Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I prefer to play at a cut throat high power level, unless people are trying their damnedest to win it's not that fun for me. I *can* play at a lower power level but it's not my preferred option.

You're blaming me for the imbalance here rather than GW? *boggle* I said I wouldn't play the list against someone without a similarly competitive list so it's not douchy in the slightest. The problem is you think it's so easy to modify it to a substantially lower powerlevel, I'm saying it would take bringing a lot of extra models and completely change the playstyle of the list.

 Swastakowey wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except who defines "fair list"?

That's my point. What I would call a fair IG list is still something more optimised than what the OP brought to the table. Then you have some spammy fluff lists that are significantly less powerful than other spammy fluff lists. Which one is fair and which one is not?

Trying to "match your opponent", IMO, is silly. I don't know how well optimised the opponent's force might be. I don't know how capable my opponent might be of actually exploiting the list they've chosen on the table top itself.

You and your opponent define a fair list.

Well thats your fault for a lack of communication. I personally discuss my lists weeks in advance and my opponent and I set up the board to suit our scenario and we are both clear on what units each of us are taking etc.

If you arent gonna talk about your lists before the game then you are gonna run into problems.

If you discuss and plan, you will not run into problems. The solution is very simple. Even when playing people I dont know we talk before the game at the very least. Once we played one game we exchange numbers and go from there so next time we can make the game better.

Weeks in advance? Here I was thinking this was supposed to be a game not a diplomatic exercise

But seriously, what you describe sounds absolutely terrible to me and a completely un-fun way to fix a crappy game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except who defines "fair list"?

That's my point. What I would call a fair IG list is still something more optimised than what the OP brought to the table. Then you have some spammy fluff lists that are significantly less powerful than other spammy fluff lists. Which one is fair and which one is not?

Trying to "match your opponent", IMO, is silly. I don't know how well optimised the opponent's force might be. I don't know how capable my opponent might be of actually exploiting the list they've chosen on the table top itself.

You and your opponent define a fair list.

Well thats your fault for a lack of communication. I personally discuss my lists weeks in advance and my opponent and I set up the board to suit our scenario and we are both clear on what units each of us are taking etc.

If you arent gonna talk about your lists before the game then you are gonna run into problems.

If you discuss and plan, you will not run into problems. The solution is very simple. Even when playing people I dont know we talk before the game at the very least. Once we played one game we exchange numbers and go from there so next time we can make the game better.

Weeks in advance? Here I was thinking this was supposed to be a game not a diplomatic exercise

But seriously, what you describe sounds absolutely terrible to me and a completely un-fun way to fix a crappy game. I'd sooner invent my own rules, use rules from a different game or just use an older edition of the rules.

Cool you do that.

I only do it weeks an advance because we enjoy our games to be exactly as planned, its a lot of fun planning ahead like that. If its convenient we can do it in a few minutes. But where is the fun in that.

That's pretty much the point, there is no fun available if you do it like that ; p Sadly that's a very common playstyle - pick up games at a club or shop.

 Yonan wrote:
I prefer to play at a cut throat high power level, unless people are trying their damnedest to win it's not that fun for me. I *can* play at a lower power level but it's not my preferred option.

You're blaming me for the imbalance here rather than GW? *boggle* I said I wouldn't play the list against someone without a similarly competitive list so it's not douchy in the slightest. The problem is you think it's so easy to modify it to a substantially lower powerlevel, I'm saying it would take bringing a lot of extra models and completely change the playstyle of the list.

Cool. You get boggled mate. I will blame the player. The one who chose to play the game, and then chose to play it a certain way.

Not the rubbish company who simply offered you some rules to mess around with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
That's pretty much the point, there is no fun available if you do it like that ; p

I never said it has to take weeks. It takes minutes if you want.

We discuss terrain, maps, scenarios, narrative etc. We enjoy it. The balancing takes minutes.

What makes you think I'm annoyed? I'm just saying you're wrong ; p

 Yonan wrote:
What makes you think I'm annoyed? I'm just saying you're wrong ; p

I was meant to say boggled,

But yea, I think you are wrong.

Which is fine. As long as your opponent has fun.

Except the balancing doesn't "take minutes".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except the balancing doesn't "take minutes".

For you it doesnt.

For me it does. So yes, it can take minutes.

 Swastakowey wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except the balancing doesn't "take minutes".

For you it doesnt.

For me it does. So yes, it can take minutes.

I struggle to believe what you do is well balanced. If it is, you must be some god of game design and should just write your own game.

Going over the what happens before the game starts takes a few minutes alone and that is just one thing without getting in to specific codex rule questions or stupid stuff like chaos self ally matrix. With seting up the table it could take over an hour to do. By then the next group of people would want the table for themselfs.

The shouting matches I've seen at some FLGSs does not lead me to believe its that quick and easy. Heck, look at the rule disputes here on Dakka. Now put those in the middle of a game. Some people have very different ideas of what makes 40K fun and one minute isn't going to change that. That necessity of pre game negotiations is inexcusable.

There will always be disagreements. A game of 40k requires two+ *people*. As long as two people are involved, there will be a chance for conflict.

Some people are looking for a beer & pretzels game. Some people are looking for a tactical face-off. And some people are looking to feed their egos.

If a beer & pretzel player plays a beer & pretzel player, they'll probably both have fun. If a competitive player played a competitive player they'll both have fun. Even if the rules were tighter, when a beer & pretzels player plays a competitive player, there is a much bigger chance of one or both not enjoying it. Because they're playing different games.

Neither the b&p player nor the comp player are 'ruining the hobby'. 40k is big enough to have both. And some people will fit both categories at different times. Neither is better than the other. I have fun playing players from both camps.

Two players come to mind in this discussion. Hawk, a local Nids player, has always kicked my ass. Aside from an Apoc and a team game, every time I have played against him he has obliterated me (oddly enough, I can beat those that beat him). But I have loved every game he's been in ('Shadow in the Warp harder!' '[Lol] I laughed. It counts. Guardians fail on a 9, if the Farseer is in Shadows.'). They've simply been fun (although we do dispute rules - Area vs tLOS is our eternal debate.

Another local player (not naming) I've never enjoyed playing. He's not hard to beat, but he just comes across as an asshat. Things like taking a Heldrake and Be'lakor in a 1k against a new player with no AA. I don't think I've ever enjoyed playing him, and not for lack of winning, certainly.

Both players have a 4" gamers inch it seems, but one is always fun and the other is not. The players are by far the biggest decider of whether or not the game is enjoyable, not the rules set.

Some people want 'fair' games. Hard to quantify, but the answer seems to coalasce quickly in the meta if you pay attention.

Other people want skull-cracking competitiveness. This is great too.

Still others want to drop models on the table, and just see what happens. This is my favorite, but other players hate the idea.

All of these players make the game better. Some matchups are better than others (OP would probably rather face my demi company marines than the tourney list I faced last night. Others in this thread would prefer the tourney list). With a healthy meta, where people get along and recognize there are different types of players, this can all work out.

Another group of players would be the pub-stompers of old. They enjoy crushing other players. Not the biggest group, but they do exist. They only enjoy the game if their opponent gets destroyed without a chance. These guys are the only group I'd like to remove from the game. Fortunately, you can always just not play them. But they stomp newbies, and make everyone want to quit. I don't think we've seen any of these in this thread.

Bharring wrote:
40k is big enough to have both.

Rapidly becoming not the case. I wish I could say "sadly" but GW needs to get their heads out their behinds. The rest of your post was pretty much spot on imo.

I don't know about you, but I did't bring my whole collection so I can tailor my list to fit what my opponent might have. I would bring a reasonable TAC list and hope for the best... and sometimes that best is triple heldrakes or triptide. That's not fun. (And now deamon summoning deamons, LOW's and super psykers against my non psyker SOB army.)
That's the game's fault, not the players.

I agree Eldar are an OP army, they can be defeated, and sometimes you can tactically play completely correctly, and still lose just because of the dice gods.

I need to link my opponents to this thread so they will know my Eldar will auto win

In regards of blaming GW, I really don't care. I've played 40K for 25 years now and each edition has had its share of issues. Some of the issues now are unique to this edition, but 40K has nowhere been a completely balanced game in any edition. I enjoy the fluff, models, painting, cool terrain, rolling dice and use 40K in which to enjoy my hobby.

Nearly all of my gaming falls into 2 categories: tourneys and pick up games. I rarely preplan with a certain person to link up with at the FLGS. I also play in two locations and the style of play is different: one is more tourney styled and the other is not. These days, I tend to bring 2 lists with me-one is a fun list based upon the Highlander formats (do a quick search and you can easily find it) and the other may be a bit more tourney related. Generally, I don't bring a LoW unless someone specifically indicates they want to face one.

It takes me a couple of minutes meeting with someone at the FLGS on what type of game they want to play and then I pull out the appropriate list and models. By taking this little bit of extra time before arriving and talking with my opponent, the games are enjoyable.

For tourneys, I already know the parameters and bring just the models for the tourney.

As far as Eldar being anti-fun, not much I can really say to change a person's mind, but I think we all have certain things in this game we find un fun.

Some of the issues now are unique to this edition,

RT jester list banned as being to OP
2ed eldar dominate with their super exarchs, super troops , super weapons , tanks that pop up from behind LoS blocking terrain and then go back with only thing that can hurt those tanks being overwatch, but at -4BS , because of loop hole in the rules that let eldar falcon do a whole move back and forth and then pop up.
3ed The starcannon edition
4th The circus edtion. Much tears from eldar after star cannons get nerfed
5th Eldar stop dominating when GK and necron show up. People are still wining large tournaments with them with footdar lists
6th taudar. seer star. baron star .
7th tau nerfed, demons nerfed. eldar get their shoting while jinking nerfed.

Sure feels like eldar being OP is a problem of 7th ed only.

It takes me a couple of minutes meeting with someone at the FLGS on what type of game they want to play and then I pull out the appropriate list and models. By taking this little bit of extra time before arriving and talking with my opponent, the games are enjoyable.

that would only work if you were the owner of the store and had a 10k points collection of eldar models in the storage area. How many people own
not to mantion carry huge collections of models for any army ?

The players are by far the biggest decider of whether or not the game is enjoyable, not the rules set.

I have never seen anyone buy an army for any other table top system pay as much for it as a w40k army and then find out that the army never works or that the rules that make the army don't work. Never. I have seen people start DA terminator armies and quit the game. We had a good friend start w40k and find out that no matter what he does and how much he buys, he will never win against any of our armies. Warmahordes, infinity , X-wing , the WWII table tops my boyfriend plays have no such problems as w40k. I have never seen someone complain that their casual army lost, because the rules are stupid or that the opposing army was not casual.

Makumba wrote:

Some of the issues now are unique to this edition,

RT jester list banned as being to OP
2ed eldar dominate with their super exarchs, super troops , super weapons , tanks that pop up from behind LoS blocking terrain and then go back with only thing that can hurt those tanks being overwatch, but at -4BS , because of loop hole in the rules that let eldar falcon do a whole move back and forth and then pop up.
3ed The starcannon edition
4th The circus edtion. Much tears from eldar after star cannons get nerfed
5th Eldar stop dominating when GK and necron show up. People are still wining large tournaments with them with footdar lists
6th taudar. seer star. baron star .
7th tau nerfed, demons nerfed. eldar get their shoting while jinking nerfed.

Sure feels like eldar being OP is a problem of 7th ed only.

It takes me a couple of minutes meeting with someone at the FLGS on what type of game they want to play and then I pull out the appropriate list and models. By taking this little bit of extra time before arriving and talking with my opponent, the games are enjoyable.

that would only work if you were the owner of the store and had a 10k points collection of eldar models in the storage area. How many people own
not to mantion carry huge collections of models for any army ?

The players are by far the biggest decider of whether or not the game is enjoyable, not the rules set.

I have never seen anyone buy an army for any other table top system pay as much for it as a w40k army and then find out that the army never works or that the rules that make the army don't work. Never. I have seen people start DA terminator armies and quit the game. We had a good friend start w40k and find out that no matter what he does and how much he buys, he will never win against any of our armies. Warmahordes, infinity , X-wing , the WWII table tops my boyfriend plays have no such problems as w40k. I have never seen someone complain that their casual army lost, because the rules are stupid or that the opposing army was not casual.

I think you took something out of context. Yes, every edition had issues. Are you claiming Eldar being OP is the only issue? I have played every edition and there have been all sorts of unique issues. In 7th, take a look at electronic and paper codexes. They all don't state the same thing which is unique to 7th. Folks don't like Eldar? Not going to try and change the opinion of someone who has already made up their mind.

I don't own a shop and have no problem packing a bag and bringing two styles of army lists to get a game in. I do have @ 15000 points of painted Eldar and there is no way I am bringing them all. I guess I am easy going as I don't have issues getting a game in. I love the Highlander format and can get in great games when I bring something like this.

I enjoy the hobby and still can have fun at the GTs as well as teaching a new player the game of 40K.

Are you claiming Eldar being OP is the only issue?

I may missunderstand something here. But to me being OP since RT and better then any other army out there in seve editions seems like something kind of important in a topic about eldar being unfun to play against. Eldar were more offten then not at the core of problems of editions.
3ed was the Star Cannon edition . in 2ed hero hammer was king and eldar had more powerful heros for cheaper then other factions. Circus turned 4 in to an edition of eldar vs the anti cirucs armies . in 6th deathstars ,ally and super D weapons were a problem and what did eldar have ? the best deathstars , the taudar and eldar super friends ally formations and 4 D templates on a super walker that fit in to a 1500army easily. 7th is the same.7th is about grinding missions cards as fast as possible with MSU units. And eldar MSU are either super cheap and super fast . Or super fast and super resilient. eldar have no missions they can't do and no counter builds unless someone tailores , while eldar themselfs are a hardconter to many armies without tailoring.

I don't own a shop and have no problem packing a bag and bringing two styles of army lists to get a game in.

Ok so you would need to live on top of the shop or own something like a car. I have an am army and it has fewer tanks then 1 eldar army runs and it is impossible to transport unless my boyfriend helps me.

I guess I am easy going as I don't have issues getting a game in. I

Must be fun to play eldar. You can be "easy going" then. Play another army against them for 4-5 years and then we can talk about how fun eldar are.

Or you can, ya know, play whatever you want and just have fun. Win or lose.

Makumba wrote:

Are you claiming Eldar being OP is the only issue?

I may missunderstand something here. But to me being OP since RT and better then any other army out there in seve editions seems like something kind of important in a topic about eldar being unfun to play against. Eldar were more offten then not at the core of problems of editions.
3ed was the Star Cannon edition . in 2ed hero hammer was king and eldar had more powerful heros for cheaper then other factions. Circus turned 4 in to an edition of eldar vs the anti cirucs armies . in 6th deathstars ,ally and super D weapons were a problem and what did eldar have ? the best deathstars , the taudar and eldar super friends ally formations and 4 D templates on a super walker that fit in to a 1500army easily. 7th is the same.7th is about grinding missions cards as fast as possible with MSU units. And eldar MSU are either super cheap and super fast . Or super fast and super resilient. eldar have no missions they can't do and no counter builds unless someone tailores , while eldar themselfs are a hardconter to many armies without tailoring.

I don't own a shop and have no problem packing a bag and bringing two styles of army lists to get a game in.

Ok so you would need to live on top of the shop or own something like a car. I have an am army and it has fewer tanks then 1 eldar army runs and it is impossible to transport unless my boyfriend helps me.

I guess I am easy going as I don't have issues getting a game in. I

Must be fun to play eldar. You can be "easy going" then. Play another army against them for 4-5 years and then we can talk about how fun eldar are.

After 25 years of playing 40K, I have zero issues playing against any army in 40K. Over the years, I have owned nearly every army GW ever released and have played against and with Eldar in all 7 editions.

And yes, I do own a car. In the U.S., adults owning a car is not an uncommon occurrence. I utilize an Army Transport case and swap out foam trays as needed in order to not have to take an entire collection.

Some folks not liking to play against Eldar- fair enough. There is a fairly extensive list of things that folks have not liked over each and every edition of 40K. I don't like playing against proxied and unpainted armies. But I have to remain flexible as it takes two people to play the game. Same goes for various army builds over the years, but I learn what I am contending with and adapt.

 ionusx wrote:

 amhhs wrote:
My friends told me today that If I start playing again (id pick eldar) I would find myself "without people to play with"... They can't be that bad.... especially since my friends all play either necrons or tau. Wish someone could talk sense into them...

you never "beat:" eldar. you only survive. in 6th you had the chance to play escalation and laugh with your warhounds str D doom cannons wiping out his units regardless of the saves he brought to the field. now you arent even guaranteed to do that much.

eldar codex is B R O K E N broken and i refuse to play eldar ever. if my store owner fields his eldar im forfeiting the match or im going to simply yolo at him in a banzai charge until the match ends as victory is basically impossible.

i hope eldar players enjoy having fun with their armies playing among themselves i wont be joining you.

i think that if GW want to continue with the eldar as a race they need to radically rethink their approach to the book, or kill it outright. thats right no more eldar codex i said it. if GW kills the eldar codex or nerfs it into the ground with massive points hikes and relic re-writes that would also be sufficient. eldar are suppose to be a race of few. an elite strike team. jack up prices. and ya know what remove the wave serpent. night spinner fine, and make the falcon the troop carrier of the eldar.

Well... I gotta' say. That might be the biggest over reaction I've seen. I learned a long time ago that you just have to get creative against certain lists. Eldar as opponents has helped me build what I now think is a fearsome all comers list that can do especially well against Eldar. And Chaos is no top tier codex.

I've only run into one build that i find difficult to beat no matter what army I play and it isn't Eldar. So I am just surprised at the venom.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you hate the game balance so much, why make a list with so many flyers etc in it?

What if you happen to like flyers? There are formations like the Scion Airborne Assault formation and the Forgeworld Elysian drop-lists, that require you to take X amount of flyers, and are designed to appeal to players who happen to like that kind of model.

There are armored lists that are designed to cater to people who like tanks and vehicle lists a lot.

What if Riptides happen to be your favorite unit and you've spent hours lovingly and painstakingly painting them?

Wave Serpents?

Rough Riders?

Why do you think that it's okay for you to use the units that you happen to like, and have spent lots of time on, because they might be gak on the tabletop, yet others need to limit themselves and deny themselves the units they may happen to greatly enjoy so that the guy on the other side table who brought a weaker list can have a more even chance of winning?

Your argument strikes me as odd in general, considering that just a few days ago, in this very thread, you asserted to me that it's unrealistic to expect someone to design a list that can handle other builds because some people have a limited number of models. It seems strange to have that opinion Monday and then on Wednesday tell people, in the most condescending manner possible, that they're bad players for not making sweeping changes to their lists on the fly to accommodate the gak lists of others.

It strikes me as so odd and contradictory that it makes me wonder if you actually have a coherent point to make at all, and are not simply being a contrarian.

Well?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you hate the game balance so much, why make a list with so many flyers etc in it?

What if you happen to like flyers? There are formations like the Scion Airborne Assault formation and the Forgeworld Elysian drop-lists, that require you to take X amount of flyers, and are designed to appeal to players who happen to like that kind of model.

There are armored lists that are designed to cater to people who like tanks and vehicle lists a lot.

What if Riptides happen to be your favorite unit and you've spent hours lovingly and painstakingly painting them?

Wave Serpents?

Rough Riders?

Why do you think that it's okay for you to use the units that you happen to like, and have spent lots of time on, because they might be gak on the tabletop, yet others need to limit themselves and deny themselves the units they may happen to greatly enjoy so that the guy on the other side table who brought a weaker list can have a more even chance of winning?

Your argument strikes me as odd in general, considering that just a few days ago, in this very thread, you asserted to me that it's unrealistic to expect someone to design a list that can handle other builds because some people have a limited number of models. It seems strange to have that opinion Monday and then on Wednesday tell people, in the most condescending manner possible, that they're bad players for not making sweeping changes to their lists on the fly to accommodate the gak lists of others.

It strikes me as so odd and contradictory that it makes me wonder if you actually have a coherent point to make at all, and are not simply being a contrarian.

Well?

Fluff is second to having a good game. If having 100 flyers creates a bad game. Dont do it.

If having 100 Rough riders makes a bad game. Dont do it.

The focus should be to make a good game. If my opponent has a limited selection of models then I will change my list to match his etc.

I think that your list should work with your opponent and vice versa. Not against. That means not taking the things you enjoy all the time. Communication is a simple way to not waste good gaming time.

I think im pretty consistent on that point.

I love taking lots of infantry. I spent a lot of money on them. If my opponent cant deal with them then I will change my list so he can deal with it a bit better. I dont care that its not 100% what i want. But it makes the game better for all involved. Otherwise whats the point?

So who cares if you like flyers, its not gonna make a good game if your opponent cant kill them at all.

Also I said if you cant change your list up to make a better game, lower the points to help change up the models that can be used. So this creates a situation where someone who cant up the competitiveness of his list can still have the aid of the opponent reducing the competitiveness of his list. Thanks to reducing the points.

In short, yes its unreasonable to expect someone to change their list if they cant. But if they can halve the points of their game to change up their list, then they can still change their list and its no longer unreasonable to ask for a change in game points and subsequently lists. If that makes any sense.

Personally, I learn the most when I get destroyed. This isn't elementary school gym class where everyone gets a medal no matter how poorly they perform. I played tau a couple weeks ago against 2 riptides, 2 hammerheads, broadsides, crisis suits and stealth suits. I got tabled on turn 3. I also learned far more about tactics and how to counter certain things in the future than I ever do when I win. I had fun, my opponent had fun, we shook hands and I went back to the drawing board with my list to attempt to be more competitive against armies like that. Yes, his list was OP. It didn't bother me a bit and I would play him again any time he wants a game. Sometimes Florida Atlantic has to play Alabama, they don't get to sit at home just because the other team has more talent. I think people need to realize that no game is perfectly balanced and if they bring a mediocre list, they lose the right to throw a fit when things don't go their way on the table.

If you both enjoyed the game, TooFast, then it was a good game. I've had similar games. I've also walked away after tabling someone and thought it was a terrible game.

In the OP's anecdote, though, the OP showed up for one game, and the Eldar player showed up for another. Between the rough stomping and the Dice Gods championing the other player, it sounds like it was quite frustrating.

From later posts, it sounds like the OP and the Eldar player should just play other people, as they're looking for different things.

A consistent point many of us have made is that this can happen with any Codex, IMO. I think its more frequently Eldar because they're top of the stack and everyone knows it, but it isn't only Eldar.

(And once again - Eldar have only dominated for about a year - they didn't during the first half of 6th. Sure, they were OP in some older editions as well, but let's not rewrite history)

Toofast wrote:
I played tau a couple weeks ago against 2 riptides, 2 hammerheads, broadsides, crisis suits and stealth suits.

Yes, his list was OP.

Doesn't look like it to me, the riptides are the only thing in that list even remotely close to being "OP". In fact without the riptides it pretty much looks like what a typical Tau list has always looked like, except no Tau player ever used stealth suits and many would still argue the hammerheads are wasted points when you could just spam more missiles or riptides.

If all these options are "OP" then that doesn't leave a Tau player with much else to work with. Kroot with sky rays? Is that really it?

Florida Atlantic plays Alabama football because it brings money to their football program. If Florida Atlantic was not getting paid they would never play that game

Well the hammerheads took out my LRC and Las predator in the top of turn 1 before I could even move them, so I would say those points were well spent. I wouldn't have cared if he brought 5 riptides, I still would've played him and that's the point here. Playing against armies like that makes you a better player. Whining on a forum about an obvious fact like eldar being powerful does not make you a better player. Lining up against 4 wave serpents, jetseer and wraith knight and figuring out how to hurt them makes you a better player.