Team Deathmatch

Very well Will. I'm in year 9, you're in year 10, I've been playing for 5 years, and there's three guys who agree with my new 80 points idea: Adam Tilley, Andrew Marshal-Lee and a guy at my local GW even agrees that 80 points is a well rounded points limit. Don't go getting all high and mighty at me you arse, I've been playing since I was 9, have made balanced rules for many online forums and no-one out of you lot has beaten me in a one-on-one battle. Remember your place.

I think eighty points is a great idea.
it's enough to buy upgrades for your model yet
it's not so much it turns your model over the top
with upgrades. just as skirax said.
i do think however that we should limit certain upgrades.

Also i don't think that that there will be that many people
getting than 5 kills on there own so it might be an idea to
keep the kill streaks low.

one final thing we need to sort out what the killstreaks actually are.
if you have i must of missed the post, so please could you tell me what they are.

Without continuation of an argument, i will simply say i've been playing since i was 7, i am 15 now
I really dont think Imperial guard and Tyranids will reach points cost of 80, there's just too little stuff to take.

Playing since you were seven? And you still can't beat me? Ha! Weakling.

Okay, i've played you once, over a year ago, when Ben was on my team and decided to suicde a baneblade so it would go apocalyptic. Also, if you were deep striking right on top of an imperial guard army, in drop pods containing decent marines, who do you expect to win? That is where anyone can admit, no matter how good a player is, imperial guard are screwed.

will you havent evr beaten jake.
hahahahha
I mean even i have
once
by a bit of luck

but still it was a win.

but still jake is probably the best player.

maybe i should play will
horray for easy wins

Back on topic, I was looking over the Arena of Death rules created by the B&C and they've got a pretty good idea r.e. the player turns; Initiative. The model with the highest initiative, regardless of team orientation, has the first player turn. What do you think of that?

that is probably the only way we are really gonna be able to sort it out.
as in that people are obviously gonna lie about what they rolled and there
could be like 5 people with the same roll, here is an idea.
Highest intiative goes first, but if there is two or more with the same
there should be a roll off, yes it could have quite a few people but it might just thin the
numbers down a bit.

that kind of defeats the object, as in COD, all players do everything at the same time.

Yes, but this prevents confusion and as it goes in Initiative order, even teams will be out of step with each other, allowing for a clear game layout but in the actual 'fluff' side of things, it creates confusion for the team.

i think with 80 points, some people are incredibly and tactically pushed down to the ground. Daemons don't stand a chance. Neither do tryanids, orks, necrons and maybe even marines to some extent. its just gonna be like a food tree. the best will absolutely... (swear) the ones at a tactical advantage up. 60 points is the best full stop.

The initiative based turn sequence echos Inquisator and I'm quite tempted to let that slide. Models with the same initiative go at the same time so bad rolls don't get too annoying. Shooting takes place at the same time so it's like close combat, even if they die they still get their attacks (assuming they're fighting models with the same intiative of course)

The second upshot of the intiative based turn sequence is that people will be tempted to upgrade something other than WS or BS.

can you write the rules up so far then please tom as i'm completely kerfuffled

Okay, i think i might step out of this game now, this is no longer 'wahrammer' XD

i'm with stupid i mean Will ^

Thank you barechest, i mean Josh

hi five for dramatic irony

cabbage *hi-fives*

we need to stop arguing about this.
ok how about using points to increase stats
as well. e.g 20pts for +1 Initiative
it'll be more like the perks in cod anyway
so people would have to think about what they
are using, taking gambles on better accuracy
instead of slightly improved weapons so they could
even out things also as guard can spend on more
than marines or so on.

I've already suggested that. My suggested perks and attachments are as follows and should probably work:

Perks can be purchased for each model, 1 can be purchased per model, they are 10 per perk, and they are:
+1 WS
+1 BS
+1 S
+1 T
+1 I
+ 2" movement or
+ the relentless rule

Any model can purchase 1 attachment for 10 points for 1 ranged weapon. These are as follows:
Precision scope: Increase BS by 1
Suppressor: Rule 10 becomes void for the model
Extra explosive charge: Increases AP by 1
Heartbeat sensor: +1 to the awareness roll
Thermal Scope: Increases the model's awareness roll range to from 30" to 36"

Seriously, FFS why don't we allslow down a bit? we need to agree on rules before we use them not just impose them without agreement

OMG i have a great idea!!! The rules are simple and they actually work!!! We can forget all this arguing and we can forget about making this realistic. If we really desire a realistic COD game... why not buy COD6?

Because I'm poor, my mum tripped over my ethernet cable when it was downstairs and snapped the case with the game in it...

We all go out and get lives???

... warhammer is not sad, simply expensive

Enough. This thread will be locked.

Ok, first let's take a look at the perks and see if there's any room for improvement. I'm fine with them, any suggestions?