@KarnalBloodfist it's different because before the points system created statistically "best" builds.

The lack of army building guidelines creates statistically "best" builds too.

So it's ok to build a douche bag army when points are involved but not ok when points aren't involved?

How is wounds based system better than points? In that, Glade Riders are the shit. Move 14+D6 and Shoot 20 with 2 attacks at 4+/4+. On a 100points, that's 25 wounds a turn. Using your example of Marauder Horsemen, that's a unit which cannot catch them (Move 12), with the exception of the Javelin (Range 9" = only 1 in reach unless you can trap the Glade Riders as the riders split away to the flanks) cannot hurt them, and in return, with a 6+ Save, means that that's 9-10 dead Marauder Cav a turn, or 6 Chosen.

That's not me being a douche, that's me using the models I have, and I found by chance as being stupidly good. That fits within the 100 wound limit I have seen knocked about the net as well. Am I being a dick by using the models I have available, in the form of army I like?

Maybe this is something about me, about how I play games, playing to win. I'd rather play a competitive game I can get good at, rather than playing with nothing but a random allocation of numbers and told to make a game out of it.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Yeah I kind of agree with Vaz, although you could just as well play a few small games to figure out what works best for you. I'm a veteran WHFB player who transitioned to 40k (because at the end of 6th edition fantasy was pretty much dead and 40K was still popular as ever) and I'm really liking this new direction GW is taking. WHFB has always had a steep buy-in which was very discouraging for me to start a new army but now you can play a quick and fun game with only a few models! Anyway, I'm hyped and can't wait to start a small Skaven warband!