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.

": 40% Troops minimum*"

Grey hunters, then. Or Necron warrior. You are just ensuring that the codices with the best troops win.

I don't necessarily think that banning allies is the right way forwards.

I do think that losing the Force Organisation Chart was a mistake, and that the last time the game was balanced was using the lists from the 3rd Edition rulebook.

As for the current madness, I totally agree. Small points games with a group of like-minded friends and the occasional no-holds-barred-let's-put-our-entire-collections-on-the-board Apocalypse game is probably the best way forwards.

That and proper narrative map campaigns!

The real point is here is that while you ARE allowed to play with any limitations you want to imposed on army construction, the game isn't broken because it doesn't meet your individual view of how the game should be.

The problem arrises is when people want everyone else to play how they want it

For 40K to allow the existance of Perfect Take All Comers lists would require severe restrictions on army building to limit variables encountered. It kills variety and only heightens the tendancy of successful lists to all start looking the same, which stagnates the meta.

40K has become a lot more like a CCG than Chess. Each new release shifts the meta. MTG does this, chess does not. MTG sells a hell of a lot more than Chess.

 adamsouza wrote:
The real point is here is that while you ARE allowed to play with any limitations you want to imposed on army construction, the game isn't broken because it doesn't meet your individual view of how the game should be.

The problem arrises is when people want everyone else to play how they want it

For 40K to allow the existance of Perfect Take All Comers lists would require severe restrictions on army building to limit variables encountered. It kills variety and only heightens the tendancy of successful lists to all start looking the same, which stagnates the meta.

40K has become a lot more like a CCG than Chess. Each new release shifts the meta. MTG does this, chess does not. MTG sells a hell of a lot more than Chess.

The issue is that MTG has a much lower cost of entry (even if the cost of maintaining high end top meta card collections is sky high), and is extremely portable. They have numerous predefined formats that you can pickup game with extremely easily almost anywhere, while 40k increasingly lacks that. You also don't have the issue with MTG of people lovingly converting and painting armies according to background themes and factions and investing tons of time and money outside of playing in that aspect, and even if the monetary cost of picking up top end cards is equal to or exceeds what 40k units might cost, people know that at some point they'll be obsolete for certain formats and aren't investing tons of time outside of playing doing conversions and painting and whatnot.

MTG also is pretty much assumed right out the gate to be competitive. WoTC actively manages the meta, it's a fundamental part of their offering and a constantly changing experience is inherent in their value proposition, whereas with 40k it largely just moves from once balance mistake to another, it's not really intended or managed, at least not in the way it is for MTG.

to allow the existance of Perfect Take All Comers lists would require severe restrictions on army building to limit variables encountered. It kills variety

No it wouldn't. It would just need all units and options to be appropriately effective for their points cost.

 Vaktathi wrote:

MTG also is pretty much assumed right out the gate to be competitive. WoTC actively manages the meta, it's a fundamental part of their offering and a constantly changing experience is inherent in their value proposition, whereas with 40k it largely just moves from once balance mistake to another, it's not really intended or managed, at least not in the way it is for MTG.

40k is not intended or managed for competitive play like MTG is, or Warmachine, for that matter. And GW has not been hiding that fact at all. They have clearly stated their disinterest in tournaments (hence their stopping their own successful Grand Tournaments years ago), and they have made their opinion on "balance" (which means different things to different people) known by the way they release models, rules, formations, etc. They are also pretty clearly not interested in dictating how to actually play the game. They leave that all up to the players and the TOs of tournaments.

Player: "This isn't clear. GW, how should we play the game?"
GW: "Here is how you play the game (i.e. what we intended)."
Player: "That's not how its supposed to be played. Tell us how to play the game."

Now, in my opinion, 40k is a better game played in a group of like minded individuals who agree on what types of games they'll play, how "competitive" they are, etc. That's the kind of group I play in, and I have no problem agreeing with my opponents about the type of experience I want in the game. I don't play in LGS, or in tournaments, but I can see how it can be harder to just show up at a pick up game, and get a satisfying game, what with all the negotiation that likely needs to go on.

I've played CSM since 2nd edition, and my list and units are pretty much unchanged since the introduction of Oblits. I still win games, I still lose games, and I never feel like I'm completely out of any game. Granted, I don't face Eldar or Necrons regularly either. But nothing that GW has done has made my army list, nor my lovingly built and painted models obsolete. People make their lovingly painted models obsolete by grabbing onto some gimmick list or some nebulous rule interpretation, and then feel put upon when a FAQ clarifies it, or some edition of codex change makes that unit less "effective". It all comes down to how one approaches the game.

 Azreal13 wrote:

to allow the existance of Perfect Take All Comers lists would require severe restrictions on army building to limit variables encountered. It kills variety

No it wouldn't. It would just need all units and options to be appropriately effective for their points cost.

Exactly. The only "variety" it might kill is the kind of extremely polarized lists that are toxic for the community anyway. Nothing of value is lost when TAC lists are standard and the game is balanced.

As for comparing sales of chess to MTG, that's simply absurd. The business models of the two games are completely different in ways that have nothing to do with the rules. You can not compare the two and get anything relevant out of it.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

MTG also is pretty much assumed right out the gate to be competitive. WoTC actively manages the meta, it's a fundamental part of their offering and a constantly changing experience is inherent in their value proposition, whereas with 40k it largely just moves from once balance mistake to another, it's not really intended or managed, at least not in the way it is for MTG.

40k is not intended or managed for competitive play like MTG is, or Warmachine, for that matter. And GW has not been hiding that fact at all. They have clearly stated their disinterest in tournaments (hence their stopping their own successful Grand Tournaments years ago), and they have made their opinion on "balance" (which means different things to different people) known by the way they release models, rules, formations, etc. They are also pretty clearly not interested in dictating how to actually play the game. They leave that all up to the players and the TOs of tournaments.

Right, but the problem is that since the game has no comment on the way its meant to be played, it ends up doing nothing well and turns into a gigantic mess without people essentially re-writing the rules and imposing restricting on themselves to varying extents, which is an issue for many players

Now, in my opinion, 40k is a better game played in a group of like minded individuals who agree on what types of games they'll play, how "competitive" they are, etc. That's the kind of group I play in, and I have no problem agreeing with my opponents about the type of experience I want in the game. I don't play in LGS, or in tournaments, but I can see how it can be harder to just show up at a pick up game, and get a satisfying game, what with all the negotiation that likely needs to go on.

Right, and that's the big issue. For people without well managed playgroups where people play with lots of self restrictions, the game is unmanageable and quickly turns into a repeated series of obviously one-sided encounters.

Well I am definitely not going to read through 6 more pages of replies, so if the OP is still reading here is my 2 cents based on the current state of 40k.

I generally agree with the pessimistic view most other posters have, but also add the following.

Don't bother playing an eldar army! It doesn't matter how long you have been playing them, large your force is, how beautiful your painting is, how detail minded you are i.e. 100% magnetization /wysiwyg because the eldar has to be one of the longest running unfunny meme in 40k history by now.

I am serious, as soon as you mention you play eldar the non stop B****ing begins from every single person in the room. Mind you I completely understand being annoyed by win at all costs players taking advantage of the rules/codex/allies/formations but the way I see it the fault lies with the dbag player. However, a very nasty community mentality has taken over when it comes to eldar. I know its a really good codex but nowadays people choose to blame the codex for their loss rather then their own tactics, army comp, luck.
The eldar have a good codex, good allies (i.e. corsairs, DE), good formations, good forge world. However, no matter what your intention, whether trying to run a fluffy list or heck even trying to run a purposely bad army comp in your force almost every neck beard in the room is going to start the constant stream of mouth diarrhea and of course the ever popular over use of the amazingly cute and clever terms, overpowered and cheese. OH by the way heavens forbid you decide to use your wraith knight that you just spent $120 on and several days to paint and customize.

just don't play ELDAR you will save yourself headaches. if you interested in coming back to the hobby go buy 3 storm surges, a couple flying d princes and hive tyrants with a drop pod of grav centurions with a librarian don't paint them and go sit at the corner of a gaming table and start complaining that eldar are op and why chaos still sucks.

Er. Do I detect some bitterness, here?

 HiddenPower wrote:
Well I am definitely not going to read through 6 more pages of replies, so if the OP is still reading here is my 2 cents based on the current state of 40k.

I generally agree with the pessimistic view most other posters have, but also add the following.

Don't bother playing an eldar army! It doesn't matter how long you have been playing them, large your force is, how beautiful your painting is, how detail minded you are i.e. 100% magnetization /wysiwyg because the eldar has to be one of the longest running unfunny meme in 40k history by now.

I am serious, as soon as you mention you play eldar the non stop B****ing begins from every single person in the room. Mind you I completely understand being annoyed by win at all costs players taking advantage of the rules/codex/allies/formations but the way I see it the fault lies with the dbag player. However, a very nasty community mentality has taken over when it comes to eldar. I know its a really good codex but nowadays people choose to blame the codex for their loss rather then their own tactics, army comp, luck.
The eldar have a good codex, good allies (i.e. corsairs, DE), good formations, good forge world. However, no matter what your intention, whether trying to run a fluffy list or heck even trying to run a purposely bad army comp in your force almost every neck beard in the room is going to start the constant stream of mouth diarrhea and of course the ever popular over use of the amazingly cute and clever terms, overpowered and cheese. OH by the way heavens forbid you decide to use your wraith knight that you just spent $120 on and several days to paint and customize.

just don't play ELDAR you will save yourself headaches. if you interested in coming back to the hobby go buy 3 storm surges, a couple flying d princes and hive tyrants with a drop pod of grav centurions with a librarian don't paint them and go sit at the corner of a gaming table and start complaining that eldar are op and why chaos still sucks.

What about if I play eldar vs eldar?

New Chaos God will be created in that case.

The Chaos God of Neckbeard Rage.

 HiddenPower wrote:
Well I am definitely not going to read through 6 more pages of replies, so if the OP is still reading here is my 2 cents based on the current state of 40k.

I generally agree with the pessimistic view most other posters have, but also add the following.

Don't bother playing an eldar army! It doesn't matter how long you have been playing them, large your force is, how beautiful your painting is, how detail minded you are i.e. 100% magnetization /wysiwyg because the eldar has to be one of the longest running unfunny meme in 40k history by now.

I am serious, as soon as you mention you play eldar the non stop B****ing begins from every single person in the room. Mind you I completely understand being annoyed by win at all costs players taking advantage of the rules/codex/allies/formations but the way I see it the fault lies with the dbag player. However, a very nasty community mentality has taken over when it comes to eldar. I know its a really good codex but nowadays people choose to blame the codex for their loss rather then their own tactics, army comp, luck.
The eldar have a good codex, good allies (i.e. corsairs, DE), good formations, good forge world. However, no matter what your intention, whether trying to run a fluffy list or heck even trying to run a purposely bad army comp in your force almost every neck beard in the room is going to start the constant stream of mouth diarrhea and of course the ever popular over use of the amazingly cute and clever terms, overpowered and cheese. OH by the way heavens forbid you decide to use your wraith knight that you just spent $120 on and several days to paint and customize.

just don't play ELDAR you will save yourself headaches. if you interested in coming back to the hobby go buy 3 storm surges, a couple flying d princes and hive tyrants with a drop pod of grav centurions with a librarian don't paint them and go sit at the corner of a gaming table and start complaining that eldar are op and why chaos still sucks.

While I've never seen the vociferous whining described in this post, I can understand where some of it might come from. Eldae have consistently always had balance issues. They have, in pretty much every edition (save 5th where they didnt get a codex update) been top tier if not *the* top.

Other armies may have had one edition where they were amazing (e.g. CSM's, IG, Tyranids) but otherwise hover around "ok" to "bad" with the occasional "strong" build centered on a crutch unit (e.g. CSM 4E with Lash or 6E Hellturkey spam).

Eldar never really have this problem. To top it off, every time they are consistently improved its often done in spite of units already being very good (e.g. Fire Dragons getting an AP0 buff or Wraithguard going from S10 AP2 to D) and often for no good reason aside from "well...they're Space Elves...they're supposed to just be better!", and as one can imagine, that rubs people the wrong way a lot, and I say that as someone who owns a fair amount of Eldar.

And, sorry, while people understand that that Wraithknight wasnt cheap and you may have spent lots of time on it, dont expect them to be thrilled to see the sub 300pt GC that has no reasonable answer from most armies for anything near an equivalent investment. I have 3 Baneblades, all lovingly painted as a company, and have had them since 4E. I'm not mad that people arent enthused about seeing them however, and theyre far less of an issue than a Wraithknight is one for one.

Ugh, yes the Wraithknight. The ironic thing is that a single Wraithknight will most likely be able to stomp all three of your Baneblades with ease, whilst costing less than a single one.

Other armies are not much better, with units such as Tau Riptides and Stormsurges appearing regularly, and the ability to take an entire army of nothing but Knights as a bound army - something which would have seen you laughed out of the stores a few years back.

Other armies can just spam huge amounts of power weapons and effects, such as Invisigravturions, Librarian Conclaves, Scatbikes, Decurion, free transports (Heavy Bolters are bad until they come free and Twin Linked on a free AV 11/11/10 chassis), Frag cannon's (The Deathwatch codex gives me nightmares), and the average baseline stat has gone from 3 to 4 and is now poking at 5 in some areas.

Where does that leave armies that do not have access to these amazingly cheap power units, combo's and deathstars? Where does that leave armies who are baseline 3 and have little access to anything better?
how can one consider a lasgun usable in this meta?

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
The Chaos God of Neckbeard Rage.

Birthed like that elevator scene in the Shining, only with nerd tears.

Martel732 wrote:": 40% Troops minimum*"
Grey hunters, then. Or Necron warrior. You are just ensuring that the codices with the best troops win.

Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. The balance isn't perfect, but nothing is either wildly overpowered, nor wildly underpowered against the game's other Troops choices. In our 40% Troops meta, IG, Chaos, and SoBs hold their own against Eldar and Dark Angels. The first three are widely considered underpowered, and the last two are widely considered top-tier. Our winningest player is our SoB player, and she plays Chaos when she's not playing SoBs. So, at the very least, our house rules are working for us. Find a group willing to give them a try before you dismiss them.

Troops are supposed to be a faction's most numerous units. This is from the description of Troops from the main rules. "These represent the most commonly available soldiers in an army. (snip). Typically, these are the warriors that make up the bulk of an army."

However, with our current rules, it's not hard for a player to spend little more than 100pts on his two compulsory Troops choices and spread the cheese with the rest of his points - that's assuming he's even fielding a CAD. There's a disconnect between how the fluff describes how armies should look and how they actually look, because GW hasn't ever imposed a Troops requirement with actual bite. Therefore, to get people to play thematically appropriate armies, they have to bribe players with powerful formation and detachment bonuses, creating another balance problem in the process.

Having to spend a sizable chunk of points on Troops also obliges players to actually do something besides sit on objectives with them. This makes them much more interesting when they hit the table, as their upgrades and what the player does with them matter. This gives them more personality than minimal-investment objective holders could ever have.

Gen.Steiner wrote:I don't necessarily think that banning allies is the right way forwards.

It's not likely to happen, but the Allies rules are one of the biggest sources of rules abuse currently in the game, if not THE biggest. They encourage players to take combos of units that have little-to-no reason to be in the same fighting force, and shove them together into one list. They also tend to look terrible together, as you're combining units that do not share aesthetic themes. No one needed having allies be officially sanctioned by GW to play thematic one-offs. Having officially sanctioned allies inflicts uber-combos on tournament games and pickup play. I'd argue the Allies rules have brought no value to the game overall - certainly not enough to justify the liability they create.

"Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. "

Did you play 5th? Well, Grey Hunters haven't changed at all, and they are super OP under your conditions. Because those were the approximate conditions of 5th ed. As are Necron warriors. Stop perpetuating a myth that troops are somehow balanced.

Hrm, I would argue that with the changes made to assaulting out of vehicles and the cost increases over their 5E codex have mostly mitigated GH issues, Nectons would be the big issues. Decurion Warriors sporting Terminator resiliency at a third the price with an otherwise identical statline losing out only on the Powerfist are absurd, and theyre amongst the least egregious examples in that book to boot

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, I would argue that with the changes made to assaulting out of vehicles and the cost increases over their 5E codex have mostly mitigated GH issues, Nectons would be the big issues. Decurion Warriors sporting Terminator resiliency at a third the price with an otherwise identical statline losing out only on the Powerfist are absurd, and theyre amongst the least egregious examples in that book to boot

Dropping GH in pods in the face of a 40% troop list will be catastrophic for the non GH list. Most troops don't have the firepower to handle them and GH are functionally immune to assault from other troops.

Mandatory troops requirements are bad. Requiring 40% of your army to be troops is essentially saying "we know these units are boring as hell and the only reason you're taking them is because we won't let you play the game otherwise, but you have to take them". Why would anyone think that it's a good idea to, in a game that is supposed to be fun, require everyone to waste half their army on things that aren't fun? If you want to see more troops on the table then make troops viable and interesting units that people want to take.

I personally find obj sec motivation enough to bring troops, but never 40%.

Martel732 wrote:
"Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. "

Did you play 5th? Well, Grey Hunters haven't changed at all, and they are super OP under your conditions. Because those were the approximate conditions of 5th ed. As are Necron warriors. Stop perpetuating a myth that troops are somehow balanced.

I didn't realise a price increase of 30 points for a squad was no change.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. "

Did you play 5th? Well, Grey Hunters haven't changed at all, and they are super OP under your conditions. Because those were the approximate conditions of 5th ed. As are Necron warriors. Stop perpetuating a myth that troops are somehow balanced.

I didn't realise a price increase of 30 points for a squad was no change.

They've still got double special, CC weapons, and counter attack. In the described environment, 30 points is a trivial increase.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. "

Did you play 5th? Well, Grey Hunters haven't changed at all, and they are super OP under your conditions. Because those were the approximate conditions of 5th ed. As are Necron warriors. Stop perpetuating a myth that troops are somehow balanced.

I didn't realise a price increase of 30 points for a squad was no change.

They've still got double special, CC weapons, and counter attack. In the described environment, 30 points is a trivial increase.

So if I added 30 points to all your squads you wouldn't care?

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Not so much. Take Scatbikes and SM BIke Squadrons out of the equation, and the various armies' Troops factions are decently balanced against each other. "

Did you play 5th? Well, Grey Hunters haven't changed at all, and they are super OP under your conditions. Because those were the approximate conditions of 5th ed. As are Necron warriors. Stop perpetuating a myth that troops are somehow balanced.

I didn't realise a price increase of 30 points for a squad was no change.

They've still got double special, CC weapons, and counter attack. In the described environment, 30 points is a trivial increase.

So if I added 30 points to all your squads you wouldn't care?

Not if they could do all that. It was broken in 5th, and would be broken again in a 40% troops game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Mandatory troops requirements are bad. Requiring 40% of your army to be troops is essentially saying "we know these units are boring as hell and the only reason you're taking them is because we won't let you play the game otherwise, but you have to take them". Why would anyone think that it's a good idea to, in a game that is supposed to be fun, require everyone to waste half their army on things that aren't fun? If you want to see more troops on the table then make troops viable and interesting units that people want to take.

Thing is, there's nothing you can do to make the Infantry Platoon interesting or worthwhile. Lasguns have always been a joke, and in the current environment, I wouldn't even bother rolling them at all most of the time. What can they bring to the table, really? BS3 plasma guns? a single lascannon per ten guys? 20-50 man blobs? Hardly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

MTG also is pretty much assumed right out the gate to be competitive. WoTC actively manages the meta, it's a fundamental part of their offering and a constantly changing experience is inherent in their value proposition, whereas with 40k it largely just moves from once balance mistake to another, it's not really intended or managed, at least not in the way it is for MTG.

40k is not intended or managed for competitive play like MTG is, or Warmachine, for that matter. And GW has not been hiding that fact at all. They have clearly stated their disinterest in tournaments (hence their stopping their own successful Grand Tournaments years ago), and they have made their opinion on "balance" (which means different things to different people) known by the way they release models, rules, formations, etc. They are also pretty clearly not interested in dictating how to actually play the game. They leave that all up to the players and the TOs of tournaments.

Right, but the problem is that since the game has no comment on the way its meant to be played, it ends up doing nothing well and turns into a gigantic mess without people essentially re-writing the rules and imposing restricting on themselves to varying extents, which is an issue for many players

Now, in my opinion, 40k is a better game played in a group of like minded individuals who agree on what types of games they'll play, how "competitive" they are, etc. That's the kind of group I play in, and I have no problem agreeing with my opponents about the type of experience I want in the game. I don't play in LGS, or in tournaments, but I can see how it can be harder to just show up at a pick up game, and get a satisfying game, what with all the negotiation that likely needs to go on.

Right, and that's the big issue. For people without well managed playgroups where people play with lots of self restrictions, the game is unmanageable and quickly turns into a repeated series of obviously one-sided encounters.

Thing is, the game DOES comment how it's meant to be played, just the rules don't reflect that because they're too open. GW has stated many many times over the years that there is a thing to them as the "spirit of the game" which is such a nebulous term that it literally changes meaning depending on when and where you ask it, but it used to be clear that it meant building a "fluffy" army that didn't take too much "goodies" and certainly never building an army around them without letting your opponent know and sometimes getting the okay to do so. I have read tons of articles by GW's designers over the years where they say that, and even show in their battle reports (almost always the armies are a mix of units, rarely if ever specializing, except in a few cases I can think of where it was "Let's do something different and take all X instead") how they feel the game should be played. Their armies are never over the top, there's always a solid core of troops and usually not that many extras (go look at Crusade of Fire for a good example of it).

Problem comes because that's how THEY may play, but the game touts itself as being able to cater to all playstyles, except it can't.

I can't speak for the current game (heck, I can't speak for anything beyond 2nd/3rd) but Wayne is correct. GW used to be quite vocal about the spirit of the game etc. All of that becomes useless when you begin tournaments of course (even then the organizers of GW tournaments made very arbitrary restrictions with a concerted effort to minimize beardy behavior).

You'll always have a gap between the players who want to have a close fought fun game, and those who want to curb stomp friends and strangers. There is nothing to fill that gap with - and a rule set to appeal to both is impossible.

I'm sorry to tell you this but spirit of the game is a nebulous, worthless phrase. I have an entire article written about it by none other than jervis johnson. The guy who tried to pretend matched play and pickup games represented a tiny minority and not the way both warhammer and 40k have been played for decades. Spirit of the game didn't save aos, point costs did.