As a long time Nids player, I'm firmly on the side of 'must all be equipped identically' side of the argument for Tyrant Guard. As Anglewing clearly put it, it
*IS* 'wound allocation abuse' in its simplest form. Just because
GW screwed the pooch rules wise for the multi-wound Ork bikers doesn't mean everyone else should be a bunch of tools who are eager to jump all over the same sort of abusive rules. It's one thing to use skill and a bit of 'dice luck' to outplay your opponent on the table top, it's entirely another to hunt for poorly constructed rules logic in order to obtain an undue advantage. The former game play style leads to games that are fun for both players and doesn't leave the loser feeling as if they were inevitably going to lose due to insurmountable odds from p*ss poor game mechanics. The later style does leave opponents with a bad taste in their mouths, and in the end drives otherwise good players away from the hobby. 'Variable weapons' isn't an option that anyone can honestly argue adds anything of value to the T.G. in terms of effectiveness as a hand-to-hand combat unit. It's simply offered up as a disingenuous way of trying to make it even more difficult to kill T.G. than it already is - which is already difficult enough as is since they're high toughness AND can't be insta-killed.
I like winning a game of
40K as much as the next guy, but doing so by rooting out the most under-costed units (Anyone else remember how hated Gav's Eldar WraithLords were in 3rd Edition due to their unbalanced rules?), or by seeking out the most unbalanced rules conditions and seeking to twist them to my advantage at every turn isn't going to make me the more skillful player or even one that has any gaming opponents who are fun to game with when all is said and done.
Login
