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.

Did Dman137 upset you?

The best advice is to not plah wh40k at all.

 Filch wrote:
Did Dman137 upset you?

The best advice is to not plah wh40k at all.

Nailed it.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Did Dman137 upset you?
The best advice is to not plah wh40k at all.

Nailed it.

Oh you guys...
It is still fine for various fluff wars just utterly useless for pick-up games unless you are both of the same mindset to play the hardest list you got or the opposite: as fluffy a list as possible.
Though the game does appear to be watching a random number generator play itself out.

 Talizvar wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Did Dman137 upset you?
The best advice is to not plah wh40k at all.

Nailed it.

Oh you guys...
It is still fine for various fluff wars just utterly useless for pick-up games unless you are both of the same mindset to play the hardest list you got or the opposite: as fluffy a list as possible.
Though the game does appear to be watching a random number generator play itself out.

Or have some basic league rules at your FLGS or use ITC ruleset. Game actually balances quite well then. With half the effort put into reasonable ground rules that many Dakkaites put into whining (not meant towards you Talizvar) the game is very playable and fairly competitive for any codex. Here's the BAO top 20 armies from this summer... that's a pretty solid spread. Clearly all codices are good with a little bit of mature conversation into the pregame.

Daemons
Chaos Space Marines
Eldar
Skitarii
Cult mechanicus
Space Marines
Tau
Chaos Space Marines
Orks
Imperial Knights
Imperial Guard
Tyranids
Space Marines
Space Wolves
Necrons
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marines
Imperial Knights
Tau

 Lobukia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Did Dman137 upset you?
The best advice is to not plah wh40k at all.

Nailed it.

Oh you guys...
It is still fine for various fluff wars just utterly useless for pick-up games unless you are both of the same mindset to play the hardest list you got or the opposite: as fluffy a list as possible.
Though the game does appear to be watching a random number generator play itself out.

Or have some basic league rules at your FLGS or use ITC ruleset. Game actually balances quite well then. With half the effort put into reasonable ground rules that many Dakkaites put into whining (not meant towards you Talizvar) the game is very playable and fairly competitive for any codex. Here's the BAO top 20 armies from this summer... that's a pretty solid spread. Clearly all codices are good with a little bit of mature conversation into the pregame.

Daemons
Chaos Space Marines
Eldar
Skitarii
Cult mechanicus
Space Marines
Tau
Chaos Space Marines
Orks
Imperial Knights
Imperial Guard
Tyranids
Space Marines
Space Wolves
Necrons
Chaos Space Marines
Space Marines
Imperial Knights
Tau

Some people are still stuck in the past when the meta was hilariously obvious like when coteaz was mass cloned or grey Knights were constantly facing mirror matches in the top tables.
The current ITC meta is actually pretty diverse, with at least 6 undebatable tier 1 lists from all different codices, with a slew of tier 2's that are NOT auto-losses against the former. Underdogs would be closer. Compare that to magic where a typical meta ends up with 2-3 tier 1 decks and a couple tier 2's that are designed to assassinate one of the tier 1's specifically.

Or it could be that not all local metas use the ITC house rules.
The ITC is more balanced, it'd be hard to be less balanced, but many players still don't use house rules at their local clubs or tournaments.
Without these house rules, the game falls apart to a few factions/formations. 40k at the high end, without soft scores or house rules, has always been that way.


It seems the way they are going. I've heard of a large tournament for fantasy that required 22 pages of house rules. 40k could move in that direction if we get a similar rule set.

 Caveman wrote:

Now I find myself so disgusted in 40k again I don't even want to finish off my 750 point list. It's sad that GW has let it get this bad. Each army should have a variety of units that make them unique and have varying strengths and weaknesses. That's why i've turned in favor of warmachine. Yes warmachine has armies that are considered more powerful than some of the others, but the gap is so much smaller. Even the so called weaker factions can put up a respectable fight.

Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

If you don't like what happens in tournies then it is a simple solution to not play in them. They are a poor measure for the game as well, because they bring out the worst in people to build the most OP lists they can. I love Flames of War and Bolt Action because they are both far superior games over 40k by most every measure, but I still love the background and story behind 40k and I still want to see my chaos forces arrayed on the table regularly.

First step, collect, build and paint your small army. If you don't want to directly line GW's pockets for it, acquire prebuilt stuff from people on ebay instead. GW already has that money and it didn't come from you. Then once you've enjoyed your hobby project, find some likeminded players and play smaller, lower powered games. Those people are out there. I only play 40k with a select group of friends who all have the same approach to the game and do not want to power game everything. There are know knights in our group. I have the only wraith knight, but my ghost warriors army is still used with the previous eldar book because the new book is just stupid. In our group everyone has a chance to win, and no one army dominates everyone else every time because we just won't play that way since the game is supposed to be fun for everyone playing and not just the guy with the OP army.

Stay out of tournies and you'll be fine. Yeah the game requires a serious management of power level to be fun anymore and that never happens at the tournament level.

 Skriker wrote:


Stay out of tournies and you'll be fine. Yeah the game requires a serious management of power level to be fun anymore and that never happens at the tournament level.

Might want to read the past 3 posts. I'd say much the opposite is true

 Lobukia wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Stay out of tournies and you'll be fine. Yeah the game requires a serious management of power level to be fun anymore and that never happens at the tournament level.

Might want to read the past 3 posts. I'd say much the opposite is true

My observation as well.
40k has the bones of a system that works to a point.
Unfortunately, balanced games really only happen when "tourney/house" rules are applied.

Whining is what happens when you assemble and paint a huge army and it has the poor grace of not being the favored codex of the month.
This can be heartbreaking for the new to couple year GW player.
People like myself who played it for decades and has 3+ armies, it is not quite as painful.
It is a shame that for everyone to have a fair shot at a winning game with any army, it takes someone other than GW to make it work.

Okay, there I go griping (whining?) again.

 koooaei wrote:
Can't remember when 40k was balanced to begin with. And i'm playing since the start of 5-th which is so revered now...man, those parking lots and killpoint missions were awful great, right?

Yeah it amuses me no end the nostalgia that fifth generates, that it was somehow this perfect gsme. and how everyone looks at it with those rose tinted glasses. Fifth was crap, and utterly broken. Thing is, most 40k players stick it out for 2 editions - for the people remembering fifth so fondly, it was probsbly their first edition/wargame and so, with no experience of what else is there, they end up with a skewed perception along with the 'nostalgia' effect. I guarantee you if most folks who remember fifth so fondly went back and played it, they'd shake their heads and walk away.

I played since third. Christ, I'm old. And while fourth was my first proper edition, I remember thinking back fondly on it, and then I remembered elder and iron warriors, abuse of skimmers moving fast, six man las/plas and ass.cannon spam and the illusion was shattered. I think back to third, and I remember screening, blood Angels and Their 'on a 1 I go faster' rule, (almost) unlimited death co., and how thr game devolved into rhino rush and I realised 40k has never been that great mechanically.

Amusingly, I see the same thing in the aos discussions. Apparently eight ed warhammer was this brilliant wargame that gw scuppered...

Now, on the point about warmachine - I'll agree with the op in that it's a brilliant, extremely well crafted and extremely well balanced game. But it's not 'balanced out of the box'. Things can go wrong. There are bad match ups and while everything can be built into a game winning army, there are such things as 'poorly thought out lists'. It's things like 2 or 3 list formats, active duty rosters, character restrictions, the excellent steamroller packs and other well thought internal and external structural components that balance the game so well.

And I often wonder if things like sideboards and multi list formats along with some restrictions would help 40k as well?

On 40k- it's fine, if you approach it the right way. Chat to your opponent, organise ahead of time. Ignore the points system (since it's so poorly constructed, why are we using it as a 'proper' measurement of balance in the first place?) and put things together thst should be about right. Feel free to chuck in reinforcements if one side is getting hammered (ie your eyeballed balance is wrong). Think less about two 'wild' armies meeting thst just happen to be the most elite elements of their codex and fighting it out and think more about a prepared, cleverly crafted scenario with opposing forces appropriate for that scenario and each other and in keeping with the narrative of the universe or thst battle. Think along the lines of 'let's have a game of skirmish forces only' or other fun home brews like two boarding parties fighting it out over a docking bay on a space ship in orbit as its being blasted apart in space. Fires, collapsing bulkheads, hull breaches and other mayhem abound. Think less about winning and more about 'setting the stage' followed by 'spectating'. Like watching a movie or football game - you can root for one side or the other but ultimately, who wins is out of your hands. Think less about 'optimum plans' and think more about playing in character and staying true to the universe and it's lore. berserkers uncharacteristic ally hiding behind terrain guarding the objective? Heck no - those loonies should be screaming across the battlefield, damn how many guns are pointing at them, looking to grab some skulls. The space marine captain should stride across the battlefield seeking honourable one on one combat with his opponent. And the bystanders should let it take place. Rather than twin las cannons to the face.

40k requires imagination, and a co-operative 'world building' mindset from both players with both equally contributing to be good. In other words, plsy with like minded opponents and let your imagination run riot.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:
You can't judge 40k by what some people take in a top tournament list. Hyper competitive environments always skew the view, regardless of the game. People min max and break things.

Not being a competitive person myself, I actually manned up and went to a locally help tournament for X-wing. In that game you can't min/max. The competitive scene was just fine tuned lists of "casual" ships.

Says a lot about the game, if you ask me.

It's also smaller scale though. Im not as familliar with x-wing other than a few demo games i saw. There were a lot less modes and variety in those games. Im a huge star wars nerd, but I could tell that game wasnt for me.

Even though warmahordes is smaller scale than 40k, it can very much be min maxed. It isn't a problem unique to 40k was the point I was trying to make.

The rules for 40k have a lot of room for improvement. But it is much more of an up hill battle due to the variety of armies and units available to them.

The point I was making in my first post was that your local players should matter more than what people are running at large tournaments, unless you plan on going to said tournaments, and really want to make it to a top table.

Which is understandable, I was just stating that it is possible for a game to not min/max (X-wing has a ton of different ships, and 3 different factions). I do see where you're coming from though, the local meta should be what you look at first.

However, unless some house ruling is put into effect, even a casual game with a friend can easily be a one-sided slaughter depending on the armies. That is still not fun for anyone.

I played a game of X-WIng the other day against a guy who just uses Tie Fighters. They may be weak, but when you max out your point total with one cheap ship, it gets pretty hard to contend with. Not to mention the amount of space on the mat they can occupy. It was a fun game altogether though.

If you wanted to get into community football, would you look up Tony Romo's stats, and then decide not to play because you can't compete with that? Most people aren't going to be playing against Tony Romo, they're going to play against Tom the Refridgerator Salesman with his trick knee and his ulcer.

Warhammer 40k truth of the day. Stop looking at competitive list. Are you going to Last Vegas to compete for some title, or are you going to play with friends/randoms at a regular shop? I've been playing regularly for a couple years now, and never faced a net-list (tournament winning list let's say) ever. Ya, some people will often take some good core from net list to try something really powerful, and some people might try to win at all cost, but at the end of the day, I would say that those people, in your day-to-day encounter at a local shop are very minimal.

I plan to participate in a tournament next month (my first ever) and I believe (call me naive, but we will see) that I will only encounter 3-4 guy with super try hard list, on 20 participant.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Skriker wrote:


Stay out of tournies and you'll be fine. Yeah the game requires a serious management of power level to be fun anymore and that never happens at the tournament level.

Might want to read the past 3 posts. I'd say much the opposite is true

And in those examples it might be true, but in my experience I've not played in a single tourney where they house-ruled anything to try to balance any of the books in any way. So experiences definitely differ. So I'll modify my statement to "doesn't always happen at the tournment level" Been playing since Rogue Trader and 40k has always been about making sure to find people who have the same approach you have to the game so that everyone has fun.

... which is a problem when you play random people in a local shop, not much of a problem when you play the same circle of friends.

Which is a problem with the design of the game. How you play in Town A is not always going to be how they play in Town B (just browse YMDC to get an idea), so moving or even just playing somewhere new for a change is going to be akin to playing an entirely new game in some instances, because the game is so poorly balanced and so vaguely/badly written in parts.

 Psienesis wrote:
... which is a problem when you play random people in a local shop, not much of a problem when you play the same circle of friends.

Which is a problem with the design of the game. How you play in Town A is not always going to be how they play in Town B (just browse YMDC to get an idea), so moving or even just playing somewhere new for a change is going to be akin to playing an entirely new game in some instances, because the game is so poorly balanced and so vaguely/badly written in parts.

As someone who moves around quite a lot, 40k became unworkable.

While I do agree that GW can put in more work when it comes to play testing and balancing the game, before putting stuff out there, I do understand it's a massive game and it'll always be hard to balance everything properly. Maybe if they collected more data and made erratas for points/numbers as things progressed it would be better, but then again I guess the tournaments lay those rules out for you often enough.

That being said I don't know if it's just that I'm still a little new to the game after my long break or what, but I don't see as much experimentation being done with lists and tactics. I'm guessing this is partially because of how long the games take and how difficult it is to just one day go "well, I'm going to try out this list with these fifty models I don't own."

So yea, I guess that's one major aspect of it, unlike games like Magic the Gathering where there's still a barrier to entry, 40k has a much higher barrier of entry to trying out extreme things and different lists than MtG. Though unlike MtG I don't know how much of 40k is discovered, because it seems like far fewer games are played and it's much harder to test things. That's not to even mention that one of the most oppressive decks in MtG's history, the first one to cause bans in Standard tournaments for the first time in ten years or so, was considered a "goofy pet deck" and wasn't discovered for an incredibly long time.

Heck, go back in time and watch some codex reviews from a year back, and try to correlate how many things were actually correct in that review, knowing what we do now. This isn't just a 40k thing either, I remember Hearthstone professional players saying Dr. Boom would be unplayable when he turned out to be so strong he was dubbed "Dr. Balance" and most people thought he would be nerfed, while the card they thought would be busted at the same mana cost ended up being unplayable. The good doctor never did get his nerf and he's sort of a powerful but okish card now, though the new overly powerful cards are referred to as "Dr. ___" as in Mysterious Challenger is called "Dr. Six".

 Caveman wrote:
Anyway, I'm not happy. I want to like 40k. I want to collect, build, paint, and all that fun stuff, but I've hit a new low in my enjoyment of the game.

If you want to get that Eldar army, do it. If you don't like it, don't do it. This really isn't something to agonize over. Life is too short.

That said, if the only reason you're getting Eldar is because you want to make it into some sort of tournament-winning list, well, good luck with that. The meta will have turned by the time you finish it and are good enough to win a touranment with it.

If you want to play 40k, play only eldar, all other armies get nerfed from one edition to the next. Have a guardian+ranger troops, and keep your aspects and transports to 1-0, no wraiths, scatbikes, seer councils or fire dragon for friendly games.

Keep another set filled with scatbikes, wraiths, seer council, fire dragons and other crap for competitive games.

All other armies are worthless. Also, certain clubs blanket-ban eldar, like the 2 around me, so check first before you buy.

If that doesn't suit you, then play warmahordes, infinity, etc. Don't delude yourself that 40k is a game that relies on skill. 90% of the time, your win or loss has been decided based on your army list, rather than your skill. "Play" 40k to admire the pretty models in various stage of combat. Play anything else for a game. This is what I do these days. Shame that 40k has one of the best ranges out there. I paint 40k and play warmahordes these days.

Or you can wait for them to give 40k the AoS treatment

I have to chime in on wondering why so many people recall 5th edition wonderfully. I enjoyed the simple missions and deployment rules, but the cover rules just killed the fun for me. That was the age of "Everything get's a 4+ cover save, EVERYTHING." Which meant functionally that weak infantry like IG had a free boost from playing on certain terrain, which everyone wanted on the boards.

Imbalance has always been an issue with 40k, its rules and the codices. In fact, it's GW's business model, and anyone who has stuck it out as long as me has accepted this and just deals with it. The power fluxes in and out, for years my old 3rd edition Eldar codex was crummy, but I played it anyways because I thought the Eldar are awesome. Slowly they got better over the years and now people hate them and want to ban them.

I think the key is to not play to win, but to have fun. Build armies with a variety of models you like, and plan your armies with your friends and your gaming group. Build out creative scenarios, make it epic and cinematic. As others have stated 40k is best when people playing it just want something fun and cool to happen, rather than people trying to WAAC.

The best games I've ever played were where both players wanted to forge a narrative, and as silly as it sounds in the 40K rulebook, that is something the designers understand. The rules in themselves are just a backdrop to allowing 2 players to enjoy the awesome setting of 40k, and take part in the world by fighting epic battles with Space Marines and other factions. Let the epic flow and revel in the bad luck of your units as they perish at the hands of their foes, just as your opponents units perish at yours.

I think that is because even though 5th had a lot of issues it felt like the last edition in which GW and us players where on the same page.

It was far from perfect but it felt like it was TRYING to be a tight, well written, game that can be played competitively if one chose to.

6th and 7th felt more like Jervis decided that everyone should be playing his way and has dragged the game in the direction he determined is the 'right' direction.

 evildrspock wrote:
I have to chime in on wondering why so many people recall 5th edition wonderfully. I enjoyed the simple missions and deployment rules, but the cover rules just killed the fun for me. That was the age of "Everything get's a 4+ cover save, EVERYTHING." Which meant functionally that weak infantry like IG had a free boost from playing on certain terrain, which everyone wanted on the boards.

Sure, one could argue that too much cover was 4+ in 5E and probably have a good point, but lets be real here, IG infantry weren't particularly good even in IG's 5E heyday

The best games I've ever played were where both players wanted to forge a narrative, and as silly as it sounds in the 40K rulebook, that is something the designers understand. The rules in themselves are just a backdrop to allowing 2 players to enjoy the awesome setting of 40k, and take part in the world by fighting epic battles with Space Marines and other factions. Let the epic flow and revel in the bad luck of your units as they perish at the hands of their foes, just as your opponents units perish at yours.

There are multiple problems with the game however. Beyond the issues of scale and massive functionality problems, fundamentally it's still built around a competitive, or at least pickup-game, style of play. The big issue there is that the core of the game is based off of that premise, but then the rest of the game tries to pretend otherwise, and it ends up an absurd mess that can't decide what it wants to be.

I know, the rules definitely keep you in the mindset of how to best defeat your opponent. The missions and codexes make it harder to keep that narrative driven play through all the combat-focused rules. It really is up to players to go above and beyond to make the game truly enjoyable.

My gripe with 5th ed cover rules is really more due to the fact that I think all models should benefit from cover equally, but that is off topic here, more a topic for proposed rules.

 koooaei wrote:
Can't remember when 40k was balanced to begin with. And i'm playing since the start of 5-th which is so revered now...man, those parking lots and killpoint missions were awful great, right?

I'm playing since 3rd Ed, and it allready was unbalanced, but at least the Studio made an effort to make erratas and faQs to correct those, even if somethings still where unbalanced.

But then again the codexes style and writting where different, it was the 90's, where everything was cool.

Write some narrative campaigns with fixed points values/force restrictions.
If they turn out unbalanced, rule on the fly.
Write up each battle with a report.

Much more fun for some. Me, I like to do both (I play serious lists with my housemate, and narrative campaign with a new player).

 evildrspock wrote:
I know, the rules definitely keep you in the mindset of how to best defeat your opponent. The missions and codexes make it harder to keep that narrative driven play through all the combat-focused rules. It really is up to players to go above and beyond to make the game truly enjoyable.

My gripe with 5th ed cover rules is really more due to the fact that I think all models should benefit from cover equally, but that is off topic here, more a topic for proposed rules.

Back in the day, cover used to a be a to hit modifier. I think it was -1 for soft cover and -2 for hard cover. You got a +1 for short range, -1 for overwatch...I would have liked that, and the AP system from those days, in 5th with better tank rules. Would have been a really solid game.
I also wish they incorporated narrative elements. I really liked the necromunda, gorka morka, and similar games. A 40k one that worked would have been excellent (necromunda you mainly play humans or mutants).

 evildrspock wrote:


Imbalance has always been an issue with 40k, its rules and the codices. In fact, it's GW's business model, and anyone who has stuck it out as long as me has accepted this and just deals with it. The power fluxes in and out, for years my old 3rd edition Eldar codex was crummy, but I played it anyways because I thought the Eldar are awesome. Slowly they got better over the years and now people hate them and want to ban them.

I wouldn't say it's their business model, or that it's intentional, but rather it's the nature of the beast they're dealing with. Almost all games that continuously release content have this issue, but most other games can create formats that section off some of the older content, such that it's not impeding the new content. Warhammer on the other hand can't really do this without making a lot of people angry, or having really awful release dates, as they have to just allow people to play with outdated codices that no longer full function under new addition rules or are harmed by them, because if they would try to account for them while making new stuff it would create massive bloat and confusion within the rules. Likewise, not allowing people to use outdated codices in play wouldn't really work as people would get really upset, and heck they're still hearing about the Squats to this day, a faction long gone when I started playing in 3rd or so and it's been more than ten years now.

In a perfect world, each new edition would come out with new codices for each faction that were made to function properly and would have an equal power level, regardless if it was boosted horizontally, vertically, or whatever.