays complicated chess, he must be an ultranerd'.
At least in risk you have the connection of dice. Dice gods don't come into the equation with chess, there is no luck, just skill.

Offline myles

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2925
  • Country: 00
  • This is my game face
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2007, 03:20:31 AM »
Myles'
Mine, in my eyes, is worse. These are collecters and players of the game, like myself, and still they say to people who don't know the game 'Its like Chess'. I mean who is going to be interested in complicated chess. They're just going to walk off thinking 'that guy plays complicated chess, he must be an ultranerd'.
At least in risk you have the connection of dice. Dice gods don't come into the equation with chess, there is no luck, just skill.

Wait, it's the 40k players themselves that use that as an explanation? You're right that is terrible! Arrrgh! I hate it when people who could put forth some knowledge stoop to using analogies of the lowest common denominator. Because you just know that even if the players go on to explain the intricacies of 40k the impression that people are going to walk away with is "So it's like chess with a lot of rules." That is terrible.

I hate it when people insist on drawing parallels to their own experience when finding out about something new, instead of just admitting that it's something they know nothing about, and I hate the enablers that conform to this practice instead of forcing people to think outside the box. I mean, I know it's natural to compare to stuff you already know, but it's still really  annoying.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 03:22:38 AM by myles »
The first problem is the creation of meaningless e-personas. Such personas are undesirable because they lead users to prejudge a post and its content based on their impressions of the author. One is predisposed to criticize a perfectly legitimate comment or praise a stupid one simply because of preconceived notions about who wrote it. Anonymous posting avoids this situation by removing identity from the post, making any praise or criticism directed solely at the content.

Offline Czar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2007, 09:17:08 AM »
It bothers me more when people think Dungeons and Dragons is like Warhammer (this only tends to happen in the UK though).

Offline Dryad

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Country: ca
  • Go Jets Go
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2007, 11:09:00 AM »
It bothers me more when people think Dungeons and Dragons is like Warhammer (this only tends to happen in the UK though).

(lol), ya, 40k doesn't involve a case of mountain dew, 3 bags of cheesies, and 5 hours of being bored as hell...  ;)

Offline Andro Ist Keine Schwedischen

  • Da Biggest; His Fluffiness; Warboss
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5466
  • Country: 00
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2007, 02:14:28 PM »
The thing that I hate most is the concept of area terrain. I mean, just because its got ruined walls around it, it shouldn't mean that. I particularly remember one game when I was planning to charge my Hormagants through a seemingly open path, then to be told that there was virtual rubble in the way, and i had to roll difficult terrain test. Then, in the same game, i was told that my zoanthrope could not shoot through the empty space over a ruin. I mean, if he can see it, surely he can psychically immolate it. It just goes against my previous understanding of LoS!

Agreed 100%.  Area terrain is fine for movement and cover, but it shouldn't effect line of sight!  The concept boggles my mind every time I play...

~Andromidius
aka. Boris the Bear

Offline myles

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2925
  • Country: 00
  • This is my game face
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2007, 02:19:10 PM »
I don't mind playing on table without any area terrian, because, as you've said, it's a bit ridiculous. (Although I do mind people that complain about it and then choose to put down area terrain when setting up. Make up your minds guys! ;))

What I do not like is playing on tables with not a single large piece of cover to hide behind. I like to play with area terrain just because WYSIWYG terrain seems to create a lot of open killing field boards. Strange that it happens most often against tau and IG isn't it? Nah, must just be a coincidence...
The first problem is the creation of meaningless e-personas. Such personas are undesirable because they lead users to prejudge a post and its content based on their impressions of the author. One is predisposed to criticize a perfectly legitimate comment or praise a stupid one simply because of preconceived notions about who wrote it. Anonymous posting avoids this situation by removing identity from the post, making any praise or criticism directed solely at the content.

Offline Gwaihir

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2830
  • Country: 00
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2007, 06:11:20 PM »
Area terrain is the way it is because if it were more truly represented you wouldn't be able to effectively put models in it.

The other thing is that we play on a static field.  My models on one side of the trees may be visible to yours on the other side of the trees.  You may be able to draw lines through the trees to one model or another.  Does this mean that in real terms you could effectively shoot at them.  They would be constantly in and out of vision and you would be unable to target them.

Also consider how tedious it would be if we were to go by actual line of sight through area terrain.  We would for example represent trees with actual models rather than a piece of felt.  You would then get down for a model's eye view and model by model determine who can see and be seen.  This would be time consuming and annoying.  Then when you start moving models through the trees, you run into whole new problems.

The same applies for rubble.  It could be accuarately modeled so that line of sight makes more sense, but this would interefere with gameplay.

Area terrain is a way of fairly accurately representing the difficulties of shooting at someone behind an obstruction without imposing tediousness on the game.


Read the story behind custom titles and tell us about yours.


"You cannot win tommorow, for you do not know why we fight today."  --Farseer Fa'alorath, Craftworld Fa'alnor-The Fate Weavers.

Offline communisteldarfistsoffury

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Country: 00
  • All Hail Gholiac.
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2007, 06:16:16 PM »
I'd say my biggest pet peeve are players who decide to name every single character in their army and cry under a table when they lose.
Autarchs>Farseers

Offline Noble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
  • Everybody else was doing it...
Re: Your 40K pet peeve?
« Reply #59 on: March 1, 2007, 04:15:18 AM »
I don't so much mind that idea. It also gives interesting conversion basis, like my mate, who made a guard army and gave everybody names <think he ran out of inspiration when he named one chamberpot>, but he does have one guy, called stabby joe, with a whole lot of knives. And although it is kind of bizzare, it adds individuality. He mourns the death of each...

 


Powered by EzPortal