Whilst digging through my old White Dwarf's in preparation for my summer of 2nd Ed I came across this article in WD#200 which, while old, I feel is still pretty relevant to a lot of discussions on list building and said 'abuse' of powerful units which most lists continue to provide. Personally I agree with the sentiments expressed within it, but what does Dakka think? As an aside to the article I put in a quick poll to ask why most people choose to play 40k...
Spoiler:
To put it another way do you think there's such a thing as the right 'spirit' to play 40k in?
I do agree with Kronk. There are a lot of ways to play this game. I personally like a fluff-driven, semi competitive game. Others want a more hard core, no holds barred game. Both are valid ways of playing.
I do agree with Kronk. There are a lot of ways to play this game. I personally like a fluff-driven, semi competitive game. Others want a more hard core, no holds barred game. Both are valid ways of playing.
Pretty much this.
I need the fluff, but I also need the game. If one element doesn't work then its a 'no-go' for me.
I agree it's all about reaching an accord with fellow players and most of all having fun with it, whatever edition and however you wish to play. I think that those with a more competitive mindset sometimes miss the point is all, which is what this article expresses pretty well IMHO.
1, 2 and 5. First I was hooked up by the scenario (played FFGRPGs and, even earlier, played DoW); the game came second, with the launch of 6th. Never paid any attention to the game, but a fresh edition looked like the best time to enter the game. Third, the miniatures looked (and still look) quite cool (much better than the D&D ones I was used to)
Not only that, but the people who think that a fluffy list somehow going to be perfectly balanced to play against another fluffy list.
Eldar serpent spam is about as fluffy as you can get. So is tank heavy IG, and that's no slouch on the table either.
Then again, playing a 10th company marine force is fluffy and astoundingly awful on the table top.
The thing is, that whether you're playing a serpent spam list or a 10th company scout list, you're never playing the game wrong, or playing it outside the spirit of the game.
I hate the way people try and divide players into neat little boxes labelled with 'competitive' and 'casual'. What do they even mean anymore? I enjoy playing silly lists, campaigns, and rock hard lists, sometimes more fluffy, sometimes less fluffy. I enjoy tournaments because I like good games, and the ability to play against a number of opponents with painted armies on good looking tables. Am I competitive or casual?
Is it defined by my army list? If its strong is it automatically not casual, regardless of its fluff factor?
And who defines the spirit of the game?
There is no right or wrong, or better or worse. There are just players, who like models/concepts/themes/fluff/builds and play the game in a way they clearly enjoy playing. No one is missing the point, and to imply as such is not a little insulting. If the game permits completely unfluffy combinations or ridiculously broken combinations, it isn't the players to blame for using them; its the game and consequently the game designers.
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.
Blacksails wrote: Not only that, but the people who think that a fluffy list somehow going to be perfectly balanced to play against another fluffy list.
Eldar serpent spam is about as fluffy as you can get. So is tank heavy IG, and that's no slouch on the table either.
Then again, playing a 10th company marine force is fluffy and astoundingly awful on the table top.
The thing is, that whether you're playing a serpent spam list or a 10th company scout list, you're never playing the game wrong, or playing it outside the spirit of the game.
I hate the way people try and divide players into neat little boxes labelled with 'competitive' and 'casual'. What do they even mean anymore? I enjoy playing silly lists, campaigns, and rock hard lists, sometimes more fluffy, sometimes less fluffy. I enjoy tournaments because I like good games, and the ability to play against a number of opponents with painted armies on good looking tables. Am I competitive or casual?
Is it defined by my army list? If its strong is it automatically not casual, regardless of its fluff factor?
And who defines the spirit of the game?
There is no right or wrong, or better or worse. There are just players, who like models/concepts/themes/fluff/builds and play the game in a way they clearly enjoy playing. No one is missing the point, and to imply as such is not a little insulting. If the game permits completely unfluffy combinations or ridiculously broken combinations, it isn't the players to blame for using them; its the game and consequently the game designers.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.
As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.
When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.
The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.
When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.
The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.
So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.
When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.
The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.
So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?
Who's definition of WAAC do we use? Yours might differ. But Nuggz was talking about the far more common gray areas that still lead to gross imbalances of army strength.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
Requiring everything to be entirely predictable, all variables accounted for, nothing random, all-comers, and wielding the most beat-stick super abusing list does NOT make you competitive - it's the opposite, you need significant help to get your wins.
When we enter this amorphous grey area of list building, where people are expected to purposely build weak lists, it becomes impossible to determine the acceptable level of list strength. Anybody who wins a game will be accused of having made a stronger list than his opponent, rather than winning by player skill.
The constraints on the system should be point values and army lists, not arbitrary notions of acceptable list strength. These are the things that SHOULD allow for a reasonably balanced game. The responsibility should not be on the players to fix grossly unbalanced rules sets.
So basically what you are saying is - when you build a, excuse the term, "WAAC" list - you are doing so entirely by accident or in ignorance of how it will affect the game and your opponent's enjoyment? OR you are saying that because the laws of men (and 40K) allow you to be a jerk - that you are entitled to be one?
Wow...thanks for the ad hominem attack. Anyway...
No, what I'm saying is that you've offered no concrete definition of what types of units are acceptable or unacceptable. In this situation, it's inevitable that if your opponent wins, you will consider his list unacceptable. From the other point of view, how is an opponent supposed to know what you're OK with, and what you're going to cry about?
Army lists are concrete. Points limits are concrete. You're calling me a jerk for using units in my codex? Got news for you buddy - that's a very whiny TFG attitude right there.
Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.
My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.
And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.
Gunzhard wrote: Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.
My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.
And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.
Define a WAAC list, please so we can all be on the same page.
Oh boy, "WAAC list" is suddenly some obscure concept that you've never heard of?
Some examples over the years; the 3rd edition Blood Angels Rhino Rush list... the 5th edition LeafBlower, or GK spam... the 6th edition Tau-Dar list... Riptide spam, Wave Serpent spam etc etc...
What if that WAAC list also happens to be a list filled with models the person likes that fits a theme they enjoy that is also perfectly fluffy? You're going to assume that person is a jerk and WAAC douche canoe? Because of a list?
No, that's the kind of attitude this game doesn't need. People trying to establish what is a more correct way to build a list is far worse than the occasional gimmicky broken list.
Blaming the players for poor balance is being completely dishonest. There's no right or wrong way to build a list, or even a better or worse way, as you seem to be implying.
Amazingly enough, if the game was more balanced, we wouldn't have use these arbitrary notions of WAAC lists.
Gunzhard wrote: Well first, I am certainly not calling you a jerk - my apologies if that was implied.
My point is - just because you (a random person) CAN be a jerk, doesn't mean you are entitled to (or should) be one.
And my second point is - regarding "whos definition of acceptable or unacceptable" ...I don't think anyone here builds a "WAAC" list without knowing it's a WAAC list.
No worries.
I guess my question is - from where do we get a real definition of WAAC that standardizes across all players, in all situations?
At one extreme, you could argue that WAAC is more about the player's attitude than the list. At the other extreme, you could argue that using any competitive units is WAAC. How many Riptides is a Tau player allowed to run before it becomes WAAC? How many Heldrakes can a Chaos player use? How many Wave Serpents or Wraith Knights should an Eldar player be allowed to have?
Unless we can agree on some kind of concrete value set moving forward, it seems like we're setting ourselves up for a situation in which player A wins, and player B assumes that player A only won because he didn't follow the unwritten rules of "don't be a douchebag while writing your army list"
Gunzhard wrote: Oh boy, "WAAC list" is suddenly some obscure concept that you've never heard of?
Some examples over the years; the 3rd edition Blood Angels Rhino Rush list... the 5th edition LeafBlower, or GK spam... the 6th edition Tau-Dar list... Riptide spam, Wave Serpent spam etc etc...
Those are examples, not a definition.
What consitutes Riptide spam? Is two OP? Three?
Why wouldn't Eldar use Wave Serpents? That's they're primary transport? How much is spam?
Define WAAC list so we can understand where you're coming from.
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).
Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.
From an Eldar pov, the WAAC (btw, I don't like the term WAAC, but I think people at least know that it has a negative connotation towards a player and that is what we're addressing) list does not have to be Wave Serpent spam, in fact, an army full of DAs and Wave serpents would be great for Biel Tan. It's when you start adding the jetseer council with it (should be reserved for Saimm Hann style lists only...like a dataslate), small jet bike sqds to grab objectives (that's a rules flaw though, objectives should never be allowed to be claimed when a unit ran/flat out/turbo boosted). Stick with the fluff and grab an Autarch as an HQ or maybe an Avatar. The WAAC list is when someone picks only the units he knows has a massive force multiplier for it's point cost and has no thought about a "theme" to his list at all. The thing is, if going to a tourny or if your gaming group is that kind of group, jump in and join the fun. It's not wrong to play that way, but not everyone agrees and it's about finding a like-minded group to play in a way that gels with your mindset.
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).
Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.
The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).
Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.
The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).
So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.
Unless we have a set of written restrictions (i.e., concrete definitions of what is allowed or is not allowed - also known as RULES - the things that GW is supposedly selling you in those insanely expensive books...), there's no way to fairly constrain armies.
I should add that I own 8 5th edition codices and the rulebook. I bought the rules for every edition of 40k from Rogue Trader up to 5th edition. I flat out refused to buy 6th edition and 7th edition rule sets because they are fething garbage, and I refuse to spend my money on fething garbage. Especially when it's overpriced garbage.
When they stop charging $100 for poorly written rules, I will resume buying GW rule sets. Until they start writing good rules, feth them. I'd rather give my money to other miniatures companies, watch companies, and gun companies who actually put a bit of thought into their product. Lately, GW rules have had a very "intern-written" characteristic and their digital products are complete garbage. I've seen undergraduate students submit better assignments for introductory soft science courses.
I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.
3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?
Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.
Was that so hard?
I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?
Kilkrazy wrote: I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.
3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?
Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.
Was that so hard?
I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?
That would make it hard to sell every Tau player 3+ Riptides.
Obviously, but I don't care about GW, I care about the players.
Plus, recycle argument about how GW put out a load of gakky models that do nothing and sell low volumes (Vespids, Space Pope and Sniper Drones for example.)
Co'tor Shas wrote: In my view, WAAC is just that, a list solely designed to win at all costs. It's not a bad thing either, completion is quite prevalent.
That sounds more like a mentality thing. My all biker waver serpent army might be my favorite fluffy list ever. Is it WAAC?
Since concensus on this isn't going to be close to universal, that's why a balanced game would benefit everyone.
It is a mentality thing. I have a tau rapid defense force cadre I made with FE that is only XV8s and XV9s, and it's quite strong, however strength was not why it was built. It was built around fluff (rapidly deploying suits to react to sudden attack).
Which is why I'm asking for a definition of WAAC army list so we can all be on the same page. Otherwise we just get a big confused mess, which is what 7th edition is.
The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).
So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.
You shouldn't, GW should make rules better. I'm weird. I have this thing, where it's the mentality behind it. I'm fine with what some people define as WAAC. It's hard to difine WAAC for me, bad sportsmanship would probebly be a good answer. If you delight in other people not havinhg fun while playing you, thatn that's WAAC to me. Otherwise no, it's just playing the game. Most of this you can just put down to me writing the first thing that pops into my mind .
My group went the competitive route which was fun until the battle started. Then we realized its just expensive time wasting.
So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.
To me and some of the players im with, this is whats important. One Eldar player refuses to change his tactics for the better because Elves (like him funnily enough) are stubborn. Adds a twist to the game which we find fun. He also always uses his allies as a meat shield. After all its what eldar do. Even if his allies are human players.
To us both sides should play out like opposing characters in a film. Both want to win, a plot is involved and there are personality traits in play. It usually works out.
There are still flaws of course, but they are very mitigated and can easily be fixed within (sorry for this) the forging of the narrative by simply getting into the fun of it. Playing it out like some movie. Not everyone's cup of tea, but the same can be said about everything.
We still find some fluffy lists awful, (the old penal horde for example) but we have found there are hundreds of ways to play the game and have yet to meet someone who will and only will play one type of list. (except the Eldar player sometimes).
It takes imagination and understanding to create a cool game when using 40k. Which many dont want to do. Luckily we live in a time where the wargaming options are huge and still growing. So there is no need to put up with it if you dont want to. As usual its also dependent on the gamers around you.
It shouldn't require that much work on the part of the players to make fun and fluffy, and fun and balanced, lists.
While taking Units A, B and C out of Codex: Blue Army Guys and putting them up against Units D, E and F out of Codex: Red Army Guys, might not work out very well in one direction or the other, because of variations in the troop types (maybe A, B and C are variants of Tanks, and D, E and F are all support medics, who knows?) there needs to be both internal and external balance to Codices that permits just about any list to have at least a decent chance at beating any other list.
Sure, certain specific lists might be more challenging than others, but as the game is currently written, there are lists from certain Codices that are basically incapable of winning a game against any other Codex... sometimes even its own.
The way people seem to define them is a really strong army that come to the detriment of peoples enjoyment of the game. For example, I don't mind losing, a hard-fought battle that ends in me losing is fine, even if I'm severely outclassed. I do mind having not chance and just being obliterated. If the build is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, than it's WAAC to me (the cost being people's enjoyment).
What if my list is bad in general , but hard counter to your list. Like nids were demons at some point.
Or what if the weapons that I use in my squads are normal against all list , but super effective against the list you run . My AM runs a lot of plasma and meltaguns , a terminator only army would have huge problems with me.
Am I waac , if my AM list runs an aegis or if I put my chimeras on a landing pad ?
So, why should the other player weaken his list instead of you making yours better? Wait, some armies have distinct advantages over others. A Tau army is much stronger than a BA army and it's not much fun to play. Is that either players' fault? Nope. It's the rules and GW's codexes.
Probably because it is better to make other people pay their cash for having fun , then investing your own money in to it. Let the eldar player buy 5000 points of models and try to build a list which will make you happy , while you buy 1500 points and spend cash on other stuff . I
I could imagine that with a high start and end cost hobby like w40k , that could be well possible.
Swastakowey wrote: So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.
Ok, so my commander is a huge fan of tanks, and leads a very fluffy IG armored company. Lots of tanks and supporting aircraft, few/no infantry units. By playing to character I've created a list that many opponents, especially opponents that are committed to playing to their own characters instead of just spamming anti-tank units, will struggle to deal with. Now to make an enjoyable game I have to abandon the character I've created and design a list based around power level instead of fluff.
Swastakowey wrote: So instead we treat it like a roleplay. Still trying to win but more concerned about playing to character. So my commander is a huge fan of bayonets and rank fire. So my men will frequently be found in ranks advancing while firing. It has the added bonus of leaving me with many casualties at the end of my games. Nothing is better than seeing 6 men out of 50 back to back on an objective firing away at whats left at the enemy remnants.
Ok, so my commander is a huge fan of tanks, and leads a very fluffy IG armored company. Lots of tanks and supporting aircraft, few/no infantry units. By playing to character I've created a list that many opponents, especially opponents that are committed to playing to their own characters instead of just spamming anti-tank units, will struggle to deal with. Now to make an enjoyable game I have to abandon the character I've created and design a list based around power level instead of fluff.
Why?
just tell the other player you are a tank commander and ask if they wanna play? If not find someone who is game?
Or arrange it in advance and find someone interested and wants to face such a list. Or compromise so you both have a what you like. Of course if you have all tanks he will need anti tank. This is the case in all games I play.
Its not just list either. Its how you play (which is a bigger factor at times).
You can also set up the game so his men are ambushing your tank column (set up the scenario and map for this) and air support will come on a later turn. Im sure if you made this scenario and then asked someone they would say yes. To me that sounds like a lot of fun. You still get to play with your tanks and aircraft and he is still able to try eliminate you due to the ambush.
Its not just about fluffy lists, you can play fluffily and create an awesome game too. As I said, imagination and creativity.
But no one aside for people who have large collections or play armies that do well against tanks without buying extra models, are going to be willing to play against an unbound or FW tank army.
Same with special scenarios ,unless it is in a rule book , few people will even consider playing it . Unless it gives them the edge they will never accept it . And for the tank player what fun is there in someone blowing up 3/4 of his army turn one , unless he steals initiative.
Makumba wrote: But no one aside for people who have large collections or play armies that do well against tanks without buying extra models, are going to be willing to play against an unbound or FW tank army.
Same with special scenarios ,unless it is in a rule book , few people will even consider playing it . Unless it gives them the edge they will never accept it . And for the tank player what fun is there in someone blowing up 3/4 of his army turn one , unless he steals initiative.
You write the scenario to fit the situation... to avoid a dull game simply say ambushing player starts first (sorry i thought the term ambush would suggest the ambushing player initiates the game) so eliminated part of the problem. I have never had a problem with playing exciting missions to fit the armies, even against someone new in my area. Just be open to experiment and change. Its how things get better.
Swastakowey wrote: just tell the other player you are a tank commander and ask if they wanna play? If not find someone who is game?
I thought "play in-character" was supposed to be a solution? It sounds like playing in-character doesn't actually solve any balance issues, since this is exactly the same thing I'd have to do if I just built a list based on what wins games effectively.
You can also set up the game so his men are ambushing your tank column (set up the scenario and map for this) and air support will come on a later turn. Im sure if you made this scenario and then asked someone they would say yes. To me that sounds like a lot of fun. You still get to play with your tanks and aircraft and he is still able to try eliminate you due to the ambush.
So now I have to start designing custom missions to compensate for balance issues? I guess that means no more pickup games, since a good asymmetrical mission requires a lot of advance design work with two specific armies in mind. I really don't see how this solves the balance problem better than, say, playing at 1250 vs. 1500 points with lists designed purely around winning games.
Have you tried it? Or are you simply so against it that you wont try make friends with randoms at your store/club and start trying new things out. because I can do it with new people... I can do it easily... and it solves most (I do say most) of our problems. Nothing works for everyone, doesnt mean something should dismiss it because it doesnt suit your idea of a good game or because it doesnt 100% fix something you are having a problem with. I also never said it would fix anything, i said it would make the game more enjoyable or fix most problems. You dont have to start designing anything. You can simply play asymmetrical missions. Im sure the tank list wont be at 100% efficiency with a decent map and terrain on the field. Just works for me thats all (thought that was made clear in my first post)
I simply suggested ways of making the game more enjoyable. Dont like them? Well then find your own way (or none at all). Works for me and most gamers I meet. But as I said its all dependent on the gamers around you.
Anyways I dont like you. Even when I agree with you (which is often believe it or not), im just gonna block you (again).
Yes there are problems, but to me they are very easy fixes. So I threw a suggestion out there. Nothing more nothing less.
Yet again, Swastakowey, you fail to grasp the simple fact that if the players have to modify the game to make it fair, it is indicative of an endemic issue with the game.
azreal13 wrote: Yet again, Swastakowey, you fail to grasp the simple fact that if the players have to modify the game to make it fair, it is indicative of an endemic issue with the game.
It's no doubt everyone else's fault but GW.
I didnt blame anyone. I simply put suggestions forward on how to improve the game and how it works for us. Lets face it, no one else is gonna do it. Essentially this is what the article is about, they arent gonna fix the game, so why make it worse?
You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.
You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.
There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.
Of course I have. I've played story-based games, and they usually had more balance issues than normal games since there were now mission design problems on top of the list balance problems. And this was in the context of an ongoing story-based campaign, the exact situation that should be perfect for a "roleplay more" solution.
As for pickup games, no, it just doesn't work that way. If you show up on 40k night you don't have time to exchange army lists and fluff, come up with a scenario that is balanced and fits the story of both armies, and play the game before the store closes. You just bring an army, find an opponent, and hope you can finish a whole game before you have to leave. Nobody shows up early enough for advance planning with their whole collection of models available to make a perfect scenario-based list.
I also never said it would fix anything, i said it would make the game more enjoyable or fix most problems.
Makes perfect sense to me.
You dont have to start designing anything. You can simply play asymmetrical missions.
Except you do, because these asymmetrical story-based missions don't exist yet. If you want to play an ambush mission then you need to invent rules for it. And if you want your mission to be more interesting than "you get a free turn of shooting before my models can act" you're going to have to spend some time on that design work, make sure both players bring appropriate models, etc.
Yes there are problems, but to me they are very easy fixes. So I threw a suggestion out there. Nothing more nothing less.
Sorry, but "pretend the problems don't exist and don't try to win the game" isn't a solution. The problem here isn't players having the wrong attitude, it's the fact that GW publishes garbage and expects their customers to pretend that it's "forging a narrative".
azreal13 wrote: You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.
You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.
There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.
I do think people should always make sure that what they buy will suit them before they finish the purchase. Its pretty common sense to me. You buy crap expect crap.
I thought I phrased it fine, if you are offended im sorry, but you seem easily offended so well all I can say is sorry.
I never made an argument, you did. I agree. It shouldn't be necessary. It isnt either (unless you want to). Its not everyone's cup of tea. Thankfully there are many games out there now that dont require any modifications as its got it all covered. Personally I like that 40k doesnt fill in these gaps, because if they did it will more than likely suck anyway. Id rather just fill in the gaps myself. But thats me.
azreal13 wrote: You didn't blame anyone in this thread. Such blatant head fethery as the time you tried to twist it that it was our fault 40K was terrible for not testing it out before buying it will live long in the memory.
You might be unaware, but "suggesting ways people can have more fun" can, if not approached and phrased carefully, just come across as patronising, condescending, white knightery.
There are many players who are more than capable of modifying the game to suit their purposes, and I'm sure many that do, the argument is that this should be a voluntary, not necessary action.
I do think people should always make sure that what they buy will suit them before they finish the purchase. Its pretty common sense to me. You buy crap expect crap.
I thought I phrased it fine, if you are offended im sorry, but you seem easily offended so well all I can say is sorry.
I never made an argument, you did. I agree. It shouldn't be necessary. It isnt either (unless you want to). Its not everyone's cup of tea. Thankfully there are many games out there now that dont require any modifications as its got it all covered. Personally I like that 40k doesnt fill in these gaps, because if they did it will more than likely suck anyway. Id rather just fill in the gaps myself. But thats me.
And he still doesn't understand that some people don't have the luxury of a like-minded group of friends to design neat little scenarios to compensate for poor rules and lack of balance. IN close groups, sure, do whatever you want. You could always do that anyway. But in pick up games, it's not really possible. I don't know anyone that carries around their entire collection so we can barter and discuss what's fun and fair.
But why dont you make friends with people at the store? I dont see how after a week or 2 of games there you wont know the regulars and start to form your own groups? I go to a GW store once a year on the same date, and every year I see the same group of people (give or take a couple). I am genuinely curious as to why this is impossible to do.
Swastakowey wrote: But why dont you make friends with people at the store? I dont see how after a week or 2 of games there you wont know the regulars and start to form your own groups? I go to a GW store once a year on the same date, and every year I see the same group of people (give or take a couple). I am genuinely curious as to why this is impossible to do.
If two players bring armies, how many army combinations do they need to bring along to discuss and accommodate each others armies?
Does the IG player need to bring their all tank army, and a ton of infantry, and fliers so that they can work out with a random opponent what would be fair for that particular match up when one player could bring a lot of antitank and another a lot of anti infantry?
What if a player only has 1500 points of models total and wants to play a random game, is it reasonable for the other player to have enough to adjust their list to make the match up fair?
If they discuss a special scenario, who decides what is fair if there is a disagreement?
Should every pick up game be at risk of the players not being able to work around balance issues in the game and being unable to play a game at all?
gak, I had those problems when I was in a club and some players bitched and moaned about any army their particular list wasn't designed to handle. Yes, the other player was wrong for bringing tanks when they didn't have a lot of AT on a random game.
Yes, expecting every game to be a negotiation just to have a perception of balance is too much to ask when other games can sort out a rough level of balance for pickup games. If balance doesn't matter, why do unit even have points for things like wargear when that level if detail is already unbalanced?
I can see it being an issue for a few weeks but once you start finding the players you enjoy facing and start to make friends, surely you will start to form a group and be able to try things. With friends you work this out like you work anything with friends out. How do friends decide where to go? How do they decide when? and so on. Its just the same when wargaming. I do not understand how its so hard for pick up gamers to just make friends with the store regulars and go from there.
For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.
Works the same everywhere I have gamed. A few games to break the ice, then the rest is easy going as you start to fit in with their styles and they take on your style and so on. Unless you refuse to get to know anyone you face, then yea every game is gonna be blind sailing.
Kilkrazy wrote: I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.
3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?
Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.
Was that so hard?
I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?
You are so right, and it's a GW Attitude that's persisted for a long time. Even the old article doesn't lay the blame at GW's feet, but on the player who "abuses" their books. I can't understand how anybody still believes this "writing rules is HARD" whine that GW rules writers have. You can dictate how many marines are in a squad, and how many guardsmen can fit in a Chimera, but suddenly it's impossible to tell someone that Riptides are limited to 0-1 (or whatever). Man up, you wimps!
Swastakowey wrote: I can see it being an issue for a few weeks but once you start finding the players you enjoy facing and start to make friends, surely you will start to form a group and be able to try things. With friends you work this out like you work anything with friends out. How do friends decide where to go? How do they decide when? and so on. Its just the same when wargaming. I do not understand how its so hard for pick up gamers to just make friends with the store regulars and go from there.
For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.
Works the same everywhere I have gamed. A few games to break the ice, then the rest is easy going as you start to fit in with their styles and they take on your style and so on. Unless you refuse to get to know anyone you face, then yea every game is gonna be blind sailing.
Rules are there so you can play against perfect strangers and expect to have a resonable enjoyable game and dont feel like you wasted 4-6 hours playing. The rules arent required for a friendly game where everyone knows eachother and has planned from the start to have an enjoyable game.
Kilkrazy wrote: I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.
3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?
Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.
Was that so hard?
I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?
You are so right, and it's a GW Attitude that's persisted for a long time. Even the old article doesn't lay the blame at GW's feet, but on the player who "abuses" their books. I can't understand how anybody still believes this "writing rules is HARD" whine that GW rules writers have. You can dictate how many marines are in a squad, and how many guardsmen can fit in a Chimera, but suddenly it's impossible to tell someone that Riptides are limited to 0-1 (or whatever). Man up, you wimps!
It's not they can't be bothered to, it's the fact that it never even occurs to them that such combinations might exist, or that someone would have such disregard for the fluff or their fellow players to do so (and I'm not just talking about Triptides, all the OP netlists fall into this category).
Take for example, the Screamerstar. Did they really think that someone would combine the 4++ power with the Grimore and the re-roll 1s ability and with Fateweaver for the re-roll on the book? (I think that's how it works) Of course they didn't. And taken in isolation, each element is perfectly balanced. It's only when combined, in a way the designers never imagined anyone would, that it becomes an issue.
The same exist with Wave Serpents: They expect people to use them as transports like the Razorback, not as Main Battle Tanks. I imagine they expected the shields to be used primarily for defence, and only fired as a last resort, as per the fluff.
Of course, there's easy ways to solve these issues, such as ruling no Invuln can go beyond a 3+ or that the Serpent Shield is a one-use-only weapon, but they expect people to have the integrity not to go looking for these combos, and the decency to eschew them when they discover them for the sake of a fair game.
Or maybe they say that they don't want list abuse , but love it when everyone buys riptides for their army , they even make it easier to take them through formations. And they may of course know that some people may not like that. But those that don't like riptide class units , are probably those who already have an army and don't want to buy a lot of stuff. A new player doesn't care if suddenly you need serpents or ally or what ever to make a good army as he is spending the money now . Someone who plays the game for tournaments only , won't care , because to win those he will have to buy the best army possible.
The whole talk about how GW doesn't know or doesn't think people would play w40k in one way or another is just a smoke screen , just like the whole stuff about w40k not being a game , but a hobby.
Swastakowey wrote: For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.
But the whole point of pickup games is that you don't have to do any of that. You just bring an army to 40k night and play some games against whoever happens to show up without having to worry about arranging it in advance, lining up schedules, finding a player that fits your story, etc. If your solution to balance in random pickup games is "stop playing them" then it isn't a solution.
I always, no matter the game, base my lists on what would the particular army I am building would actually have on the field. Most games seem to have been balanced with this kind of approach in mind but with 40k it can obviously be a little more...variable. I care little for 'competitive' games and even less for 'competitive' lists for 2 reasons; firstly I play wargames for fun and artistry and secondly 40k is almost certainly the least competitive wargame at the moment.
I have an actual IG infantry company, 3 full platoons (including heavy weapon squads) and not a single vehicle which is utterly hopeless in modern 40k while on the other end of the spectrum I also have a Death Guard warband (with all squads on foot with the MoN and in multiples of 7) which was pretty successful in 6th. I have owned Space Marine mechanised strike forces, an Ork green tide, a Tau Rapid Reaction force and dozens of others over the years but they have all been built with a specific role in mind and have only featured units that would fit that role.
'Fluffy' armies can be almost anything depending on what ever scenario the designer has created but I think the acid test of fluffy/faux fluffy is how much does that army change between editions.
It it remains fundamentally the same aside from minor changes to smooth the jagged edges that generally come with new editions then its probably owned by a fluffy player. If it is radically different and conveniently filled with the new 'competitive' units while removing the now 'uncompetitive' ones then its owned by a faux fluffy player.
But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
The problem is only GW writing bad rules for units. If they made all units usable , the game would have more variaty and would be more fun to play.
Makumba wrote: But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
.
Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.
Makumba wrote: But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
.
Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.
So you're calling Riptides undercosted (your words). Is not even the acknowledgement that something can be "undercosted" an admission that things are flawed in the rules / balance? And if so, what is the objection to people wanting those flaws repaired?
Makumba wrote: But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers . .
Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.
So you're calling Riptides undercosted (your words). Is not even the acknowledgement that something can be "undercosted" an admission that things are flawed in the rules / balance? And if so, what is the objection to people wanting those flaws repaired?
I admit they are undercosted. I admit 40k is not a balanced game, or even close to being one. I admit that GW making such little effort gets in the way of some people enjoying the game. I have no problem with people wanting those issues fixed, and would not object myself.
But what I will say, and what I have always said, is that while 40k is unbalanced, it is by no means unworkable. Some player input and respect/integrity may be required, but there is nothing to stop people having fun if they don't take it too seriously. Unless you play like autoomatons, silently unpacking models, deploying and rolling dice, there will always be opportunity for discussion about the kind of game you're looking for; it's here that the suggestions made in this thread can be discussed and perhaps implemented.
I am lucky enough to play with a group of like-minded players I've known for a long time, and we all share the same views on the game; in our experience,there has never been a problem with balance, as no one is looking to exploit the issues that we all know are there.
I fully appreciate some people are not that fortunate, and that their experience can be and is hampered by the rules, but all I am trying to say is there is a difference between 'unbalanced' and 'impossible'. I would not object to balanced rules being put out, but we can work with what we have. I'd like to see any kind of system that doesn't require some input, communication and interaction between players, I doubt there is one.
SHUPPET wrote: Tyranids general theme in the background is just to be adaptable and spawn the best units for the situation
So I guess the fluffy implementation of this would be for me to look over my opponents list and pick everything I need to counter it
No, the Nids spawn in reaction to what they have fought before, not what they're about to fight. If they eat Guardsmen for lunch, and then the Drop Pod Space Marines show up for dinner, they're not going to be prepared for that.
On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to play against a list like that. It would be a fun challenge and if you had the models without proxying, I'd let you do it.
SHUPPET wrote: Tyranids general theme in the background is just to be adaptable and spawn the best units for the situation
So I guess the fluffy implementation of this would be for me to look over my opponents list and pick everything I need to counter it
No, the Nids spawn in reaction to what they have fought before, not what they're about to fight. If they eat Guardsmen for lunch, and then the Drop Pod Space Marines show up for dinner, they're not going to be prepared for that.
On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to play against a list like that. It would be a fun challenge and if you had the models without proxying, I'd let you do it.
Yeah I wouldn't actually do this as victory would mean nothing, and I always build TAC.
However I've had someone do it to me but I didn't complain, I was looking forward to the challenge. Thought a bit less of my opponent of course. Even more so when he shouted out to his friend across the room everytime he got a big kill. /sigh, teenageTTgeeks
Paradigm wrote: Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.
3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = commander and his best troops on a vital mission where the Tau are willing to risk even rare prototypes to maximize their chances of success.
3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = field testing of the new Riptides that unexpectedly turned into a real fight, and the Tau didn't think the usual support units would be needed.
3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = the Tau force is well-supplied and gets priority for new Riptide production, and Riptides replacing crisis suits is the long-term plan for the Tau army as a whole.
3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = delivery of new Riptides to a Tau force was ambushed, and now they have to go straight into combat without the support units they'd like to have.
Riptide spam is only "unfluffy" if you define "fluffy" as the opposite of competitive. If you instead look at the background fiction of the army it can be perfectly fluffy.
(Well, as long as you accept the fluff of the Riptide existing at all even though it shouldn't according to previous fluff.)
Yay, someone who agrees with me !
I have never liked the riptide, it being completely against the tau fluff up to this point. Everything that the riptide does in the fluff could be done more efficiently by crisis suits and the tau air caste super-flyers
Riptide spam is only "unfluffy" if you define "fluffy" as the opposite of competitive. If you instead look at the background fiction of the army it can be perfectly fluffy.
(Well, as long as you accept the fluff of the Riptide existing at all even though it shouldn't according to previous fluff.)
Are these Riptides painted? If they are they may well be fluffy, if they aren't they probably aren't. 40k's fluff is extremely flexible but players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes.
I don't know if I can disagree with this statement enough.
No, absolutely not.
There are many kinds of gamers as there are gamers. There's nothing rigid about the way people approach the hobby, and the closest you can come to is by trying to categorize people based on their preferred aspect.
There are so many variables and degrees to how someone likes certain aspects of the hobby in general, not to mention 40k in particular, that judging someone or defining based on as little information as 'are the riptides painted' is comically absurd.
Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted? Does this person enjoy other aspects of 40k?
I fail to see how the state of the paint job on a riptide defines its fluffiness and I categorically reject the notion of placing gamers into 'rigid archetype' boxes.
I don't know if I can disagree with this statement enough.
No, absolutely not.
There are many kinds of gamers as there are gamers. There's nothing rigid about the way people approach the hobby, and the closest you can come to is by trying to categorize people based on their preferred aspect.
There are so many variables and degrees to how someone likes certain aspects of the hobby in general, not to mention 40k in particular, that judging someone or defining based on as little information as 'are the riptides painted' is comically absurd.
Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted? Does this person enjoy other aspects of 40k?
I fail to see how the state of the paint job on a riptide defines its fluffiness and I categorically reject the notion of placing gamers into 'rigid archetype' boxes.
Well said Blacksails. Either the other poster failed to communicate, or he's bought into the fluffy vs competitive nonsense.
Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted?
In my experience power gamers tend to be the ones with the perpetually grey/black armies. People who play for fluff tend to make at least some effort on the appearance of their army.
I see 3 broad categories of 40k player. Firstly there are people who play for the fluff and create 'realistic' armies that tend to be painted. Secondly there is the WAAC type of player who plays purely to win and doesn't care for the modelling aspects of wargaming. Thirdly there is everyone else.
These categories are obviously extremely nebulous, there are WAAC players with well painted armies for example, but as a rough guide they hold true.
If someone was to play a 1k game with 3 Riptides then I would bet a lot of money on them being unpainted and remaining unpainted.
I spend days building a list and perfecting it to be as strong as possible, and when I put the models down I strategise and play purely to win. But I also restrict myself from using OP tactics or armies (I play Tyranids, CSM, and DE - I originally played Tau but put them down once the 6th codex dropped), just because beating Eldar or Tau with Tyranids is far more satisfying than doing it the other way around. That being said, I do not put a single model to the table unpainted, and I put a lot of time into major conversions and my personalized paint schemes (even if I'm not the most patient painter I still work hard to get it all looking good). I constantly get compliments on the original paint schemes, and while I am one of the better/more competitive players in my local, I do it with my personal army handicaps and don't use supercheese tactics, and I always endeavour to keep it cheerful and jovial the entire game through, cracking jokes and laughing at crazy rolls or unfortunate explosions no matter whose side they are on (and I take care never to be obnoxious about it either, and sympathize if my opponent gets gak luck so long as he/she isn't being an ass or a baby about it). While I generally outplay most people I battle with, I have not played a game without getting comments about how cool my army looks at the same time. The main thing for me though is having fun in the social setting, and bantering with my locals, often about the fluff (this is one aspect I admit I lack in) but I enjoy being told about it more than I enjoy reading about it, and as far as I can tell people sure enjoy telling me about it
All in all, I participate and pride myself on a lot of different aspects of this hobby.
Your categories are stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to talk myself up here either, I just like people to know when they play me they are going to get a tough competitive match, against a well and fully painted army, with a friendly and jovial vibe (If they let it be, not much I can do about people who rage about losing / whatever else - they ruined the game for themselves before it even starting, just by coming to the table with such an attitude.)
Is it possible that not all competitive gamers are immature pricks who take 3 unpainted Riptides and pack up halfway in a huff because "the dice rolls are bs" when they just got outplayed?
These types do exist (I've seen a couple) but its not really fair to generalize 40k into 3 different catergories, especially if "oh you only play to win, you are a WAACTFG!" is one of them. I don't play to lose boy - you best bring your A-Game if you expect to win - but even if you lose, hopefully you learnt something, had a laugh or two, and you enjoyed a challenging battle that didn't involve having to deal with any actual cheese (although I have had everything from Tyrannofex's to Talos Pain Engines being whinged about as 'cheese' - most people don't seem to know what this term means). And from my perspective, I have never once complained about any cheesy Riptide / Flyer Spam lists I've had to face, or even the guy who checks what I bring before he writes, I relish these games as a challenge. As far as painted models and keeping it friendly goes, I prefer to lead by example, not by preaching to people about how they aren't getting into the spirit of the game properly blah blah blah.
Is it possible that not all competitive gamers are immature pricks who take 3 unpainted Riptides and pack up halfway in a huff because "the dice rolls are bs" when they just got outplayed?
Is it possible that you didn't actually read my post?
SHUPPET wrote: Ok if you are willing to backpedal on your post than by all means. It's pretty obvious what you were saying though.
I haven't backpedaled at all. Its obvious that you have misread my post though.
It's not obvious to me at all. I think that Shuppet read your post entirely accurately. You think in biased stereotypes that I'm not at all convinced are accurate. Three posters now have disagreed with your rather offensive characterisations which sound, honestly, quite elitist. It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models' in essence, with all the negative connotation that comes with people not being bothered to do something. I don't think it's right and if anyone has backpedaled, it's you. You began your original post with "players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes". That's pretty strong stuff and the only way it holds true, imo, is if you Palindrome, are inserting people into preconceived categories to suit your prejudices.
knas ser wrote: . It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models'.....
So you are saying that competitive players are WAAC players? You will notice that this is something that I never said and WAAC players are the only group that I linked to being especially lax in painting because they generally are. If you wish to be defensive then fine but don't over react.
knas ser wrote: . It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models'.....
So you are saying that competitive players are WAAC players? You will notice that this is something that I never said and WAAC players are the only group that I linked to being especially lax in painting because they generally are.
WAAC is just a pejorative term. It also wasn't a term you used in your post. Peregrine made the point that fluffy should not be considered the opposite of competitive. Peregrine didn't use the term - they just said "competitive". You replied that players usually come in "rigid archetypes" and that if the models are painted they may be "fluffy" and if they weren't, they probably weren't "fluffy". That's the sum total of what you said and it was a stupid thing to say. You obviously realize that as you're back-peddling further now. First you started contradicting your "rigid archetypes" by saying these "rigid archetypes" are "extremely nebulous". Now you're post-adding in the term WAAC (which is, at any rate, just a way of pulling a No True Scotsman and trying to create some artificial delineation so the existence of competitive fluffy players doesn't undermine your worldview).
Palindrome wrote: If you wish to be defensive then fine but don't over react.
Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."
Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."
Bonehead.
As some people continually fail to understand my posts let me break it all down into a single sentence that even you may be able to understand but given your insulting tone perhaps not. 3 groups with bleedthrough between them, WAAC, fluffy and general, fluffy builds lists for background reasons, WAAC play to win at all costs and general is everyone else. I cannot break that down any more.
WAAC is not a pejorative term, or at least it is more than that, it is a subset of competitive players who play purely for win and will use any means necessary to do so.
I have noticed that some people become extremely sensitive when the issue of playing with non painted miniatures gets brought up, I wonder why.
That's more than enough words wasted in this thread.
I wonder why. It's possibly because you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on stereotypes that you have literally invented and saying almost everyone falls into these categories.
People of all sorts play this game. There is of course bad eggs. But some people just can't afford $7 per pot of paint after buying undeniably overpriced miniatures.
Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."
Bonehead.
As some people continually fail to understand my posts let me break it all down into a single sentence that even you may be able to understand but given your insulting tone perhaps not. 3 groups with bleedthrough between them, WAAC, fluffy and general, fluffy builds lists for background reasons, WAAC play to win at all costs and general is everyone else. I cannot break that down any more.
WAAC is not a pejorative term, or at least it is more than that, it is a subset of competitive players who play purely for win and will use any means necessary to do so.
I have noticed that some people become extremely sensitive when the issue of playing with non painted miniatures gets brought up, I wonder why.
That's more than enough words wasted in this thread.
Look at that goalpost go!
Anyway, I run a fluffy Necron army with backstory and everything and keep my own headcannon regarding its evolving lore based on the results of the various games, leagues, Apocalypse games and campaigns it's been involved in. The actual backstory for this army was written before I actually had the models on hand, let alone assembled and painted, and once in my hands the army as saw months of games as bare plastic/primer/basecoat (depends on the models and chronological placement of the game) aside from 3 models- my first Overlord (first model I've painted), Ghost Ark and Annihilation Barge (both of whom looked a nightmare to paint if I held off until after assembly).
I bought my models, first and foremost, to play the game. As such I cared a whole lot more about them being fieldable than I did about them looking good on the table, and thanks to time constraints and general laziness getting them painted to any degree took a long ass time, and most of my painting sprees were the result of myself writing up lists for upcoming tournaments with minimal painting requirements and then painting the models I wanted to take to the required standards.
So, where do I fit in your rigid archetype scheme? Am I a WAACTFG for my lackluster painting efforts and tendency to attend tournaments when available and play to win? A Fluffy player for my fluffy Necron army and lists? General (whatever the hell that means)?
is it cheesey to take two IG vet squads fully loaded with a sargent with two plasma pistols, three plasmaguners, carapace armour all in a chimera with a lord commissar along for the ride, backed up with a fully loaded LRBT bolter exterminator type and three armoured sentinel at 1000pts?
Abit on the wiffy side but my fluff dictates that the world that they are froma world that gets attacked by C:SM alot hence the need for SMAP-2 killers and light to med anti-armour, any thing AV 14 and i'm screwed but thats half the fun
Can i make an army list that can table folks? Yes i can (I have the tank spam abilaty), do I do that. No as A; thats uncool, B;I like to have fun and C; it wouldn't fit my fluff for my regiment.
Ribon Fox wrote: is it cheesey to take two IG vet squads fully loaded with a sargent with two plasma pistols, three plasmaguners, carapace armour all in a chimera with a lord commissar along for the ride, backed up with a fully loaded LRBT bolter exterminator type and three armoured sentinel at 1000pts?
No, just slightly illegal. As far as I recall, the new codex only allows sergeants to swap out one weapon, so no plasma gunslingers. Other than that, sounds like a cool list.
Oh, I thought it said 'may swap laspistol'. I may be thinking of Commissars, then, as I'm pretty sure they can't dual-wield now. At least, they can't in the MT codex.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.
But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.
Yeah well, your supposedly OP army has a 51% win record against the other armies in the top 5, I wouldn't even call that OP.
I'd rather find a handicap system that works so I can play my models.
Be it taking useless options or re-costing the broken ones, I don't really care, it's infinitely better than having to roll minis you don't like.
I like the challenge, but it mostly comes from the opposing player and their vision of the game, not from the codex, except for the very worst performing codexes. At least that's my vision at the moment.
SHUPPET wrote: Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.
I agree, if me and my opponent are in a knock down drag out fight, that flip flops back and forth untill the last turn, now that to me is fun.
When playing an army and without rolling dice you already know the result, and your getting hammered every round with little hope of turning it around. How can that be fun? If your opponnet is not having fun and you can see it on thier face, exactly what did you just prove? and, then get mad at him for wanting to quit at turn 3. Why is it his fault? Why is he the poor sport?
I've been playing Eldar since 3rd I don't run a Seer Star or more than 3 Wave Serpents, why because the last thing I want to happen is have people avoid playing me.
Now if your in a grand tournament (not a small local event) you had better be prepared for fighting that WAACTFG. But you know what, they have the right to pay like that in that venue its within the rules.
Its really only a question of why is there no balance between codexes and the units inside? I'm not talking about out of date codexes I'm talking about releases within the same edition. Why create a rules system that allows combinations of units that break the rules themselves? They had a game that already allowed for that, it was called apocalypse and thats where it should have stayed.
Now I 'm the jerk because I'm refusing to play: certin lists, dataslates, and units. While enforcing a reasonable force organization and one ally. Well shame on me for wanting a knock down drag out fight, that flip flops back and forth untill the last turn.
Makumba wrote: But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .
not correct,
the object of a GAME is to have fun,
the object of a competition, is to win.
I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.
Makumba wrote: But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .
not correct,
the object of a GAME is to have fun,
the object of a competition, is to win.
I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.
A game is about fighting to win. It's the journey that matters not the goal, but the journey takes place with a goal anyway, which is winning.
Makumba wrote: But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .
not correct,
the object of a GAME is to have fun,
the object of a competition, is to win.
I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.
I prefer a quote that I often see on the Warmachine Forum :
The objective of the game is to win. The purpose is to have fun.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.
Yeah well, your supposedly OP army has a 51% win record against the other armies in the top 5, I wouldn't even call that OP.
I'd rather find a handicap system that works so I can play my models.
Be it taking useless options or re-costing the broken ones, I don't really care, it's infinitely better than having to roll minis you don't like.
I like the challenge, but it mostly comes from the opposing player and their vision of the game, not from the codex, except for the very worst performing codexes. At least that's my vision at the moment.
That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.
SHUPPET wrote: That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.
That's what you should tell GW. They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.
This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.
Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books. Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books. Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.
So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.
The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.
Okay stay with me here because this might be an over the top analogy, but I have a view of what the main problem with 40k tends to be:
Okay so essentially the rules section of the codex is supposed to be a Legal document, type format. Where rules must be followed strictly, there is no pick and choose, you must follow the law to the letter. However just like a legal document there are loopholes than can be exposed to get around certain rules we don't like and a certain amount of abuse is inevitable.
The background section on the other hand; Is essentially the bible of 40k. It is collections of stories and scenarios that are supposed to guide us to make the right choices with our armies, to be inspired to follow the true spirit of the game. The problem, like the real bible, is that this is all open to interpretation, people pick and choose bits of fluff they like and ignore those that they don't. Some people merely misunderstand certain stories or skip past them entirely. The background, like the bible, can mean totally different things to different people and none of them are right or wrong. Also like the bible, the 40k background contradicts itself with accounts at times, leaving somethings ambiguous on purpose, often only giving one sides view point, things also get revised and changed, so that older players will often have different takes on fluff than newer ones.
The trouble arises because like a far right religious organisation, GW (in the best of intentions) thinks that the 'message' of their book is clear. They want us to follow it religiously, creating only armies that make sense in the background. However, we know from modern society that while a bible (background section) can be used to inspire the rules and ethics we live by; they are too vague to be considered legal practice. Instead we have to come up with a system of very clear rules (or laws) to be followed for society to function fairly.
GW (like a televangelist) is so sure that the message in the background is strong enough for everyone to follow it, that they time and time again, fail to produce clear and balanced rules to reflect the message they want to promote. And just liek in real society there are people who will purposely abuse this, then everyone else has to abuse it slightly to survive.
A good example would be Slavery. Now in the spirit of the bible 'treat all men with love and respect etc' it might seem clear that slavery is abhorent. However, owing to it's age, there are sections that actually seem to condone slavery. Now left open to interpretation, even if we assume that the purpose of the bible was to promote peace and equality and thus anti-slavery. It only takes a few rich jerks to decide to interpret it their own way and start their own slave trade.
In actuallity, to prevent slavery, we required written laws that forbid it explicitly. These laws are not open to interpretation and thus cannot be broken. No one has to deal with slavery, no one has to consider dropping to their level to compete, everyone is happy.
GW should stop falling back on it's beloved background in arguments. We know the 40k background is strong, we love it or we wouldn't play. Now please GW make some rules that reflect your own message instead of simply vilifying players who quite legally, produce armies that break the spirit of the game. Make rules that encourage players to play fluffy instead of handicapping them for it.
Interesting analogy, but I do wonder why the people that have no respect for the background bother to play the game. I mean, the rules are flawed as we can all see, so that means there are, as far as I can see, 3 reasons why people would play if they don't like the background:
1) Because it is a flawed ruleset that allows certain combinations to be exceptionally powerful. For the small minority that feel the need to prove their superiority in a game by crushing all before them, 40k is the obvious choice, as it's so easy to break compared to other systems.
2) Because it's the only game they can get. This is of course perfectly reasonable, but it strikes me as a little odd that people playing 40k only for the social factor would put such a heavy emphasis on winning and exploiting the imbalance. So I don't think it's these guys that break it.
3) The models. Again, this is fine, and there are plenty of people who paint the models and play the game for the hell if it. I also don't think it's these people that go out of their way to destroy the background to crush their opponents.
So the upshot of all this is that I really struggle to see the reason you'd play this game, flawed as it is, without some respect for the background, unless you were under the impression that beating other guys at Toy Soldiers is somehow a show of strength and betterness. So the question is, why don't people, other than the first category I mentioned, play in the spirit of the game? I don't see how it requires rules to tell you to do so, it's surely common sense for most people.
And no one is 'handicapped by playing fluffy' and in the spirit of the game unless they come up against someone who isn't; if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.
Paradigm wrote: if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.
You only can't see any issues because you're repeating the common mistake of assuming that "fluffy" and "powerful" are mutually exclusive concepts. In reality that is not even close to true. For example, my very fluffy IG armored battlegroup list would be a nightmare for a lot of opponents simply because of how many AV 14 tanks I have. Similarly, a Tau player who loves the Riptide's fluff and model will probably have a strong list when they bring three of them, even if they don't deliberately try to exploit any balance mistakes. On the other hand there are plenty of fluffy lists that are at the exact opposite of the power scale, so you can very easily have a game between two fluffy lists where one side slaughters the other effortlessly.
Plus, you're overlooking the fact that fluff is a subjective thing. Your "unfluffy WAAC spam" is someone else's fluffy army. Don't forget this.
Paradigm wrote: if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.
You only can't see any issues because you're repeating the common mistake of assuming that "fluffy" and "powerful" are mutually exclusive concepts. In reality that is not even close to true. For example, my very fluffy IG armored battlegroup list would be a nightmare for a lot of opponents simply because of how many AV 14 tanks I have. Similarly, a Tau player who loves the Riptide's fluff and model will probably have a strong list when they bring three of them, even if they don't deliberately try to exploit any balance mistakes. On the other hand there are plenty of fluffy lists that are at the exact opposite of the power scale, so you can very easily have a game between two fluffy lists where one side slaughters the other effortlessly.
Plus, you're overlooking the fact that fluff is a subjective thing. Your "unfluffy WAAC spam" is someone else's fluffy army. Don't forget this.
But there is a big difference between imbalance and hard counters. Of course a list without much anti-tank is going to struggle against an ABG, but at the same time, may well pack enough anti-horde to massacre Orks or Nids. But that's in list design, not imbalance, and a gamble one takes before every game at over-specialising in one thing. I'm sure the ABG has hard counters of it's own, it's a very specialist list (melta-pod marines springs to mind)
As for the Riptide example, I really can't think a player would take 3 Riptides simply based on the fluff. Yes, the Riptide is a slightly undercosted unit, but 1 or 2 are not impossible to deal with; I'd consider it very unlikely (but not impossible) that someone would take 3 Riptides purely for the fluff aspect.
Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.
I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.
And that's just wrong.
Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.
For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.
Riptides are over-powered, though, but that is GW's fault. Basically, "list abuse" like "forging a narrative" is an excuse for not GW bothering to write good rules.
It doesn't mean that there are no "TFGs" out there, of course, and people need to agree the kind of game they want to play.
Paradigm wrote: But there is a big difference between imbalance and hard counters. Of course a list without much anti-tank is going to struggle against an ABG, but at the same time, may well pack enough anti-horde to massacre Orks or Nids. But that's in list design, not imbalance, and a gamble one takes before every game at over-specialising in one thing. I'm sure the ABG has hard counters of it's own, it's a very specialist list (melta-pod marines springs to mind)
Except it IS a balance issue because the ABG list does something that no other army can do. The fact that it is fluffy doesn't change that it's arguably overpowered now that 7th edition made all those LRBTs scoring, and can cause real problems for people who aren't prepared for it. Just saying "play fluffy" doesn't help at all with the balance issues involving this list, and it doesn't really help in general either.
As for the Riptide example, I really can't think a player would take 3 Riptides simply based on the fluff. Yes, the Riptide is a slightly undercosted unit, but 1 or 2 are not impossible to deal with; I'd consider it very unlikely (but not impossible) that someone would take 3 Riptides purely for the fluff aspect.
You honestly can't see how people would want multiple copies of the big new centerpiece model? Are you aware of the huge number of players who love giant anime robots and were drawn to the Tau because of this? It's incredibly easy to see how someone who loves the fluff and/or models would want three Riptides. It's only hard to believe if you assume that "fluffy" is defined entirely as "not good at winning" and "contains a random mix of units and no duplicates". But neither of those things have anything to do with fluff.
Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.
How exactly does it solve anything? The player still has the exact same list whatever their fluff is, and the outcome of the game will be the same. All it does is give you an excuse to refuse to play against someone.
Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.
How exactly does it solve anything? The player still has the exact same list whatever their fluff is, and the outcome of the game will be the same. All it does is give you an excuse to refuse to play against someone.
It solves it in that you either get to enjoy a game with a like minded individual who likely looks for the same things in the game as you (forging a narrative, for want of a better term) or you avoid a game with someone whose view of the game would only end with you losing and not enjoying yourself.
Personally, I'd enjoy playing against Triptide if there was decent fluff behind it; it would make a good fiction piece after the fact, which is something I always look for in games, and as with so many things, it is also the nature of the individual that makes the game enjoyable or not. If he's taken those Riptides for a fluffy reason and has a clear interest in the background, then it's apparent that he's out to tell a good story in the process of the game, which is something I too look for, even if that story is me losing; if he's taken them for sheer power, then it's likely he's only out to win and has little concern for players not after the same thing, and hence, the game would be less enjoyable for both sides.
It doesn't solve the inherent problems on a global level, but only GW can do that. Instead, it mitigates it somewhat and ensures that more of your games are enjoyed by both participants, which is, afterall, the point of all this.
SHUPPET wrote: That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.
That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.
This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.
Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books.
Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books.
Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.
So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.
The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.
Wow you basically just said exactly what I said in another thread before I clicked this link
A unit can not be examined in a vacuum, and I think that in order to answer whether a unit and in extension its codex is too good, you first need to decide upon a codex with a power level that is appropriate. It is obvious that the different codexes are all over the place in this aspect. Are Tau in a good place? It is impossible to say without deciding what to compare and contrast against. They have neither the strongest and far from the weakest codex around.
Most of these armies as a whole are not really that OP... Tau would be balanced just fine without Riptide (if still a very strong codex). SM are pretty middling but have a lot of options and can definitely compete. I have no problem with their level of power being the top of the tiers, since they give fun games and are fun from OP or uncounterable. Daemons relys on gimmicks, last edition its 2++ re-rollable, this edition its Summoning, there is really only one or two aspects broken on an otherwise balanced Dex. I think Eldar is the main exception to this, where you can't really take out anything specific to avoid it having OP units. Wave Serpents, SeerCouncil, JetSeers, the jetbikes in general, WraithKnight, its just a ridiculous codex. Compare that to the other end of the spectrum, or even some of the more balanced armies. Necron's are very powerful, but not too much so - I like this dex. IG is in the same boat. Where the coin falls flat is obviously Orks & the SM sub-dexes, BA and SW are not in a good position, and DA aren't much further ahead. The Tyranid codex is terrible written but still has options, the power level isn't terrible, similar story to CSM, and even Sisters can compete but need better writing x1000, and all could do with slight buffs. Daemons (with the gimmicks removed) could use some balancing as well. DE are well written but definitely need an upgrade, while everything is balanced internally, against other armies the glass cannon army sure has a lot of glass but is really starting to lack on Cannon... needs a bit more badass weaponry.
I know I've probably forgot someone, but the statement I'm making is this - while it can first appear that you know, "which codex is the power level we call balanced, this is impossible to argue!" looking at the ones with good internal balance its pretty clear they all sit at a pretty similar level, the same one Tau would be at without an OP Riptide. Tau's internal balance is terrible because Riptide outshines everything, in absolutely any codex. It's the only unit that could even make Eldar take an ally (except for Beastpack but you know, he was just a component of a silly Deathstar combo). Getting to Eldar, does not have great internal balance - while it's worst units are still matching some codex's best, it has Wave Serpents & Wraithknights on one hand and gak like Falcons and the Avatar on the other - and now while neither of them are that bad in comparison to other codex's equivalent units, there is a world of difference between them and their competitors in their own dex. These guys need the power level turned down, they are on another tier to every other army and are obviously not the precedent to go with just because they are the strongest.
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
There is no reason that making the game balanced would be anything but good for both parties
While it's less relative to two casual gamers, it certainly improves the narrative, and allows you to "narrative" somewhat better against a competitive player
Somehow the divide has nurtured this idea that balance is bad for narrative. I think its mostly that casual players are bitter about the way competitive ones play the game and how it isn't fun to them, and it turns to statements like "this game was never intended to be competitive its for casual play blah blah blah" when this attitude is really doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot unfortunately.
SHUPPET wrote: That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.
That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.
This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.
Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books.
Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books.
Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.
So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.
The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.
My conclusion is based on the only statistics I've seen on that topic, which list Necron, Space Marine, Eldar, Tau and Demons as top 5 armies with win-rates between 49 and 51% within their top-5 group.
Tau Riptides have been seriously toned down since 7th (no buffmander), Eldar SeerStar only works because of a DE character, and Serpent Spam has never been the top competitive build so you're probably mistaken on its imbalance.
Can't speak for demons, but according to the top-5 balance, nothing much is wrong with them either.
Which statistics have you seen because 51% is significantly less than what I have seen from Eldar or Tau as of... damn I forget but I think it was like the last massive championship held in.. I want to say Vagas?
Anyway can I ask just what sort of people you play with? Your augments are coming off very much like you're not personally seeing these things happen in your local meta therefore they don't happen.
jonolikespie wrote: You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.
There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).
jonolikespie wrote: You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.
There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).
No.
That is simply wrong. You see evidence of this divide in EVERY thread in the 40k sub forums here, and on top of that you're unfairly characterizing a large swath of people who have legitimate problems with the rules as just sad they lost.
jonolikespie wrote: Which statistics have you seen because 51% is significantly less than what I have seen from Eldar or Tau as of... damn I forget but I think it was like the last massive championship held in.. I want to say Vagas?
Anyway can I ask just what sort of people you play with? Your augments are coming off very much like you're not personally seeing these things happen in your local meta therefore they don't happen.
That's the only statistic I have on that topic, it comes from a time when Tau had buffmander with riptides and Eldar well ... relied mostly on Baron / SeerStar.
Tournament results are strongly influenced by results outside of the top-5 armies, so "bad codexes" will give bonus points to the Eldar and Tau when in fact they don't perform any better within the top 5.
jonolikespie wrote: You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.
There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).
No.
That is simply wrong. You see evidence of this divide in EVERY thread in the 40k sub forums here, and on top of that you're unfairly characterizing a large swath of people who have legitimate problems with the rules as just sad they lost.
I'm characterizing a large swath of people that cries OP all the time and claims they're "casual", "fluffy" or "non-competitive" as an excuse for losing to army lists that wouldn't make the top 10 in a tournament.
I've seen the same divide elsewhere... like WoW for example, where people who like to play with no skill like to call themselves "casual", and call those who play to win "jerks" or "competitive" and whatnot.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.
I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'
take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.
watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.
now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...
Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.
The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....
I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way
To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.
I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'
take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.
watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.
now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...
Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.
The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....
I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way
Was there no middle ground between "noob army lists" and WAAC ?
Were they WAAC in the sense of only running the most optimized lists, or was there still a bit of good in them ?
jonolikespie wrote: You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
Here's a rhetorical question: How does a company constantly ignore the demand of the majority or their customer base (request for balance both competitive and casual play) and still stay in business, buy continually offering a product that sticks their middle finger up at everyone (narrative driven and a beer and pretzels game)?
Here is another question, lets say I made a fluffy list with Eldar (OP or Not) walked in to a completly different FLGS up to 75 miles away from me, how many takers would I get out of 10 people? 10/10, 7/10, 4/10
I got more groans that I had Eldar than 'awesome someone new'. I got 0/10 I showed them my list, explained that I've been playing Eldar since 3rd, just to ease their minds that I wasn't playing a seer star or overdoing serpents. After all that I got 2 takers even after a couple stated that I had a doable list for Eldar. Do I blame them for being like that, no they didn't know who I was. I could have very well been a WAACTFG. Nobody likes playing them. I'm sure if I walked into a FLGS that was all WAAC players thier would have been no problem finding a game, however I wouldn't have wanted to be there.
What does that tell you about the state of the game? It tells me that majority want a more balanced game, both compettitive and casual, so that they have a equal shot at winning. I really do think they can be the same, I also don't think people truly believe that they have to win every game to have fun. However, they don't want to get involved with certin lists or dataslates that totally break any chance of winning. At least for most armies, maybe not all.
I've said this before, I really don't think that any game this complex could be 100% balanced, however I thik It can be alot closer than it is. At least to the point where some dice could change everything in a single turn, in any combination of armies. I still like the game and still want to play it, I just think if things keep going the way they are it'll die off.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
jonolikespie wrote: You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...
I've said this before, I really don't think that any game this complex could be 100% balanced, however I thik It can be alot closer than it is. At least to the point where some dice could change everything in a single turn, in any combination of armies. I still like the game and still want to play it, I just think if things keep going the way they are it'll die off.
Am I way off base?
I think you're correct, this can only be fixed by GW updating their rules more often and better.
Riptides were godlike because of buffmander, that got removed, now they're mostly undercosted.
SeerStar is godlike because of Baron, that should be removed, and people would move on to something else.
What's really missing is more updates, more often, for free, so that loopholes can't be exploited for long enough that WAAC people get to all jump on the bandwagon.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.
If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.
If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.
This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.
If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.
If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.
This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.
I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'
take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.
watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.
now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...
Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.
The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....
I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way
Was there no middle ground between "noob army lists" and WAAC ?
Were they WAAC in the sense of only running the most optimized lists, or was there still a bit of good in them ?
Not really, thats obviously my opinion though. Massively open to debate etc.
It would litrally be a case of either 'fluffy' noobs who had managed to scrape together a legal army list, which mainly considered what the rules point you towards, an example would be two tactical squads, a captain and maybe a tank or something if they had recently had a birthday.
They were old enough to understand the cheese but either could not afford a WAAC army list or quite simply were more interested in playing a game against their mates for fun who also fitted into the same sort of bracket.
The others, like I said in my OP were hardcore game breakers... nice enough people but i didn't even enjoy playing against them....
although when the siege of vraks came out and the heavy mortar could make units auto fall back off the edge of the table, they didnt like the proverbial taste of their own beardy medicine. That was a few funny games to teach them a few lessons... lol
Like i said, the above is only my opinion and im sure other gaming clubs, stores are different. etc. Im only going off my own personal experiences and consider myself a fluffy gamer
at least Its a nice excuse considering my vostryan infantry list couldnt fight its way out of a paper bag hahaha
Paradigm wrote: The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.
Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?
If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?
If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?
Paradigm wrote: The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.
The only time you'll go into a game 'with little to no chance of winning' is if the list the opponent has brought is crafted to be powerful, and yours is not. In that case, I would argue that if the opponent were a decent human being, he would either reduce the power of that list so that it becomes a fairer fight, or he would find someone else to play aganist, thus sparing you from a crushing defeat you can do nothing about, and getting more out of the game himself (I can't imagine crushing an opponent who is powerless to stop you is at all fun unless you have a serious inferiority complex and feel the need to prove you're better at playing soldiers)
Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?
How often do you see people being paid thousands to play 40k? The analogy falls flat there.
Of course, in a competitive event, be it sporting or gaming, there is a desire to win and a reward for doing so. But for the games outside of that area (most, I'd guess), there's no point in bringing a list that powerful, for the reasons outlined above; you're depriving both yourself and someone else of enjoyment.
If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?
If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?
At the end of the day, I can't answer this, as when I go into a game I couldn't really give a damn about the result, it's how I get there that matters. If, after an evening of 40, I've lost 9-1, but the guy on the other side of the board was a decent chap and we got along and had a laugh, I genuinely wouldn't care about the result. If, on the other hand, I've tabled someone on turn 4 but they're annoying, impolite or generally dislikeable, I won't have enjoyed the game (and this has happened to me, it's not hypothetical).
The result, outside of a tournament, gets you nothing more than bragging rights; is that really worth someone else losing out on enjoyment for?
Of course there's an element of playing to win, but that's playing to win, not building a list before the game for that express purpose. There is a big difference.
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
And that's exactly my point.
If you're not playing to score, you're not playing, and not achieving the point through the activity, making said activity an excuse.
The point of football, as for most things including life, is the journey, not the goal.
The goal of football, as for most games, is to win.
Haha nice article and blast from the past. I loved when Warp Spiders had flamer templates instead of stupidly rolling to hit with giant webs.
My group is fairly non-competitive. We did have two power players though that kind of ruined things for people and complained loudly when other people in our small group refused to play their screamer star or triple helldrake lists. Helldrake player has since rage quit due to the nerf and daemon player has changed over to the daemon factory flavor of the month and thus complains that people wont play him.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
There's a gigantic, glaring assumption there--that competitive players don't have fun.
Warmachine and Malifaux are my go-to counter examples. When I play them, I try to win and accept that my opponent is doing the same. While we're trying to ruthlessly crush the models on the other side, we'll chat and joke, and wince when the other guy has a "fugitive from the laws of averages" moment, or go 'wow' when the opponent pulls off a clever move or hail-mary attempt to win. Maybe remind the opponent of something to their benefit--"Remember, if you charge that guy, you're at -2 to hit." or "Hey, I don't think you activated that Death Marshal behind the house yet." At the end of the game, when we've finished trying to win the game as hard as we possibly can, we'll have a chat about how it could have gone better or worse, and what different tactics we could have used.
Narratives happen just fine--both games have a very detailed universe with a strong storyline that invites the players to add to it. I can tell stories about the time my satyr pulled off a Reversal and stopped cold the giant troll that was about to eat my entire army, or when my Neverborn crew got wiped out except for one lizard-man, who managed to secure an objective in the last turn and pull out a win. What you describe is nowhere near unique to 40K, and it's really just a fig leaf to make excuses for bad rules.
The difference is, that those games have rules written by people who put effort into them. And so it's far harder to break either game--you can have a very synergistic list, or a list that's super-strong in one area but falls apart if the opponent denies it a chance to do that thing, but it's nowhere near the scope of brokenness or "You don't get to play the game." that 40K can manage.
And it's precisely because those rules are sound and there are fewer mis-priced units that we can be competitive and do our level best to win without ever assuming the other guy is a jerk. Because the rules can largely stand up to our attempts to break something, we can be as fluffy or gamey as we want, and if the things in our army at least have basic synergy, there's unlikely to be a vast disparity in list effectiveness.
But because 40K is so breakable, that's the reason why building a list that's "too good" is seen as a bad reflection on the player, because it's harder to build a list that's fun to play against than in a balanced system, and it's quite easy to accidentally build a list that's broken without even meaning to ("So if the Wave Serpent is the most common Eldar transport, I should take several of them, and I'll include a Revenant because the model looks wicked awesome!").
The short version is, I agree that social contracts are important in 40K to avoid painful, funless non-games--but don't go thinking that's common to all wargames, because it's not. Games where the rules were well designed have everything you list as an asset of 40K, and don't have the artificial division between "competitive" and "casual". That's entirely down to poor rules, naught else.
(edit) Anyone who thinks poorly written rules make the game more fun should go to 40KYMDC, and read any thread of 5 pages or more. Those posters sure seem to be having fun.
The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.
This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.
If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.
If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.
This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
Sports analogies rarly translate into a roll the dice games, because all sports progams have completly different goals at different levels. Ages 5-15 fun, 15-18 grey area depends on the school because many are very win oriented (high level of college recruitment), college and pro all about the win.
Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.
I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO
Paradigm wrote: The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.
It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.
Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?
If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?
If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?
This a million times. (A guy once tailored, cheated and got tabled by me. I was happy not to be him, not to tailor, not to cheat and try to not get tabled).
That's also why calling everybody's army OP is harmful.
Some combos are broken but that doesn't give you the right to pretend your opponent's victory is worthless just because he happens to use an army that has broken combos.
One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.
Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.
Not really, thats obviously my opinion though. Massively open to debate etc.
It would litrally be a case of either 'fluffy' noobs who had managed to scrape together a legal army list, which mainly considered what the rules point you towards, an example would be two tactical squads, a captain and maybe a tank or something if they had recently had a birthday.
They were old enough to understand the cheese but either could not afford a WAAC army list or quite simply were more interested in playing a game against their mates for fun who also fitted into the same sort of bracket.
The others, like I said in my OP were hardcore game breakers... nice enough people but i didn't even enjoy playing against them....
although when the siege of vraks came out and the heavy mortar could make units auto fall back off the edge of the table, they didnt like the proverbial taste of their own beardy medicine. That was a few funny games to teach them a few lessons... lol
Like i said, the above is only my opinion and im sure other gaming clubs, stores are different. etc. Im only going off my own personal experiences and consider myself a fluffy gamer
at least Its a nice excuse considering my vostryan infantry list couldnt fight its way out of a paper bag hahaha
I see your point.
My first army list was an Eldar detachment and maybe a few more models, I got completely wrecked, and I blame it on GW for making most of the units in the Eldar Codex plain useless.
The army I was playing wasn't even close to optimized or competitive, but it was already unplayable. It would be nice if GW tried to avoid that experience for new players... maybe not make battle force boxes that don't make sense...
Elemental wrote: There's a gigantic, glaring assumption there--that competitive players don't have fun.
Its WAAC victims that don't have fun, its only fun for the WAAC player. Compettive players win or lose can have fun its a different mind set. 'yeah I want to win, just not at the cost of crushing my opponent so he has no chance of winning.
Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.
I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO
Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"
This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.
Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.
I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO
Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"
This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.
What's wrong with tabling your opponent ?
Other victory conditions are ridiculous in comparison... like run to an objective for no reason...seriously ? A fight like a 2k point in 40K would take place in under 5 minutes, and you expect the forces there to run between 20 different objectives just because ? lol.
On top of that, some armies are made to table or be tabled, while others are far more resilient and have more options, so why even judge that ?
Nothing wrong with trying to destroy your opponent's army in a wargame, in fact if you aren't trying to do that you either have some VP stratagem in mind (hanging on to the objectives tooth and nail and/or trying to edge out a point advantage through secondaries for example, which is a perfectly viable and for some armies even rather fluffy strategy) or are just plain playing to lose (which is sad ).
In fact some of my best games were ones where both sides beat the snot out of each other to the point there was hardly anything left on the table save for lots of crater markers by the end of turn 6.
The problem arises when some armies are capable of whipping out lists that can easily table anything most other players would put on the table, sometimes to the point of making entire codices non-viable even in their most competitive builds.
Paradigm wrote: One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.
Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.
I bring other games up because there, winning is seen as something you earned through skill--not something that you got through rules exploits. I agree that crushing a rookie player is a jerk move to do, but it's all in the attitude of the player. You can certainly beat someone less experienced while being fun and helpful to play against--point out advantages in their army they might have missed, explain how your stuff works and when they're about to do something that's obviously unwise.
I've been thrashed by players and had fun, and I've won games that were miserable slogs, and by far the biggest factor was the attitude of the opponent. That's what makes a "bad" player for me, not what they put down on the table. I associate WAAC behaviour with playing fast and loose with rules, arguing over everything, regarding your opponent with unfounded suspicion, being derisive and unfriendly, etc--traits that are the same in any game with any army. None of that dickish behaviour comes from "wanting to win" though, because of course we all want to win.
So, I'm a bad person if I want to win a strategy game about war? No. I'm a casual player with a SOB army, but when I play, I'll play to win. That's kind of the point of a war game. The fun comes in how you try to win. If I try my hardest and my opponent tries his hardest and we have a hard fought, close game, that's fun for me. What's not fun is when I set my army down against an army I have no hope in beating.
If I'm not playing to win, then what's the point? "To tell a story and have fun!" If I wanted to spend time telling a story, I'll write a novel or play an RPG.
By all means play to win, but don't confuse that with the other aspects of the game. Winning is not the priority, it is the result. The priority is that both players have fun getting there.
MWHistorian wrote: So, I'm a bad person if I want to win a strategy game about war? No. I'm a casual player with a SOB army, but when I play, I'll play to win. That's kind of the point of a war game. The fun comes in how you try to win. If I try my hardest and my opponent tries his hardest and we have a hard fought, close game, that's fun for me. What's not fun is when I set my army down against an army I have no hope in beating.
If I'm not playing to win, then what's the point? "To tell a story and have fun!" If I wanted to spend time telling a story, I'll write a novel or play an RPG.
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
They don't play the best in the world , becaues they don't have the money to travel. But localy the competition is brutal . I live in Krakov , my cities second name is the city of knifes , because the football fans here refused to sign the no weapons in game fights deal . There are two teams and you either support one or the other , or you get beaten by supporters of both. It starts in kindergarden , and I have seen fathers yell break his leg in matchs between 10 year olds .
Competition is in all games , people don't beat each other up sensless only because of the cost it would bring . Offten people mention something called the "dreadsock" , but I doubt anyone does it actualy . But if there was no life long ban from events or clubs linked to it , they would totaly do it , specialy if they are bigger then their opponents.
morgoth wrote: What's wrong with tabling your opponent ?
Nothing as long as the road to get there wasn't paved by the shear desire to crush my opponent and prevent him having fun. I've tabled people before I just never developed an army list with the sole intent to crush all opposition. If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun. To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.
morgoth wrote: Other victory conditions are ridiculous in comparison... like run to an objective for no reason...seriously ? A fight like a 2k point in 40K would take place in under 5 minutes, and you expect the forces there to run between 20 different objectives just because ?
Tell that to the men who lost their lives in countless battles, just to take and hold some nameless spit of land they could care less about. All because a General thought it was of strategic value during a campaign advance. The General was most likely right, but his troops had the same attitude as you, 'risk my life for what, this POS hill/bridge/town'. They did it because they had to.
The stories most vets ever told me, never gave me the impression it lasted only 5 minutes.
morgoth wrote: On top of that, some armies are made to table or be tabled, while others are far more resilient and have more options, so why even judge that?
Not if the rules and codices were more balanced
I'm not attacking you just can't aggree and I think most people will not either. IMHO
Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.
I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO
Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"
This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.
I guess you missed where I stated in a previous post that most players wish the game was more balanced so every army had a equal shot of winning. I don't agree with the way the game is being developed, with tabling and WAAC armies as a norm.
I' not even sure what you mean in the last sentance.
Paradigm wrote: One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.
Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.
I bring other games up because there, winning is seen as something you earned through skill--not something that you got through rules exploits. I agree that crushing a rookie player is a jerk move to do, but it's all in the attitude of the player. You can certainly beat someone less experienced while being fun and helpful to play against--point out advantages in their army they might have missed, explain how your stuff works and when they're about to do something that's obviously unwise.
I've been thrashed by players and had fun, and I've won games that were miserable slogs, and by far the biggest factor was the attitude of the opponent. That's what makes a "bad" player for me, not what they put down on the table. I associate WAAC behaviour with playing fast and loose with rules, arguing over everything, regarding your opponent with unfounded suspicion, being derisive and unfriendly, etc--traits that are the same in any game with any army. None of that dickish behaviour comes from "wanting to win" though, because of course we all want to win.
Don't put it all on the winner.
I've seen a lot more bad attitude from people I tabled than from myself (lol).
Some started cheating as soon as they understood what was coming to them, others kept calling my stuff OP to diminish my victory earned through skill (of unit placement no less...), ...
And that's people I gave important advice to during the game and all that.
In the end, when your opponent makes huge mistakes, you're somewhat forced to table them.
Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.
Why is 40k any different?
They don't play the best in the world , becaues they don't have the money to travel. But localy the competition is brutal . I live in Krakov , my cities second name is the city of knifes , because the football fans here refused to sign the no weapons in game fights deal . There are two teams and you either support one or the other , or you get beaten by supporters of both. It starts in kindergarden , and I have seen fathers yell break his leg in matchs between 10 year olds .
Competition is in all games , people don't beat each other up sensless only because of the cost it would bring . Offten people mention something called the "dreadsock" , but I doubt anyone does it actualy . But if there was no life long ban from events or clubs linked to it , they would totaly do it , specialy if they are bigger then their opponents.
In Soviet Russia, the leg breaks you.
Just kidding, but this should not happen in civilized countries.
Nothing as long as the road to get there wasn't paved by the shear desire to crush my opponent and prevent him having fun. I've tabled people before I just never developed an army list with the sole intent to crush all opposition. If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun. To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.
Who said anything about preventing him to have fun. When just about anyone at a decent level plays SC2, he's trying his hardest to table his opponent, it's still all in good fun and all good players have fun being smashed even by cheesy builds, and learn to counter them.
On the other hand, SC2 is rather balanced and there are no cheeses that can't be countered while keeping a relatively TAC approach.
Tell that to the men who lost their lives in countless battles, just to take and hold some nameless spit of land they could care less about. All because a General thought it was of strategic value during a campaign advance. The General was most likely right, but his troops had the same attitude as you, 'risk my life for what, this POS hill/bridge/town'. They did it because they had to.
The stories most vets ever told me, never gave me the impression it lasted only 5 minutes.
A WH40K battle wouldn't last 5 minutes, because they take place in the future with advanced weaponry, not in the past with crappy MP40's and bullets that don't even make it through a brick wall.
Even the state of current warfare would make such objectives meaningless, as the equivalent of a 2K point fight would maybe take 6 minutes instead of 5.
Go for that objective, I'll be shoving this nuke up your bum while you do it
I'm not attacking you just can't aggree and I think most people will not either. IMHO
That would be horribly boring.
Eldar are wonderful for being table or be tabled, other armies are about resilience, others about other things still, that's what makes multiple different armies fun.
I guess you missed where I stated in a previous post that most players wish the game was more balanced so every army had a equal shot of winning. I don't agree with the way the game is being developed, with tabling and WAAC armies as a norm.
I' not even sure what you mean in the last sentance.
No, most players would like that the worse 8 codexes would be brought up to speed with the top 5. Equal shot at winning.
Tabling is an effect of the decisiveness of some builds, it's a good thing.
WAAC has strictly nothing to do with tabling, and that acronym is being way overused to describe anything remotely competitive.
Paradigm wrote: One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.
It's absolutely the point to include them because many of the arguments put against those complaining about the rules and balance are easily refuted by the existence of games that do have better rules and balance and yet remain good games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: So you think that if there were no consequence, people would happily beat someone up to win at 40k? There's honestly nothing I can say to that.
That's clearly not the point they were making and you know it. The point they were making is that people strive to win at all levels of football. I can (just about) remember playing football as a little kid (under ten) and despite our age, we were all trying our best to get that ball in the opponent's net. If you removed those goals and told us to just run around kicking a ball at each other I can guarantee it would not be as much fun. And that only became more pronounced as we get older. Most of us here are older aren't we? It's been a few years since I've played an actual football match now, but I play squash and I can't imagine walking onto the court and just hitting the ball to each other a bit would be nearly as much fun as both of us trying to slaughter each other on the court which is what we actually do.
As has been explained countless times and ignored just as many, nobody is saying winning is the point. Trying to win is the point. It's fun. Or at least it is in a game where it's balanced so you get a reasonable fight, not just a walk over for one party.
I'm not attacking you just can't aggree and I think most people will not either. IMHO
That would be horribly boring.
Eldar are wonderful for being table or be tabled, other armies are about resilience, others about other things still, that's what makes multiple different armies fun.
Just to quickly skip through the same points I've made a dozen times already to people who don't understand what a balanced game is:
Balance does not equal homogeneity. It increases variety by reducing "auto include" and "like X only strictly worse" choices.
Balance does not mean different armies cannot have different strengths. It means those strengths interact with each other in interesting ways without their being a clear Best build.
Balance does not mean everything is made bland in the name of perfect equality. It means that though there may be a best choice, it's by as narrow a margin as possible.
Balance does not mean removing all elements of chance from the game. It means being careful about the influence chance has on the game so you won't win or lose on a single early dice roll.
knas ser wrote: As has been explained countless times and ignored just as many, nobody is saying winning is the point. Trying to win is the point. It's fun. Or at least it is in a game where it's balanced so you get a reasonable fight, not just a walk over for one party.
Thanks for making my point, only better and in far fewer words.
I'm starting to wonder if there's something genetic that makes people think balanced means "sameness." Making a penitent engine 50 pts instead of 80 so someone might be tempted to take them, doesn't take all all the character out of the SOB army. It actually means you'd see a wider diversity of units.
That's clearly not the point they were making and you know it. The point they were making is that people strive to win at all levels of football. I can (just about) remember playing football as a little kid (under ten) and despite our age, we were all trying our best to get that ball in the opponent's net. If you removed those goals and told us to just run around kicking a ball at each other I can guarantee it would not be as much fun. And that only became more pronounced as we get older. Most of us here are older aren't we? It's been a few years since I've played an actual football match now, but I play squash and I can't imagine walking onto the court and just hitting the ball to each other a bit would be nearly as much fun as both of us trying to slaughter each other on the court which is what we actually do.
Plus the winner team gets ice cream and losers go home.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm starting to wonder if there's something genetic that makes people think balanced means "sameness." Making a penitent engine 50 pts instead of 80 so someone might be tempted to take them, doesn't take all all the character out of the SOB army. It actually means you'd see a wider diversity of units.
Yep. Whilst adjusting points isn't always the best fix, it *is* generally the easiest way to quickly get something to be worth using again or no longer OP. For example, the reduction in points of marines makes them more balanced, but it also makes them more common compared to guard whereas they should be more effective per model. Would much rather have the quick and easy points adjustment than no adjustment though. The Vendetta nerf should *not* have needed to wait for a new codex, it should have been in a FAQ; "Hey guys, this unit is over performing, it now costs 170 and has 6 transport capacity. To keep overall power of guard codex the same, we have reduced the cost of certain Leman Russ variants and veteran upgrades." Bam, huge balance improvement making the game much more fun for both guard players and people playing against them.
When one argues against tabling your opponent, one argues against armies that are glass cannon types, because such armies can only table or be tabled unless they wind up in a glass cannon duel and both armies are reduced equally to less than 25% of their original size.
I want glass cannons because that suits my style of play: being more decisive, feeling the full force of the right or wrong strategic decision and dealing with it.
Everyone who is arguing against tabling is arguing against the existence of glass cannon armies and diversity, without doing anything to support balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: The Vendetta nerf should *not* have needed to wait for a new codex, it should have been in a FAQ; "Hey guys, this unit is over performing, it now costs 170 and has 6 transport capacity. To keep overall power of guard codex the same, we have reduced the cost of certain Leman Russ variants and veteran upgrades." Bam, huge balance improvement making the game much more fun for both guard players and people playing against them.
This.
If you want any kind of balance for a game, you need balance updates every trimester at most.
WH40K rules should be up to date, free, and available online.
This would enable everyone to legally write and share smart, usable summaries instead of the fat or thin many-page rulebooks that you have to search through when you have a doubt.
Hell, it might even push GW to make their own usable summaries.
We'd still buy the paper codex because it's so beautiful.. or not, but at least they could be more about fluff and less about costing mistakes
Elemental wrote: Just to quickly skip through the same points I've made a dozen times already to people who don't understand what a balanced game is:
Balance does not equal homogeneity. It increases variety by reducing "auto include" and "like X only strictly worse" choices.
Balance does not mean different armies cannot have different strengths. It means those strengths interact with each other in interesting ways without their being a clear Best build.
Balance does not mean everything is made bland in the name of perfect equality. It means that though there may be a best choice, it's by as narrow a margin as possible.
Balance does not mean removing all elements of chance from the game. It means being careful about the influence chance has on the game so you won't win or lose on a single early dice roll.
knas ser wrote: As has been explained countless times and ignored just as many, nobody is saying winning is the point. Trying to win is the point. It's fun. Or at least it is in a game where it's balanced so you get a reasonable fight, not just a walk over for one party.
Thanks for making my point, only better and in far fewer words.
Agreed very good way of putting it you guys
I have stated this before many times and now twice in this thread.....I do not believe a game this complex can ever be 100% balanced, however I do believe it can be closer than its current state. Too where tactics, skill, and maybe bad/good luck is what decides how a game will be played out.
I not sure how that could ever be a boring game.
I never eluded to homogenity, blandness or removing chance.
I prefere games where my opponent has an equal or at least a reasonablely close to equal chance of winning with any army he/she may choose.
Morgoth Please tell us what is your glass cannon army is, maybe you are talking about a balanced gamed and we just don't get what you mean by glass cannon. The best Glass Cannon I know of is in fantasy, Skaven.
Considering he speaks of glass cannons.... horde slaanesh is rather glass cannonish bar a few selections. More likely though, he either plays Eldar (with minimal serpents and wraith) or, even more likely, Dark Eldar
Morgoth Please tell us what is your glass cannon army is, maybe you are talking about a balanced gamed and we just don't get what you mean by glass cannon. The best Glass Cannon I know of is in fantasy, Skaven.
Mostly Eldar Wave Serpents without WK or SeerStar.
It's fairly balanced and is a glass cannon.
If you catch me, I'm tabled, if you don't, you're tabled.
It only takes 500 points of assault troops to vaporize my 9 AV10-rear Skimmers (2000 points) in one turn , so any army has a very decent chance at winning if they play smart.
9 Serpents? Frankly, those have the range and mobility to blow away most units and keep evading the rest, and are far from weak with the AV12 and Shield if it's in defensive mode. I really don't see how that's a glass cannon, it's one of the top Eldar builds.
Glass cannons would be the likes of DE in Venoms or, to an extent, Orks in Trukks, where the units will wreck face if they hit you, but will also fold like a paper bag. Wave Serpents are leagues ahead of those AV10 open-topped deathtraps in terms of durability.
Morgoth Please tell us what is your glass cannon army is, maybe you are talking about a balanced gamed and we just don't get what you mean by glass cannon. The best Glass Cannon I know of is in fantasy, Skaven.
Mostly Eldar Wave Serpents without WK or SeerStar.
It's fairly balanced and is a glass cannon.
If you catch me, I'm tabled, if you don't, you're tabled.
It only takes 500 points of assault troops to vaporize my 9 AV10-rear Skimmers (2000 points) in one turn , so any army has a very decent chance at winning if they play smart.
I wouldn't quite call Wave Serpent Eldar glass cannons. They have AV12 which isn't really horrid (and better than most transports), has side values the same, has a shield making it only glancing, can use that shield for excessive dakka, and can still get a jink save that is mighty impressive. They lost a bit of tankiness but they are still very nasty.
Along with that, the assault troop argument is rather flawed. Unless you are positioning your units horridly, there really shouldn't be a way for 500 points of assault troops to vaporize 9 vehicles. The only real good assault units are largely either super mobile FMC which are largely expensive and got a big nerf if assault oriented, Maulerfiends might become a thing due to pen not being as painful (and even then you can only get a few of them for 500 points), stars which largely got nerfed, and beasts whom really are focused upon Flesh Hounds. Assault isn't really that good this edition and even when good 500 points simply couldn't vaporize 9 av10 skimmers unless you packed them in a neat little bunch and moved them in a way that made them chargeable. Keep in mind you are still a fast skimmer meaning 12" standard movement.
Seriously, want to play glass cannon? Play a Slaaneshi horde of daemons without maxing on Soulgrinders or MC. Want to play a glass cannon army that the codex is almost entirely devoted to being brutal but fragile? Play DE where your vehicles are AV10 all around and many of your models have at best a 5+ save and quite a few 6+ saves.
Paradigm wrote: 9 Serpents? Frankly, those have the range and mobility to blow away most units and keep evading the rest, and are far from weak with the AV12 and Shield if it's in defensive mode. I really don't see how that's a glass cannon, it's one of the top Eldar builds.
Glass cannons would be the likes of DE in Venoms or, to an extent, Orks in Trukks, where the units will wreck face if they hit you, but will also fold like a paper bag. Wave Serpents are leagues ahead of those AV10 open-topped deathtraps in terms of durability.
It's not one of the top Eldar builds at all (7 WS 2 Fire Prisms).
First of all, WS have EITHER dakka OR survivability, never both.
It's odd that a unit would have to make that choice every shooting phase, but that's how it is.
Jink is NOT a good thing, it's a cover save that costs you 75% of your firepower. You will avoid it at almost any cost.
Most of all, a table is only 48" x 72", and 9 Eldar Skimmers take a lot of space, I can assure you a competent player can corner and butcher them.
If Serpents aren't that good, why are there about 3 threads a week complaining about them? Accept it, they're one of the best units in the codex, second only to Seerstars in terms of power level. You can try and justify it all you like that they're not good, but to call them a Glass Cannon unit is fallacy at best and a poor excuse at worst.
I wouldn't quite call Wave Serpent Eldar glass cannons. They have AV12 which isn't really horrid (and better than most transports), has side values the same, has a shield making it only glancing, can use that shield for excessive dakka, and can still get a jink save that is mighty impressive. They lost a bit of tankiness but they are still very nasty.
Along with that, the assault troop argument is rather flawed. Unless you are positioning your units horridly, there really shouldn't be a way for 500 points of assault troops to vaporize 9 vehicles. The only real good assault units are largely either super mobile FMC which are largely expensive and got a big nerf if assault oriented, Maulerfiends might become a thing due to pen not being as painful (and even then you can only get a few of them for 500 points), stars which largely got nerfed, and beasts whom really are focused upon Flesh Hounds. Assault isn't really that good this edition and even when good 500 points simply couldn't vaporize 9 av10 skimmers unless you packed them in a neat little bunch and moved them in a way that made them chargeable. Keep in mind you are still a fast skimmer meaning 12" standard movement.
Seriously, want to play glass cannon? Play a Slaaneshi horde of daemons without maxing on Soulgrinders or MC. Want to play a glass cannon army that the codex is almost entirely devoted to being brutal but fragile? Play DE where your vehicles are AV10 all around and many of your models have at best a 5+ save and quite a few 6+ saves.
1. A predator has AV13 and costs much less
2. A WS not firing its shield doesn't do much damage, plus you have to choose whether you keep that defense long before your enemy's shooting phase.
3. Jink is a 4+ cover save that will cost you 75% of your firepower for the next turn. It's not a blessing from the gods. Once it's been triggered, you should switch target and make another Serpent jink, not pointlessly waste all your firepower on that now cover-saved WS.
4. 13.5 Termagants will wreck one WS a turn, it doesn't even need to be an assault unit.
5. 12" standard movement gives you less dakka than 6", and unless you can run in a straight line on an infinite table without any terrain, it buys you at most one turn. You can corner a Mech in two turns and assault it in three, all on foot. In three turns, assuming you were second, I will have shot down about 1000 points of your army, +- 20%. If you were first ...
6. If 13.5 Termagaunts, which are not assault units and cost roughly 70 points can do it, I would expect 500 points of assault units can do it, especially since S5 already halves the number of necessary attacks even before vehicle damage rolls
I think that a whole army that can be destroyed by a few assault units qualifies as fragile, I don't think anyone discusses the max-dakka option on the Serpent as qualifying for cannon, so yes I think it's a glass cannon.
Paradigm wrote: If Serpents aren't that good, why are there about 3 threads a week complaining about them? Accept it, they're one of the best units in the codex, second only to Seerstars in terms of power level. You can try and justify it all you like that they're not good, but to call them a Glass Cannon unit is fallacy at best and a poor excuse at worst.
Because there are still players who would like their not-really-TAC anti-horde army to also beat a Mech, and who will never stop complaining until they can.
Every last one of these threads is full of logical fallacies, like:
60" Shield range : not counting it's limited to 36" Scatter Laser or 24" Shuriken Cannon for any relevant effect
Jink : not counting it reduces your firepower to 1/4th, except against flyers which are Snap Shot anyway
Serpent Shield 2+ glance : not counting it's incompatible with putting out a great amount of dakka
über movement: not counting it's near useless on a 48"x72" board @ 2000 points (my 9 Skimmers already take 14" x 14" unless they're all perfectly aligned with the table border)
It almost costs the same price as a Riptide and is nowhere near as resilient or dakkalicious, which the Riptide does both at the same time.
Hell, 4 WS cost more than a SeerStar and very clearly, nobody has ever chosen them over the star.
If it does not compare with OP units, then it's clearly not OP.
Most of the WS that are taken in competitive lists are there to transport Fire Dragons or the minimum DA unit, never to get as many WS on the table as possible.
Instead, people seem to prefer the Wraith Knight, and other units would be chosen before the WS if the point limit was higher (Warp Spiders come to mind).
I wouldn't quite call Wave Serpent Eldar glass cannons. They have AV12 which isn't really horrid (and better than most transports), has side values the same, has a shield making it only glancing, can use that shield for excessive dakka, and can still get a jink save that is mighty impressive. They lost a bit of tankiness but they are still very nasty.
Along with that, the assault troop argument is rather flawed. Unless you are positioning your units horridly, there really shouldn't be a way for 500 points of assault troops to vaporize 9 vehicles. The only real good assault units are largely either super mobile FMC which are largely expensive and got a big nerf if assault oriented, Maulerfiends might become a thing due to pen not being as painful (and even then you can only get a few of them for 500 points), stars which largely got nerfed, and beasts whom really are focused upon Flesh Hounds. Assault isn't really that good this edition and even when good 500 points simply couldn't vaporize 9 av10 skimmers unless you packed them in a neat little bunch and moved them in a way that made them chargeable. Keep in mind you are still a fast skimmer meaning 12" standard movement.
Seriously, want to play glass cannon? Play a Slaaneshi horde of daemons without maxing on Soulgrinders or MC. Want to play a glass cannon army that the codex is almost entirely devoted to being brutal but fragile? Play DE where your vehicles are AV10 all around and many of your models have at best a 5+ save and quite a few 6+ saves.
1. A predator has AV13 and costs much less
2. A WS not firing its shield doesn't do much damage, plus you have to choose whether you keep that defense long before your enemy's shooting phase.
3. Jink is a 4+ cover save that will cost you 75% of your firepower for the next turn. It's not a blessing from the gods. Once it's been triggered, you should switch target and make another Serpent jink, not pointlessly waste all your firepower on that now cover-saved WS.
4. 13.5 Termagants will wreck one WS a turn, it doesn't even need to be an assault unit.
5. 12" standard movement gives you less dakka than 6", and unless you can run in a straight line on an infinite table without any terrain, it buys you at most one turn. You can corner a Mech in two turns and assault it in three, all on foot. In three turns, assuming you were second, I will have shot down about 1000 points of your army, +- 20%. If you were first ...
6. If 13.5 Termagaunts, which are not assault units and cost roughly 70 points can do it, I would expect 500 points of assault units can do it, especially since S5 already halves the number of necessary attacks even before vehicle damage rolls
I think that a whole army that can be destroyed by a few assault units qualifies as fragile, I don't think anyone discusses the max-dakka option on the Serpent as qualifying for cannon, so yes I think it's a glass cannon.
1. A predator isn't a waveserpent. The two are completely different beasts. The predator is built for anti-tank, not a transport that can be durable (and even more durable than a predator as well as being mobile as a fast skimmer (meaning standard movement is 12") with a deadly high shot gun with high strength and ignores cover cutting several high saves down to lower ones such as stealth back to a 5+ or 6+ save.
2. Yes you do, but you can also measure the risks based upon how close you are to the enemy, what weapons they have. Mostly it's best to just shoot it.
3. With an upgrade it can go to a 3+. Besides that, I'm not disagreeing that jink isn't godly like it was in 6th but the serpent was dogdly despite ignores cover being common in the meta.
4. And Abaddon will be killed by a Tau firewarrior sometimes. Thing is, these pitiful 13.5 still need to reach you. You are still moving 12" per turn whilst the gaunts are at best going to move 6" and charge. Even with fleet their average charge range of 7 is only really boosted to an 8 or a 9. The range of the Eldar gun is pretty godly to add to that and even if the transport gets sliced to death you still have units inside that'll shoot out.
5. Wait how does it give you less dakka? Fast Skimmers can still fire as normal. It's one of the main advantages of them. And you can't just corner a super mobile vehicle that can simply fly over your vehicles. Believe me, when I was new I tried that because it works on tanks. I then promptly watched the skimmer just fly over (shoulda known but was getting really panicky). Also first? Bloody hell mate it's still AV 12/12/10! That's pretty bloody good! It takes S6 guns to even hope to get lucky glances with only statistical chances on 7+. And keep in mind that it's even harder for vehicles to explode now coupled with the fact that even if your gun falls off your shield will still work.
6. Stop blabbering on about the terrors of assault. Assault hasn't been good since 3rd edition with only a few exceptions.
Also, you mention 24" and 36" as though that's a bad thing. It's still a super mobile vehicle and that is certainly no bad range.
Finally, you are using several fallacies as well. First of all, just because the serpent (which you forget can be spammed and makes up for having to take troops) might not be as broken as the Riptide doesn't make Serpents NOT op. That or the baledrake was a poor bad unit that wasn't that good ever sense Tau came out . Along with that, important tip, Stars got massively nerfed this edition.
Finally, you seem to forget that Eldar are one of the best codices out there. Serpents are good, in fact OP perhaps even with the changes to jink but it's not the only positives. Also you are ignoring the fact you can now have objective secured serpents
morgoth wrote:
1. A predator has AV13 and costs much less
And also doesn't have any transport capacity or the option to choose to ignore pens on a 2+, not to mention being able to TL its own shots.. The two are arguably comparable in firepower as well
2. A WS not firing its shield doesn't do much damage, plus you have to choose whether you keep that defense long before your enemy's shooting phase.
It still has more firepower than most transports with the Scatter Laser, and the more it fires the shield, the less there is to attack it anyway.
3. Jink is a 4+ cover save that will cost you 75% of your firepower for the next turn. It's not a blessing from the gods. Once it's been triggered, you should switch target and make another Serpent jink, not pointlessly waste all your firepower on that now cover-saved WS.
So you point out that the firepower isn't great, and then lament losing it. That's not adding up. Also, the fact a scatter laser TLs the shots means that the Serpent is actually one of the best things for mitigating this somewhat, and you also then lose nothing from moving at Cruising Speed.
4. 13.5 Termagants will wreck one WS a turn, it doesn't even need to be an assault unit.
And if you can't blow away those termagants in the time it takes them to reach you with 9 serpents and the contents, given the firepower and/or movement, then you deserve to be beaten or have terrible luck.
5. 12" standard movement gives you less dakka than 6", and unless you can run in a straight line on an infinite table without any terrain, it buys you at most one turn. You can corner a Mech in two turns and assault it in three, all on foot. In three turns, assuming you were second, I will have shot down about 1000 points of your army, +- 20%. If you were first ...
Of course, if you choose to castle in one place. Spread out, and that becomes far less viable. Not to mention that if you really need to get out, you've got a Flat Out move that can jump units and terrain. There's no excuse for Serpents being caught by foot armies.
6. If 13.5 Termagaunts, which are not assault units and cost roughly 70 points can do it, I would expect 500 points of assault units can do it, especially since S5 already halves the number of necessary attacks even before vehicle damage rolls
I think that a whole army that can be destroyed by a few assault units qualifies as fragile, I don't think anyone discusses the max-dakka option on the Serpent as qualifying for cannon, so yes I think it's a glass cannon.
I think you'll find that most shooting-based armies will fold to CC units, that's why you have the immense firepower to try and combat that before they hurt you.
morgoth wrote:
Paradigm wrote: If Serpents aren't that good, why are there about 3 threads a week complaining about them? Accept it, they're one of the best units in the codex, second only to Seerstars in terms of power level. You can try and justify it all you like that they're not good, but to call them a Glass Cannon unit is fallacy at best and a poor excuse at worst.
Because there are still players who would like their not-really-TAC anti-horde army to also beat a Mech, and who will never stop complaining until they can.
Every last one of these threads is full of logical fallacies, like:
60" Shield range : not counting it's limited to 36" Scatter Laser or 24" Shuriken Cannon for any relevant effect
The 60" range that means you can fire with impunity from well beyond the range of most Anti-Tank weapons from T1. Even assuming below average rolls, your 7 WS (being generous, you said 9 earlier) can put out 21 S6 BS4 shots anywhere on the board. That's enough to seriously hurt a lot of things.
Jink : not counting it reduces your firepower to 1/4th, except against flyers which are Snap Shot anyway
See above, already answered
Serpent Shield 2+ glance : not counting it's incompatible with putting out a great amount of dakka
Again, see above.
über movement: not counting it's near useless on a 48"x72" board @ 2000 points (my 9 Skimmers already take 14" x 14" unless they're all perfectly aligned with the table border)
It's far from useless. If you think it is, that may well be why you're getting cornered so often. In malestrom missions, it's even better as you can grab VP without your opponent even being able to block you.
It almost costs the same price as a Riptide and is nowhere near as resilient or dakkalicious, which the Riptide does both at the same time.
Hell, 4 WS cost more than a SeerStar and very clearly, nobody has ever chosen them over the star.
If it does not compare with OP units, then it's clearly not OP.
But it does compare; it is far and away the best transport in the game, bar none, for its cost. It has the firepower of a main battle tank, the speed of a skimmer, and the transport capacity (and option to have Objective Secured) is just gravy.
Most of the WS that are taken in competitive lists are there to transport Fire Dragons or the minimum DA unit, never to get as many WS on the table as possible.
Instead, people seem to prefer the Wraith Knight, and other units would be chosen before the WS if the point limit was higher (Warp Spiders come to mind).
You've got this the wrong way around. The minimum squads of Avengers are taken to unlock more Serpents, which is why they stay camped inside them all the game. In 6th, they got out to score, in 7th they needn't even do that.
Do you see lists with 3 Wraithknights more often than 4+ Serpents, online and in real life? Because I doubt anyone else does.
1. A predator isn't a waveserpent. The two are completely different beasts. The predator is built for anti-tank, not a transport that can be durable (and even more durable than a predator as well as being mobile as a fast skimmer (meaning standard movement is 12") with a deadly high shot gun with high strength and ignores cover cutting several high saves down to lower ones such as stealth back to a 5+ or 6+ save.
2. Yes you do, but you can also measure the risks based upon how close you are to the enemy, what weapons they have. Mostly it's best to just shoot it.
3. With an upgrade it can go to a 3+. Besides that, I'm not disagreeing that jink isn't godly like it was in 6th but the serpent was dogdly despite ignores cover being common in the meta.
4. And Abaddon will be killed by a Tau firewarrior sometimes. Thing is, these pitiful 13.5 still need to reach you. You are still moving 12" per turn whilst the gaunts are at best going to move 6" and charge. Even with fleet their average charge range of 7 is only really boosted to an 8 or a 9. The range of the Eldar gun is pretty godly to add to that and even if the transport gets sliced to death you still have units inside that'll shoot out.
5. Wait how does it give you less dakka? Fast Skimmers can still fire as normal. It's one of the main advantages of them. And you can't just corner a super mobile vehicle that can simply fly over your vehicles. Believe me, when I was new I tried that because it works on tanks. I then promptly watched the skimmer just fly over (shoulda known but was getting really panicky). Also first? Bloody hell mate it's still AV 12/12/10! That's pretty bloody good! It takes S6 guns to even hope to get lucky glances with only statistical chances on 7+. And keep in mind that it's even harder for vehicles to explode now coupled with the fact that even if your gun falls off your shield will still work.
6. Stop blabbering on about the terrors of assault. Assault hasn't been good since 3rd edition with only a few exceptions.
Also, you mention 24" and 36" as though that's a bad thing. It's still a super mobile vehicle and that is certainly no bad range.
Finally, you are using several fallacies as well. First of all, just because the serpent (which you forget can be spammed and makes up for having to take troops) might not be as broken as the Riptide doesn't make Serpents NOT op. That or the baledrake was a poor bad unit that wasn't that good ever sense Tau came out . Along with that, important tip, Stars got massively nerfed this edition.
Finally, you seem to forget that Eldar are one of the best codices out there. Serpents are good, in fact OP perhaps even with the changes to jink but it's not the only positives. Also you are ignoring the fact you can now have objective secured serpents
1. Who cares, it's AV13, cheaper and spammable.
2. Turn 1 and 2 you need to be do damage or you will die. Your opponent can target almost any of your vehicles if you use them to shoot, keeping one in "defense mode" is pointless.
3. It has the upgrade, and it's a 3+ Still not an Iwin button, still nerfing your DPS by 75%
4. Thing is, there is no way you can not kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts. Your transports cannot escape unless you leave a hole 12" away from them where they can land at the end of the movement phase, with a 7" long 4" wide transport and 1" base to base, that means you only need an army that's 6" deep to prevent them from running away.
5. No they don't, at 6" we get any number of weapons, at 12" we get two, last one is Snap Shot.
6. Well right now, assault is godly vs AV10 if you have S4 and AV11 if you have S5, and so on.
It's not a bad thing, it just means that the 60" Serpent Shield range is meaningless.
Just because the WS is vastly less powerful than the Riptide or the SeerStar does make it very competitive at best.
Finally, I don't care about objectives, I just like killing stuff.
1. A predator isn't a waveserpent. The two are completely different beasts. The predator is built for anti-tank, not a transport that can be durable (and even more durable than a predator as well as being mobile as a fast skimmer (meaning standard movement is 12") with a deadly high shot gun with high strength and ignores cover cutting several high saves down to lower ones such as stealth back to a 5+ or 6+ save.
2. Yes you do, but you can also measure the risks based upon how close you are to the enemy, what weapons they have. Mostly it's best to just shoot it.
3. With an upgrade it can go to a 3+. Besides that, I'm not disagreeing that jink isn't godly like it was in 6th but the serpent was dogdly despite ignores cover being common in the meta.
4. And Abaddon will be killed by a Tau firewarrior sometimes. Thing is, these pitiful 13.5 still need to reach you. You are still moving 12" per turn whilst the gaunts are at best going to move 6" and charge. Even with fleet their average charge range of 7 is only really boosted to an 8 or a 9. The range of the Eldar gun is pretty godly to add to that and even if the transport gets sliced to death you still have units inside that'll shoot out.
5. Wait how does it give you less dakka? Fast Skimmers can still fire as normal. It's one of the main advantages of them. And you can't just corner a super mobile vehicle that can simply fly over your vehicles. Believe me, when I was new I tried that because it works on tanks. I then promptly watched the skimmer just fly over (shoulda known but was getting really panicky). Also first? Bloody hell mate it's still AV 12/12/10! That's pretty bloody good! It takes S6 guns to even hope to get lucky glances with only statistical chances on 7+. And keep in mind that it's even harder for vehicles to explode now coupled with the fact that even if your gun falls off your shield will still work.
6. Stop blabbering on about the terrors of assault. Assault hasn't been good since 3rd edition with only a few exceptions.
Also, you mention 24" and 36" as though that's a bad thing. It's still a super mobile vehicle and that is certainly no bad range.
Finally, you are using several fallacies as well. First of all, just because the serpent (which you forget can be spammed and makes up for having to take troops) might not be as broken as the Riptide doesn't make Serpents NOT op. That or the baledrake was a poor bad unit that wasn't that good ever sense Tau came out . Along with that, important tip, Stars got massively nerfed this edition.
Finally, you seem to forget that Eldar are one of the best codices out there. Serpents are good, in fact OP perhaps even with the changes to jink but it's not the only positives. Also you are ignoring the fact you can now have objective secured serpents
1. Who cares, it's AV13, cheaper and spammable.
If dedicated Transports aren't spammable, then what is? 1 FOC can bring 3 Preds, or 12+ Serpents. Serpents are spammable, your own 7-serpent army proves that.
2. Turn 1 and 2 you need to be do damage or you will die. Your opponent can target almost any of your vehicles if you use them to shoot, keeping one in "defense mode" is pointless.
But with the firepower you can put out, those 2 turns can destroy half an army, especially if you're moving into SL range fast (and there's no way 36" qualifies as short range).
3. It has the upgrade, and it's a 3+ Still not an Iwin button, still nerfing your DPS by 75%
Except it's not 75%, because just one SL hit (a probability) TLs the rest of the shots.
4. Thing is, there is no way you can not kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts. Your transports cannot escape unless you leave a hole 12" away from them where they can land at the end of the movement phase, with a 7" long 4" wide transport and 1" base to base, that means you only need an army that's 6" deep to prevent them from running away.
Is anyone going to bring 2000 points of termagants in real life? A clue: no.
5. No they don't, at 6" we get any number of weapons, at 12" we get two, last one is Snap Shot.
So a Serpent Shield (D6+1 shots) and a Scatter Laser (6 shots) isn't enough?
6. Well right now, assault is godly vs AV10 if you have S4 and AV11 if you have S5, and so on.
It is, but there's no reason they should be able to catch you in a realistic situation, given your firepower and mobility.
It's not a bad thing, it just means that the 60" Serpent Shield range is meaningless.
No, it's not meaningless. Being able to kill the guy with the Lascannon before that Lascannon is in range is not meaningless.
Just because the WS is vastly less powerful than the Riptide or the SeerStar does make it very competitive at best.
With 40k the way it is, the two are basically synonymous.
Finally, I don't care about objectives, I just like killing stuff.
Well this could be the problem. Play to table every game and of course you won't appreciate another other than sheer firepower.
Paradigm wrote: 9 Serpents? Frankly, those have the range and mobility to blow away most units and keep evading the rest, and are far from weak with the AV12 and Shield if it's in defensive mode. I really don't see how that's a glass cannon, it's one of the top Eldar builds.
Glass cannons would be the likes of DE in Venoms or, to an extent, Orks in Trukks, where the units will wreck face if they hit you, but will also fold like a paper bag. Wave Serpents are leagues ahead of those AV10 open-topped deathtraps in terms of durability.
It's not one of the top Eldar builds at all (7 WS 2 Fire Prisms).
First of all, WS have EITHER dakka OR survivability, never both.
It's odd that a unit would have to make that choice every shooting phase, but that's how it is.
Jink is NOT a good thing, it's a cover save that costs you 75% of your firepower. You will avoid it at almost any cost.
Most of all, a table is only 48" x 72", and 9 Eldar Skimmers take a lot of space, I can assure you a competent player can corner and butcher them.
WOW, I really don't know what to say, there is no way that many serpents is a glass cannon. 1-3 Wave Serpents fair play. 4-5 is going on the edge of should only be seen at tournaments, or at least when your opponnents playing similar above average to top tier builds. 6+ OP not the top dog of top tier lists but good enough to contend with them.
In 6th edition my opponents had a hard enough time cracking 3 wave serpents, now in 7th the can't seem to touch them. I could only imagine how frustrating and hard 4+ Wave Serpents would be.
1. A predator isn't a waveserpent. The two are completely different beasts. The predator is built for anti-tank, not a transport that can be durable (and even more durable than a predator as well as being mobile as a fast skimmer (meaning standard movement is 12") with a deadly high shot gun with high strength and ignores cover cutting several high saves down to lower ones such as stealth back to a 5+ or 6+ save.
2. Yes you do, but you can also measure the risks based upon how close you are to the enemy, what weapons they have. Mostly it's best to just shoot it.
3. With an upgrade it can go to a 3+. Besides that, I'm not disagreeing that jink isn't godly like it was in 6th but the serpent was dogdly despite ignores cover being common in the meta.
4. And Abaddon will be killed by a Tau firewarrior sometimes. Thing is, these pitiful 13.5 still need to reach you. You are still moving 12" per turn whilst the gaunts are at best going to move 6" and charge. Even with fleet their average charge range of 7 is only really boosted to an 8 or a 9. The range of the Eldar gun is pretty godly to add to that and even if the transport gets sliced to death you still have units inside that'll shoot out.
5. Wait how does it give you less dakka? Fast Skimmers can still fire as normal. It's one of the main advantages of them. And you can't just corner a super mobile vehicle that can simply fly over your vehicles. Believe me, when I was new I tried that because it works on tanks. I then promptly watched the skimmer just fly over (shoulda known but was getting really panicky). Also first? Bloody hell mate it's still AV 12/12/10! That's pretty bloody good! It takes S6 guns to even hope to get lucky glances with only statistical chances on 7+. And keep in mind that it's even harder for vehicles to explode now coupled with the fact that even if your gun falls off your shield will still work.
6. Stop blabbering on about the terrors of assault. Assault hasn't been good since 3rd edition with only a few exceptions.
Also, you mention 24" and 36" as though that's a bad thing. It's still a super mobile vehicle and that is certainly no bad range.
Finally, you are using several fallacies as well. First of all, just because the serpent (which you forget can be spammed and makes up for having to take troops) might not be as broken as the Riptide doesn't make Serpents NOT op. That or the baledrake was a poor bad unit that wasn't that good ever sense Tau came out . Along with that, important tip, Stars got massively nerfed this edition.
Finally, you seem to forget that Eldar are one of the best codices out there. Serpents are good, in fact OP perhaps even with the changes to jink but it's not the only positives. Also you are ignoring the fact you can now have objective secured serpents
1. Who cares, it's AV13, cheaper and spammable.
2. Turn 1 and 2 you need to be do damage or you will die. Your opponent can target almost any of your vehicles if you use them to shoot, keeping one in "defense mode" is pointless.
3. It has the upgrade, and it's a 3+ Still not an Iwin button, still nerfing your DPS by 75%
4. Thing is, there is no way you can not kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts. Your transports cannot escape unless you leave a hole 12" away from them where they can land at the end of the movement phase, with a 7" long 4" wide transport and 1" base to base, that means you only need an army that's 6" deep to prevent them from running away.
5. No they don't, at 6" we get any number of weapons, at 12" we get two, last one is Snap Shot.
6. Well right now, assault is godly vs AV10 if you have S4 and AV11 if you have S5, and so on.
It's not a bad thing, it just means that the 60" Serpent Shield range is meaningless.
Just because the WS is vastly less powerful than the Riptide or the SeerStar does make it very competitive at best.
Finally, I don't care about objectives, I just like killing stuff.
I agree with you and get what you're saying. I wouldn't normally bother to post something like that but seeing as everyone is telling you you're wrong, I thought I might as well voice my support.
1. A predator isn't a waveserpent. The two are completely different beasts. The predator is built for anti-tank, not a transport that can be durable (and even more durable than a predator as well as being mobile as a fast skimmer (meaning standard movement is 12") with a deadly high shot gun with high strength and ignores cover cutting several high saves down to lower ones such as stealth back to a 5+ or 6+ save.
2. Yes you do, but you can also measure the risks based upon how close you are to the enemy, what weapons they have. Mostly it's best to just shoot it.
3. With an upgrade it can go to a 3+. Besides that, I'm not disagreeing that jink isn't godly like it was in 6th but the serpent was dogdly despite ignores cover being common in the meta.
4. And Abaddon will be killed by a Tau firewarrior sometimes. Thing is, these pitiful 13.5 still need to reach you. You are still moving 12" per turn whilst the gaunts are at best going to move 6" and charge. Even with fleet their average charge range of 7 is only really boosted to an 8 or a 9. The range of the Eldar gun is pretty godly to add to that and even if the transport gets sliced to death you still have units inside that'll shoot out.
5. Wait how does it give you less dakka? Fast Skimmers can still fire as normal. It's one of the main advantages of them. And you can't just corner a super mobile vehicle that can simply fly over your vehicles. Believe me, when I was new I tried that because it works on tanks. I then promptly watched the skimmer just fly over (shoulda known but was getting really panicky). Also first? Bloody hell mate it's still AV 12/12/10! That's pretty bloody good! It takes S6 guns to even hope to get lucky glances with only statistical chances on 7+. And keep in mind that it's even harder for vehicles to explode now coupled with the fact that even if your gun falls off your shield will still work.
6. Stop blabbering on about the terrors of assault. Assault hasn't been good since 3rd edition with only a few exceptions.
Also, you mention 24" and 36" as though that's a bad thing. It's still a super mobile vehicle and that is certainly no bad range.
Finally, you are using several fallacies as well. First of all, just because the serpent (which you forget can be spammed and makes up for having to take troops) might not be as broken as the Riptide doesn't make Serpents NOT op. That or the baledrake was a poor bad unit that wasn't that good ever sense Tau came out . Along with that, important tip, Stars got massively nerfed this edition.
Finally, you seem to forget that Eldar are one of the best codices out there. Serpents are good, in fact OP perhaps even with the changes to jink but it's not the only positives. Also you are ignoring the fact you can now have objective secured serpents
1. Who cares, it's AV13, cheaper and spammable.
2. Turn 1 and 2 you need to be do damage or you will die. Your opponent can target almost any of your vehicles if you use them to shoot, keeping one in "defense mode" is pointless.
3. It has the upgrade, and it's a 3+ Still not an Iwin button, still nerfing your DPS by 75%
4. Thing is, there is no way you can not kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts. Your transports cannot escape unless you leave a hole 12" away from them where they can land at the end of the movement phase, with a 7" long 4" wide transport and 1" base to base, that means you only need an army that's 6" deep to prevent them from running away.
5. No they don't, at 6" we get any number of weapons, at 12" we get two, last one is Snap Shot.
6. Well right now, assault is godly vs AV10 if you have S4 and AV11 if you have S5, and so on.
It's not a bad thing, it just means that the 60" Serpent Shield range is meaningless.
Just because the WS is vastly less powerful than the Riptide or the SeerStar does make it very competitive at best.
Finally, I don't care about objectives, I just like killing stuff.
1. Really who cares? That's the worst argument I've ever heard. Here's the thing you don't seem to get, Predators and Waveserpents aren't the same beasts. The predator is designed to be anti-tank and heavy, the waveserpent is designed to be a transport that somehow has the same strength as a waveserpent. So then, let's compare. I'll use the cheapest type of predator, a chaos predator. 75 points for a vehicle with BS4 F13 S11 R10 Hp3 Vehicle (tank) and starts with an autocannon, searchlight, and smoke launcher. An autocannon means firing 2 Str7 ap4 shots at 48". That's really not that exceptional. The really only somewhat popular predator variant (and even then doesn't get all too much time in competitive) is the tri-las predator. That makes the predator cost 140 points. The serpent starts at 115 points and is often upgraded to become 130 points with a total of Twinlinked Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon and Serpent Shield. Let's observe the pros and cons now won't we?
Spoiler:
Predator:
+AV13 front
-AV11 sides
-Not that mobile. Moves 6" if it wants to fire
-You can, without going into the complexities of allying, have a maximum of 3 in your army.
+At the 140 points, you are lobbing out 2 lascannon shots and 1 twin-linked lascannon shot making you very likely to blow up a single vehicle per turn
+Is scoring
+lascannon range is very good at 48"
+BS4
Waveserpent:
+Transport
+Can get objective secured meaning you can steal objectives from enemies
+Is Scoring
+Is extremely mobile capable of moving 12" and still firing everything
+BS4
+AV12 Front. The best dedicated troop front armour in the game. It's still rather tanky
-AV12 Front. In comparison to the predator, the front armour is lower
++AV12 Side armour. Best dedicated transport side armour. Unlike other armies, you don't need to worry about your sides being hit. This is a massive boon compared to predators that if shot at the side suddenly become rather fragile again.
+Twin-linked scattergun. It's a decent gun on it's own. Good 36" range, 4 S6 shots is rather nasty and if any hit twin-links all of your other guns.
+Shuriken Cannon 3 S6 shots that will likely be twinlinked and synergize with the strength of the twin-linked scattergun. It has an inferior range of 24" but even that is still some very good range. At the very maximum distance from the enemy and still able to fire, the enemy will move 6" and even with a 12" charge will fail to reach you
+Serpent Shield. This, coupled with the twin-linked scattergun is the true terror combined with its tankiness. Not only if not used does it mean that there is almost no worry of guns being lost or even chances of being exploded, it is an effective gun in and of itself. At the price of giving up a nice little perk, you can fire D6+1 (average 4.5) S7 AP- Ignores cover shots at a range of 60". You cannot hide from this beast of doom.
+Skimmer allowing you to fly over enemies making it hard to be wrangled up
+Sacrificing shooting, you can get a 4+ or even 3+ cover save and still get to snapfire next turn
The only thing that makes the predator cheaper is not needing to have troops in it. That said, even the predators need troops as always and you can actually spam more serpents. There is no natural way to field 9 predators without abusing force org combined arms. Even then, you will have to take additional HQs and troops. There is a way to field 9 waveserpents without even needing to do that despite the fact that the Waveserpent is not only more mobile, a transport, can steal objectives, and is not only good at killing hordes but also killing vehicles.
2. Not every army can. There's no equal distribution of firearms in this game. Orks largely rely on lootas for their dakka and the rest on CC, Chaos Daemons largely relied on CC to take care of foes despite most assault units being bad. The only real ranged threat you have to worry about from daemons is the soulgrinder maybe and the flaming chariot of tzeentch which is even more fragile at AV10/10/10 with only a 5+ invuln save to protect it. This comes and goes per army and don't forget, yeah you will probably lose some serpents. Shocker, some of your units will die and usually its the scariest ones first.
3. Along with that, you can say it's nerfing your shots but you are forgetting that it's better to suffer a loss to your DPS than it is to lose your model entirely. Think about that advantage above all else. Sure, it might not be shooting as well this turn but it's alive unlike many!
4. There is no way you cannot kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts Depends actually. What are the rules for gaunts not in synapse again? Ooooh yeah! Run and hide! Guess what, they either immediately retreat or they head to the best cover possible. They will run for cover if not already in it. You need synapse to make them work but then it's not 2000 points of gaunts is it? Also, never. Eeeeever EVER say there is "no way you can not kill ". We play a game of random dice with very few impossibilities. Also termegaunts can only harm your vehicles in two ways. One, by shooting it with their close range guns. Two, if they pay for upgrades. They are S3 naturally and only get S4 if you buy and upgrade that still relies on charging. Multicharge and you can't. Also you forget your mobile units are zipping around shooting the enemy to death all the while. The model is still always moving 12" don't forget and that's without flatouting. Sure, you might only snapfire that turn but, yet again, so what. It is more important to live than to die.
5. Fast skimmer mate Fast skimmer. And even if its 2.... just don't fire the shuriken catapult and suddenly you are doing it from range 36" instead of the 24"
6. Yes, assault is godly versus av10. Thing is, not everything has S4. Shockingly, most things have S3! Those gaunts you scream of killing in CC? They naturally can't make a scratch mate unless firing which is still only glances on backside. Even with an assault, it takes a lot of hits with only hoping for glances on a 6 at S4. And the finale, yes, vehicles like LR get dismantled easily in CC but you are a bloody fast skimmer! You can dance circles around 13.5 gaunts and shoot them while they are down!
And no, the 60" isn't meaningless. If I buy sponsoons on my tank and I can't fire them because out of range (be it guns having different ranges or simply because sponsoons are further back on the vehicle), I don't cry that the range is meaningless. 60" means you will hit anything on the map as long as you can see it. That coupled with your good speed and the good 36" range shot means that there is no safe zone.
And why is it very competitive at best? Because it is... wait for it, broken.
And if you don't care about objectives then you are not properly using it. OH IT'S SO BAD! Hey tip it can score objectives BUT I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT! Think about how that sounds for a moment. It's like if you complain about being hungry and somebody gives you cookies but all you do is say I only think cookies are okay I wanted chocolate instead! Dude it's a chocolate chip cookie the chocolates are in it!
Anyways, we are getting off topic. The problem is you claimed that Serpents are glass cannons. Thing is, they are not glass cannons. DE transports are glass cannons with good killy but av10 everywhere. The flaming chariot can chug out a possible 3 lascannon shots but it's a fast skimmer with av10 all sides. Those are fragile and killy. The waveserpent is a tanky beast medium-high tankiness with extreme killiness.
Waveserpents, Heldrakes, Riptides, etc are just as bad for the game as the existence of godly stars as is the existence of units like Banshees, Pyrovores, and Thousand Sons. I want balance in my game, not these radically over the top good and bad units.
As per the topic itself, yes, people will abuse things. Its just how humans will go at many a thing. Still, there's always a catch. The problem with criticizing abuses comes in a few things. For starters, in competitive level abusing is simply a matter of life. It's in there so it works. The other problem is that well.... fluffy things can be broken. White Scars were too good and were very fluffy in their play stile, the Riptide heavy army that used a commander to buff it was also rather fluffy if an individual made up fluff for it (not to mention being a part of battlesuits which are popular with man), waveserpents? Very good and very fluffy. It's kind of like the Draigowing deathstar from the previous edition. It's very fluffy and there are obvious reasons why somebody would play it not just because its good.
I love these threads, they always devolve into people wanting to play fluffy, not the strongest, but not necessarily the weakest lists, to represent "real" armies on the tabletop, and rules lawyers who have been around forever who will use any justification ever to make sure they get to do what they want and that it is allowed, so it should be okay, period!
People who keep asking what are WAAC lists anyway, come on. You already know the answer. You're just trying to justify your behavior to everyone else. Or argue the opponent down to nothing in the hopes of winning an internet argument, just like you would do during the game.
Valhalla130 wrote: I love these threads, they always devolve into people wanting to play fluffy, not the strongest, but not necessarily the weakest lists, to represent "real" armies on the tabletop, and rules lawyers who have been around forever who will use any justification ever to make sure they get to do what they want and that it is allowed, so it should be okay, period!
People who keep asking what are WAAC lists anyway, come on. You already know the answer. You're just trying to justify your behavior to everyone else. Or argue the opponent down to nothing in the hopes of winning an internet argument, just like you would do during the game.
Not quite. The most important question is... what is WAAC? Some people simply say that competitive lists are WAAC. Some people call anybody wanting to win are WAAC. And some people consider WAAC to be people that will cheat and act rudely throughout the entire game. So what is our definition exactly?
As per WAAC lists, the problem is that it isn't the list, it's the person. I have a friend who wants 3 riptides and commanders. He loves battlesuits, he wants to play them. In 6th edition, maybe 7th edition, this would have been broken against my army but he didn't do it because WAAC. A FMC spam list? When I was a beginner I imagined getting 3 DP and 1 LoC and having fluff for each to represent the lrod and his commanders. It would be the moment that the true terrors appeared to stride the battlefield with unholy might. I never fielded it because it would actually be too good for my group but I really did want to. The possibilities for fluff were absolutely endless limited only by my wallet I have an Eldar player who had wanted to build a mechanized list. He started in the ends of 5th edition and bought, as many probably did, the waveserpent. Should he be punished for using models that are largely good especially when one of the best units in the game is your single dedicated transport? That's the problem, things are always ambiguous. White Scar players? Any dedicated White Scar player might be shunned simply because in this edition they suddenly magically became good. Now, if I saw somebody with a Screamerstar I'd be 99% sure it's a player that wants to be competitive (well in 6th at least) but there are some that are far more murky.
Valhalla130 wrote: I love these threads, they always devolve into people wanting to play fluffy, not the strongest, but not necessarily the weakest lists, to represent "real" armies on the tabletop, and rules lawyers who have been around forever who will use any justification ever to make sure they get to do what they want and that it is allowed, so it should be okay, period!
People who keep asking what are WAAC lists anyway, come on. You already know the answer. You're just trying to justify your behavior to everyone else. Or argue the opponent down to nothing in the hopes of winning an internet argument, just like you would do during the game.
No, I believe the point was to show that not everyone's idea of "WAAC" is the same, so who's definition should we use?
If dedicated Transports aren't spammable, then what is? 1 FOC can bring 3 Preds, or 12+ Serpents. Serpents are spammable, your own 7-serpent army proves that.
1. They are spammable, that doesn't make them OP
Paradigm wrote: But with the firepower you can put out, those 2 turns can destroy half an army, especially if you're moving into SL range fast (and there's no way 36" qualifies as short range).
No you cannot destroy half an army, EVEN if you move into 24" range, because there is LoS, cover (not ignored by more than half the DPS), and jinked / hurt WS from the past turn.
Paradigm wrote: Except it's not 75%, because just one SL hit (a probability) TLs the rest of the shots.
Except it is, because I did the math and you did not.
Paradigm wrote: Is anyone going to bring 2000 points of termagants in real life? A clue: no.
But if 2000 points of dumb termagaunts can take down a Mech, a properly designed army list can do it too. The Termagaunt is obviously not a great WS counter.
Paradigm wrote: So a Serpent Shield (D6+1 shots) and a Scatter Laser (6 shots) isn't enough?
I wish they were 6 shots, but they're only 4, sorry.
Paradigm wrote: It is, but there's no reason they should be able to catch you in a realistic situation, given your firepower and mobility.
Well, on a 48"x72" table, I can make it happen as the opposing player, if you can't you're not really trying.
You may arrive one turn late and lose anyway, but if you don't make contact, you're not even trying.
Paradigm wrote: No, it's not meaningless. Being able to kill the guy with the Lascannon before that Lascannon is in range is not meaningless.
And losing more than half of your dakka just to kill that one guy with the Lascannon at a hypothetical range that almost never happens on a 48"x72" board ? sure. go do that, I'll be trying to win instead.
Paradigm wrote: With 40k the way it is, the two are basically synonymous.
I don't think so, competitive means it's not trash, OP means it cannot be matched.
Paradigm wrote: Well this could be the problem. Play to table every game and of course you won't appreciate another other than sheer firepower.
If you'd rather run around to capture meaningless objectives for the sake of it every single game, suit yourself.
I play for strategy, tactics and that's it.
I'm not interested in "capture this ruin this turn and we give you a complimentary victory point" bs.
And one little thing. If you play for strategy and tactics (which you can't really do one of those) and are doing that in a horribly imbalanced game, I want to point out that tactics would involve capturing that ruin. Really I'd prefer you respond to my post simply because I pointed out some points that you have missed or chosen to ignore.
That and your argument of termegaunts killing in CC doesn't work naturally. It's an upgrade of furious charge. If not, they are only S3
4. There is no way you cannot kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts Depends actually. What are the rules for gaunts not in synapse again? Ooooh yeah! Run and hide! Guess what, they either immediately retreat or they head to the best cover possible. They will run for cover if not already in it. You need synapse to make them work but then it's not 2000 points of gaunts is it? Also, never. Eeeeever EVER say there is "no way you can not kill ". We play a game of random dice with very few impossibilities. Also termegaunts can only harm your vehicles in two ways. One, by shooting it with their close range guns. Two, if they pay for upgrades. They are S3 naturally and only get S4 if you buy and upgrade that still relies on charging. Multicharge and you can't. Also you forget your mobile units are zipping around shooting the enemy to death all the while. The model is still always moving 12" don't forget and that's without flatouting. Sure, you might only snapfire that turn but, yet again, so what. It is more important to live than to die.
Nice one. You can only move 12" in one movement phase. You could stay static in the movement phase and flatout in the shooting phase, but that wouldn't bring you out of the threat range.
They would need Synapse, they're not 100% sure to fail the Ld though, so maybe 2k points would be enough I didn't know that about the S4, apparently my last opponent didn't either. That detail about multicharging I would love to hear more about.
The point is: any S4+ assault unit will wreck those vehicles for a fraction of the point cost, including one with a crappy profile otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarTrotter wrote: And one little thing. If you play for strategy and tactics (which you can't really do one of those) and are doing that in a horribly imbalanced game, I want to point out that tactics would involve capturing that ruin. Really I'd prefer you respond to my post simply because I pointed out some points that you have missed or chosen to ignore.
Your post is long, disordered and boring.
There was some interesting content to which I reacted. Sorry for the rest.
4. There is no way you cannot kill a mech with 2000 points of Termagaunts Depends actually. What are the rules for gaunts not in synapse again? Ooooh yeah! Run and hide! Guess what, they either immediately retreat or they head to the best cover possible. They will run for cover if not already in it. You need synapse to make them work but then it's not 2000 points of gaunts is it? Also, never. Eeeeever EVER say there is "no way you can not kill ". We play a game of random dice with very few impossibilities. Also termegaunts can only harm your vehicles in two ways. One, by shooting it with their close range guns. Two, if they pay for upgrades. They are S3 naturally and only get S4 if you buy and upgrade that still relies on charging. Multicharge and you can't. Also you forget your mobile units are zipping around shooting the enemy to death all the while. The model is still always moving 12" don't forget and that's without flatouting. Sure, you might only snapfire that turn but, yet again, so what. It is more important to live than to die.
Nice one. You can only move 12" in one movement phase. You could stay static in the movement phase and flatout in the shooting phase, but that wouldn't bring you out of the threat range.
They would need Synapse, they're not 100% sure to fail the Ld though, so maybe 2k points would be enough I didn't know that about the S4, apparently my last opponent didn't either. That detail about multicharging I would love to hear more about.
The point is: any S4+ assault unit will wreck those vehicles for a fraction of the point cost, including one with a crappy profile otherwise.
Keep in mind multicharge is when you charge 2 enemy units with one. Not charging 1 enemy unit with two blobs.
Whoa man really 12"? That's nothing to you? That's 12 inches! Most models move 6" per turn. Sacrificing shooting most can move only d6 inches with a few d6+3 inches. Charge is 12" movement. Yes, if you are point black you are at risk but if you move within 24" to fire all of your guns, the enemy has 0 chance of assaulting you unless they are beasts, jump, or cavalry. Even then, it's statistically unlikely, nigh on unrealistic to make a 12" charge.
Disordered? I divided them to the same segments as you did. Any repetition was only because they were the same explanations. And boring? Seriously? All the content is just talking about stats. Regardless, I am still thankful you responded and, at the very least, something has come out of this on the part of multicharges and termegaunts. Be warned, Termegaunts can still purchase an upgrade that gives them S4 so it is still possible (the name is Adrenal Glands I believe)!
All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.
And as far as dedicated transport, the Eldar still have Falcons, which is all there used to be, unless the fact that it has a gun means its not "dedicated" and I mistook what you were saying.
Valhalla130 wrote: All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.
So at what number of unit X does the list flip over to being WAAC in your eyes? How many of them are okay to field against you, and do you think everyone else would agree with your choice?
Technicly it is 1 , as you can view any unit as WAAC. At the same time you can field any number of bad units or units that your opponent can kill realy well.
I doubt an eldar army full of warwalkers and those web guns would have problems with lets say an IG all infantry list.
In my opinion the simplest way to fix the imbalance would have been simply to do away with the FOC and go to similar point limits like Fantasy. Setting a 25% minimum points to troops would be much better at balancing out armies. Maximizing points as opposed to models would be much more effective. The biggest problem would be all the tears about how everyones army has been hurt.
The other simple balancing solution is to play 1500 as opposed to 1800+ Less, well I should say a different, thought is required with the higher point totals because it is all about how much do I want to bring as opposed to which unit do I want to bring more than the other. Our group rarely plays over 1500 points and the games remain quite even.
This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)
The simple answer on these GW articles and threads really is (and I think was the point of the old article) Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves. The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....
The point of these open lists is to really open up the options of variety. The openness that allows the savvy player to make that 'WAAC" list is the same openness that allows fluff bunnies like myself to make army lists based on stories, themes or battles in that rich background.
Throt wrote: In my opinion the simplest way to fix the imbalance would have been simply to do away with the FOC and go to similar point limits like Fantasy.
Setting a 25% minimum points to troops would be much better at balancing out armies. Maximizing points as opposed to models would be much more effective.
The biggest problem would be all the tears about how everyones army has been hurt.
The other simple balancing solution is to play 1500 as opposed to 1800+
Less, well I should say a different, thought is required with the higher point totals because it is all about how much do I want to bring as opposed to which unit do I want to bring more than the other.
Our group rarely plays over 1500 points and the games remain quite even.
This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)
The simple answer on these GW articles and threads really is (and I think was the point of the old article)
Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves.
The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....
The point of these open lists is to really open up the options of variety.
The openness that allows the savvy player to make that 'WAAC" list is the same openness that allows fluff bunnies like myself to make army lists based on stories, themes or battles in that rich background.
Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.
But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.
Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.
But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.
IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Are you familiar with how the Fantasy point system works? It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
I don't believe there is a catch with the troops.
When you look at the 40kFOC you must take 1 hq and 2 troops minimum. All this does is stresses that minimum. Troops are not typically game breaking units and also tend to be rather balanced across the armies. This is often why troops get fielded less often.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
There are 14 different races, not including space marine varieties. An average of (guessing) 14 different unit types in every book. Plus countless weapons. There will always be difficulties.
Eldar will take the 25% troops with the rule or without. IG may take as close to that minimum as possible. Other restrictions keep IG from having 2/3 in tanks or fliers. (examples)
It is the extreme list building that throws the balance out of whack.
IMO the 'problem' doesn't really need to be 'solved'. it is really quite simple to regulate as is..
Except this doesn't actually solve it. It punishes armies that have sucky troops and is huge to armies with good troops or, as per Eldar, also good transports. And that is the real catch.
But yeah you are right this is really just a disguised debate between the "WAAC" vs. "Fluff" battle. "" because it's not quite that but I'm too lazy to get the real name.
IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Are you familiar with how the Fantasy point system works? It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
I don't believe there is a catch with the troops.
When you look at the 40kFOC you must take 1 hq and 2 troops minimum. All this does is stresses that minimum. Troops are not typically game breaking units and also tend to be rather balanced across the armies. This is often why troops get fielded less often.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
There are 14 different races, not including space marine varieties. An average of (guessing) 14 different unit types in every book. Plus countless weapons. There will always be difficulties.
Eldar will take the 25% troops with the rule or without. IG may take as close to that minimum as possible. Other restrictions keep IG from having 2/3 in tanks or fliers. (examples)
It is the extreme list building that throws the balance out of whack.
IMO the 'problem' doesn't really need to be 'solved'. it is really quite simple to regulate as is..
Not quite. FW has an Armoured Battlegroup that makes tanks into troops and fliers can be taken in the form of dedicated transports.
The problem is that 40k isn't easy to solve. The only real answer is to tear it down and build it up if one wants balance. The rules are old and outdated with concepts that need massive revisions. It also needs to have a mobilized force that playtests (or gives rules to players to playtest for free) and then respond to the discoveries and then change the point costing, availability, etc of options. Add to that, FAQ would need to be used at a more frequent basis editing mistakes and flaws that upset things.
And thing is, 40k was designed with the FoC in mind. Fantasy wasn't designed with such in mind nor does it have dedicated transports like the Waveserpent nor does it have troops such as nurglings and the sorts.
What I'm pointing out is that the 25% restrictions isn't the perfect cure all. Even with it, Eldar would still be rather good simply out of the fact that their transport is good. Tau too have a very good pick in kroot snipers (although this might be cancelled out with the way snipers were nerfed)
Throt wrote: This thread is really a cleverly disguised WAAC vs. fluff (or some variation)
That's because the article is suggesting that there is a way to do things wrong without making it clear what is wrong.
The article even gives examples of things that are wrong like Wolf Guard Terminators with Assault Cannons and Cyclone Launchers being wrong because that kind of squad "isn't in the fluff" or "too many X unit" as being something that isn't fluffy because it is powerful, as if being a good unit is anti-fluff which is the most ridiculous possible interpretation of fluff. This is following the "here's the freedom to build what you want" section talking about how the purpose of leaving it open is so people can build what they want as a theme.
It doesn't make sense that one theme is fluffy and another isn't fluffy entirely based on the strength of the army. The fluffy vs WAAC isn't even the conflict, the conflict is fluffy but weak vs. fluffy but powerful. WAAC is literally Win At All Costs and has to do with the attitude of the player. Is an Eldar player who uses Waveserpents to transport their fast and mobile strikeforce suddenly WAAC instead of fluffy because of how many units of troops they choose to take?
IIRC at one point Necron mobs supported by 3 Monoliths was called WAAC, although if someone played that force today they would probably be lauded as being fluffy just because the list is weaker now than it was then.
Throt wrote: IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Except that's not true at all. Armies with good troops don't see it as a restriction at all because they'll gladly spend more than 25% of their army on troops. Armies with weaker troops are punished severely because they have to fill a larger troops quota before they can take the things they want. And no matter how you look at it imposing limits like that will be seen as punishment because they're not part of the standard rules. If my army is banned under your rules and wasn't blatantly overpowered then I'm not going to have any interest in those rules. And when you impose blanket restrictions across all armies it is inevitable that people with legal armies under the normal rules will be punished under yours.
It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
Also not true. It doesn't help balance at all if the overpowered units are troops. For example, Wave Serpents and Necron flyers are troops and could still be spammed. So not only would those lists not suffer any loss in power they'd actually gain in power relative to other lists because those other lists have had relevant options restricted.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
Actually in my experience people like high points because they want to play with all of their toys instead of having to leave half of them behind, and most people hate double FOC.
Also, you're badly wrong about low-point games being more balanced. If anything they're less balanced because it's much harder to take a counter to everything when you have so few points available. Bringing a Land Raider or LRBT in a 500 point game usually gives you a unit that your opponent literally can't even attempt to kill. Bringing flyerspam in a 1000 point game is usually an easy win because your opponent can't afford to bring enough AA to be a meaningful threat to your flyers. Etc. Lowering the point level might make specific overpowered 1850 lists stop dominating, but you can almost guarantee that some other overpowered list will replace them.
Keep in mind multicharge is when you charge 2 enemy units with one. Not charging 1 enemy unit with two blobs.
Whoa man really 12"? That's nothing to you? That's 12 inches! Most models move 6" per turn. Sacrificing shooting most can move only d6 inches with a few d6+3 inches. Charge is 12" movement. Yes, if you are point black you are at risk but if you move within 24" to fire all of your guns, the enemy has 0 chance of assaulting you unless they are beasts, jump, or cavalry. Even then, it's statistically unlikely, nigh on unrealistic to make a 12" charge.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding about multicharge, other than it does not give a second attack - that was not mentioned in either post but hey...
12" is nothing to me on a 48" x 72" board.
If you kindly deploy in the opposing corner as far as possible, chase me across the diagonal, I will have 90-24" (depth of two armies more or less) > 66" of kite space, which are actually 42" if we consider a 24" threat range that's more or less standard (a few units are more like 18" but lots are above). So 12" buys me three turns of running away, and that's enough to remove enough forces that I can face the rest without risk.
In every other case, there's one to two turns of kiting and that's it.
Against a good deployment, there's at most one turn of running away (at least on 72" side deploy), after which both armies are in range.
12" would be insane in a vacuum, or if there were 500 points on the board. But at 2K-3K it's almost useless imo. Against an unprepared enemy, you may be able to avoid the cornering if you were lucky enough that he stopped 3" away and is no thicker than 4", by jumping above him, and then rotating and flat out 18" ... maybe. But against someone who knows how a Mechdar can be played ? Why would he give you that opportunity ? He can wait a turn while you're blocked there and smash you the next anyway. so why risk losing the contain.
I've been looking at every aspect of the WS during 4th and 5th, and now in 7th, and I don't see how an Eldar Skimmer can avoid contact by turn three.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valhalla130 wrote: All I know is, if I mosey up to a table, and I see 7 necron flyers or 9 Wave Serpents, I won't be playing that guy. You can convince yourself that spamming an overpowered unit is not WAAC, but I am not convinced.
And as far as dedicated transport, the Eldar still have Falcons, which is all there used to be, unless the fact that it has a gun means its not "dedicated" and I mistook what you were saying.
Which you have decided based on forum talk after taking a defeat because your list could not handle 7 Wave Serpents (you can't fit 9 in 2K, the other two are Fire Prisms) ?
Because if you have a real argument proving that the WS is OP, I would love to hear it.
Nobody on this forum seems to have one so you may even be able to sell it for a high price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: Technicly it is 1 , as you can view any unit as WAAC. At the same time you can field any number of bad units or units that your opponent can kill realy well.
I doubt an eldar army full of warwalkers and those web guns would have problems with lets say an IG all infantry list.
Actually it may not be that one-sided... Walkers are really fragile and Warp Spiders are designed to take out expensive targets, not really cheap guard stuff.
Police yourselves or your group and play with like minded people and do what you need to enjoy yourselves.
The RIGHT way to play, is the way that everyone is having fun. Power lists are your groups thing, go for it. Fluff, go for it. Somewhere in between.....
In other words, play with people who have the same vision of the game. Build your group around that and everyone will be happy.
That's because the article is suggesting that there is a way to do things wrong without making it clear what is wrong.
And that's what's wrong.
As a player who likes to play (try to win), I find it extremely offensive when people try to diminish my accomplishments by saying my army is OP, or insult my integrity by saying I'm a WAAC player.
It's not the case and you don't have any right to insult me like that, no matter how high and fluffy you think you are.
"fluff" as I've seen is most of the time an excuse for poor list building and tactical skills, and sometimes a way to say you care more about storytelling than the game.
It doesn't make you or your playing style better, it just makes it different.
I'm not calling anyone a horrible list writer or sore loser, so don't say my list is OP and don't call me a WAAC, thanks.
Walkers are really fragile and Warp Spiders are designed to take out expensive targets, not really cheap guard stuff.
Nine of them in cover do realy well. I wasn't thinking about warp siders , although they would do ok too, but more about artilery eldar have, With multiple farseers , everything would have re-rolls and they could take cheap inquisitorial henchman as power dice generators.
jetbikes for objectives caping and some serpents to dish out even more multi shoting . The walkers alone could be killing blob per turn.
I think WS need a slight buff actually. I know they already see a little competitive play, but it's mostly because they are the least bad option for transporting squads of Dire Avengers. I think they need the rear increased, I keep losing them to squads of S3 models with Furious Charge upgrades that cost half as much as the model itself.
I even somehow once lost 9 Wave Serpents in a turn to 500 pts of non-combat infantry in assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The entire model just screams underpowered.
SHUPPET wrote: I think WS need a slight buff actually. I know they already see a little competitive play, but it's mostly because they are the least bad option for transporting squads of Dire Avengers. I think they need the rear increased, I keep losing them to squads of S3 models with Furious Charge upgrades that cost half as much as the model itself.
I even somehow once lost 9 Wave Serpents in a turn to 500 pts of non-combat infantry in assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The entire model just screams underpowered.
Kilkrazy wrote: If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.
Exactly it silly to allow for "abusive" combos/units then try to make the player feel bad about playing by the rules.
It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
Kilkrazy wrote: If GW didn't want people to play WAAC lists they should have written rules that prevent it.
Exactly it silly to allow for "abusive" combos/units then try to make the player feel bad about playing by the rules.
It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
They tried updating the rules on an ongoing basis; trouble was that then, as now, thte majority of players had paper rules. So updating meant having binders of FAQs, or tatty bits of paper, etc. And it meant you had to keep checking for updates - worse, you had to make sure you never lost that copy of the WD with the rules, or buy (or ensure you saw) every one of them. Which was of course useless to new players, and was a barrier to entry.
The rules dont have to be free to be online. They can be digital only rules, like we have now, with regular updates. Its also where GW is likely heading - the overheads of keeping them in stock in GW stores is surprisingly high compared to the rate of sale.
If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.
I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.
Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.
All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.
Kilkrazy wrote: If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.
I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.
Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.
All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.
1. Not true, SC2 was more playtested and better designed than any other rule system, with little room for abuse, and there have been quite a lot of balance updates, all of which were required. A ruleset lives and needs to be updated as people react to it.
2. That whole "Allied FoC" thing is indeed broken, I wish they had never invented that.
3. GW cannot beat "the Internet", noone can, that's why you need reactive changes.
I guess it will - still, the only solution is living rules with balance updates, like SC2 albeit slower because the players (and not the computer) interprets the rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: If GW had designed and playtested the rules better before release, there would have been less requirement for "updating" them.
I don't know about 6th and 7th so much -- I think the Allies rules totally upset the concept of balance by codex. But in 4th and 5th edition there were plenty of obvious examples of units and weapons (abilities, rules) that were under-powered, or over-powered, or xxx-costed, that a fairly cursory review would have caught before release.
Obviously the game is complex because there are so many different units and rules, but it didn't take "the Internet" more than a few days to spot the problems. Considering it used to take GW six months to put out a codex, they clearly did not spend much time on trying to avoid balance problems.
All of this argument has been hashed around many times before, and it will be hashed around many times again, no doubt.
1. Not true, SC2 was more playtested and better designed than any other rule system, with little room for abuse, and there have been quite a lot of balance updates, all of which were required. A ruleset lives and needs to be updated as people react to it.
2. That whole "Allied FoC" thing is indeed broken, I wish they had never invented that.
3. GW cannot beat "the Internet", noone can, that's why you need reactive changes.
I guess it will - still, the only solution is living rules with balance updates, like SC2 albeit slower because the players (and not the computer) interprets the rules.
SC balance updates are generally tiny changes that fix minor imbalances- if 40K was at that level of balance no one but the most hardcore of number crunchers would so much as notice them...
SC balance updates are generally tiny changes that fix minor imbalances- if 40K was at that level of balance no one but the most hardcore of number crunchers would so much as notice them...
Not really That's how it ends but the first ones, especially during open beta, weren't "small" changes, and there was heavy playtesting even before the closed beta.
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Your definition of WAAC will change once someone accuses you of it only because you beat them. I played in a local RT (W-1 L-2) and my last game was a hideous curb stomping of my opponent. It was over on turn two. Never once had my dice and army worked so well together, nor have they since. It was the only time I have ever played this guy, so he doesn't know me. All he knew was it was the worst game of his life. So it is not surprising there is a Warseer thread calling me all manner of vile things. The only time in my life I've been called a WAAC player.
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.
+1 and quoted for truth.
List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.
+1 and quoted for truth.
List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).
Thirded. That's why I keep asking for a definition of WAAC because not everyone has the same idea of what it is. (I think its a mindset, but that's just me.)
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Your definition of WAAC will change once someone accuses you of it only because you beat them. I played in a local RT (W-1 L-2) and my last game was a hideous curb stomping of my opponent. It was over on turn two. Never once had my dice and army worked so well together, nor have they since. It was the only time I have ever played this guy, so he doesn't know me. All he knew was it was the worst game of his life. So it is not surprising there is a Warseer thread calling me all manner of vile things. The only time in my life I've been called a WAAC player.
His definition of WAAC will not change, because it's basically anyone who builds a list that he doesn't know how to beat.
He doesn't even have a definition for his "WAAC list", which by the way does not imply a WAAC player, and thus a TFG as he likes to say.
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.
I think this is the first time I feel like upvoting you... but then I didn't get to downvote you the other times so I'll pass . mwahahaha.
List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).
Yeah, that's why I don't really try to convert a JetCouncil tbh... I could try one without baron though.
I also tend to discuss and avoid allies because I don't think GW thought that one through.
Either way, once you build a list within the parameters set by both players, anything goes and your choice not to bring a C'tan or mine not to bring a SeerStar is really just that: a choice made to avoid a boring game.
jamesk1973 wrote: Justifying WAAC lists because, "I like the models!" or "It's just as fluffy as anything else!" is dissembling of the highest order.
It is rationalizing your choices so that you can look in the mirror and not see TFG.
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Testing
Hate to break it to you - but you are TFG. There is no excuse for this sort of ragey anti-Social attitude. Playing a "WAAC" list often means the guy wants to play highest level 40k with the most competitive list he can bring. It may not be for you, but the way you play this game isn't for him either, and unless he goes around whinging about the equivalent (James is such a Casual scrub, can't he just put together a half decent list for once!) then he is not TFG, he's just a guy playing his game. You, on the other hand, who assume that everyone should play how you play, and that because you don't build lists based on which units are strongest than no-one should, are the definition of TFG in my eyes. Everyone else can get along.
+1 and quoted for truth.
List building is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and I sure as hell don't go about it thinking of how I can shoot myself in the foot before the game even begins (though I do place some limitations, like not playing a Transcended C'tan against someone without access to something in a similar ballpark of cheesiness and not putting Superheavies in general in a list without first clearing the inclusion of escalation in the game with my opponent).
Thirded. That's why I keep asking for a definition of WAAC because not everyone has the same idea of what it is. (I think its a mindset, but that's just me.)
What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.
I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.
What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.
I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.
So the barrier is set at "loopholes in the rules" and "extreme unfluffy".
Could you give us an example of "loophole" and "extreme unfluff" ?
It's good to know that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty though.
Would you consider Tau commander joining a Riptide is a loophole? With the specified ruling in 7th, I can't help but wonder if Tau Commander joining the Riptide was not what was initially intended in 6th.
What is so difficult to understand on "Win At All Cost" lists? Lists that use loopholes in the rules and extreme unfluffy set ups, Use a minimum of troop choices to get the maximum overkill stuff on the table. Now with the unbound rules you will some strange lists with very unfluffy combinations.
I personally are a Fluff nerd and i try to make my army according the fluff, but then again i play for fun and i know my lists are not competitive in a tournament environment.
So the barrier is set at "loopholes in the rules" and "extreme unfluffy".
Could you give us an example of "loophole" and "extreme unfluff" ?
It's good to know that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty though.
Did you read the article? the terminator wolfguard in terminator Armour squad using 3 assault cannon and using typhoon launchers is a loophole.
An unfluffy army would be using Khorne demons and slaneesh demons in one army that is a nono in the fluff.
You should work on your reading comprehension, where did i say ; "that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and that Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty"?
I said "i personally" i didn't generalize like you did. I also didn't demonize the WAAC or FluFF player.
Tyranids have no army composition per the fluff. They adapt their composition to the needs of the hive mind to crush their opposition.
So when I bring a Nids army with 4 Dakka Flyrants, 2 Harpies, 2 Crones, and Objective Secured Gargoyles (that respawn) along with Rippers, you shouldn't complain because that's fluffy per how Nids fight. Blot out the sun...
Did you read the article? the terminator wolfguard in terminator Armour squad using 3 assault cannon and using typhoon launchers is a loophole.
An unfluffy army would be using Khorne demons and slaneesh demons in one army that is a nono in the fluff.
You should work on your reading comprehension, where did i say ; "that Fluff nerd is high and mighty and that Awesome List Builder is evil and dirty"?
I said "i personally" i didn't generalize like you did. I also didn't demonize the WAAC or FluFF player.
I mistakenly thought you were the guy who did my mistake.
I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated.
I'd like another one that's unfluffy, so I better understand your definition of WAAC.
Most chaos players will nurgle some and khorne others, is the mark enough to be unfluffy ? do the chaos gods never roll together ?
Why should there be a zillion troops in an army ? Especially if that makes the army weaker ? How fluffy is it to expect some SM commander to decide to bring the wrong units just for the heck of it ?
morgoth wrote: I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated.
I think this might be a little difficult. Until an FAQ comes out or a new Edition which fixes the loophole, it will always be debatable if it ever was a loophole or something GW intended.
Have you seen the 14 page "Can an Overlord on CCB join units?" thread in YMDC?
Edited for my inability to use quote tags properly
The ScreamerStar was probly a loophole, seemed very unintentional. I don't think it affects whether or not the player behind it is "TFG" (I'd much rather play vs a friendly jovial ScreamerStar, than a negative and snappy Space Wolves cavalry player), but it's definitely not the friendliest list. Probably fits the bill for WAAC, as does spamming badly balanced models to get the biggest balance advantage you can squeeze in your list, eg Riptides n Wave Serpents tbqh.
Now don't get me wrong, even though it's not for me I have nothing against this style of play and can fully understand why people want to build the roughest, toughest army they can, everyone (except Sisters ) get their turn at the top of the ladder, and I actually relish such games as a chance to test my little homemade army builds against the very top tier army compositions possible. WAAC is not a bad thing. It just doesn't balance that well against a fluffy list, it's no more a fault of either one player than the other, blame GW for writing a wildly unbalanced rule set for your "fluffy" models.
SHUPPET wrote: The ScreamerStar was probly a loophole, seemed very unintentional. I don't think it affects whether or not the player behind it is "TFG" (I'd much rather play vs a friendly jovial ScreamerStar, than a negative and snappy Space Wolves cavalry player), but it's definitely not the friendliest list. Probably fits the bill for WAAC, as does spamming badly balanced models to get the biggest balance advantage you can squeeze in your list, eg Riptides n Wave Serpents tbqh.
Now don't get me wrong, even though it's not for me I have nothing against this style of play and can fully understand why people want to build the roughest, toughest army they can, everyone (except Sisters ) get their turn at the top of the ladder, and I actually relish such games as a chance to test my little homemade army builds against the very top tier army compositions possible. WAAC is not a bad thing. It just doesn't balance that well against a fluffy list, it's no more a fault of either one player than the other, blame GW for writing a wildly unbalanced rule set for your "fluffy" models.
I think that rerollable 2++ in general was a mistake in the rules design, but i doesn't come across as a loophole.
I'm not familiar with the ScreamerStar, but it may be another case of "we didn't think of that".
I still think you should reconsider your position on the WS, no matter how you look at it it's really not in the top 10 units of WH40K or even top 3 Eldar.
I think that WAAC is more than just about a list though, as there aren't many costs to win the list building competition
Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.
Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.
A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.
Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.
Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.
A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.
Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.
WS spam, Daemon summoning spamming Chaos Daemon lists and Cron-air are all fluffy "WAAC" army lists however.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well puritan inquisitors that can now summon demons is unfluffy In my book.
Now with the unbound you can throw together some "interesting" combinations.
A Khorne army with lots of sorcerers is unfluffy.
Andan example of a Loophole army is difficult for me because i don't make army lists like that, my friend was better like that, using an almost completely drone army that constantly moved in and out of shooting range.
WS spam, Daemon summoning spamming Chaos Daemon lists and Cron-air are all fluffy "WAAC" army lists however.
Which does sound perverted by the way... Hello fluff-lover, you can't dodge this bullet . mwahhahahahaaaa. whatever.
5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he
leads armies on his own.
I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated
The DAFAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .
Makumba wrote: 5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he
leads armies on his own.
I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated
The DAFAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .
Do you mean to say that FAQ was lost because a new book was released without changing that ? Is it unintentional ?
Makumba wrote: 5th ed leaf blower was fluffy too. IG army with inquisitor runing the show. 100% fluff in BL books and games. It is even said in coteaz fluff that he
leads armies on his own.
I'm still waiting for an example of loophole that is not completely outdated
The DAFAQ lost the part about what stuff the dakka banner buffs. So it is back to buffing everything that is under the bolter section in the BRB. pistols, storm bolters etc are suddenly back to their 2/4 salvo glory. .
Do you mean to say that FAQ was lost because a new book was released without changing that ? Is it unintentional ?
Some people are saying that just because previous clarifications from the old FAQs have been removed, the rules somehow revert back to their pre-FAQed state.
To my mind, this is the wrong way of looking at it; the FAQs were clarifications, not changes to the rules, so it's obvious that's the way the rules were intended to work from the start. So saying that because the clarification can't be found online, things suddenly revert, is just a bit odd really.
If my opponent is not having fun solely because he is being tabled, that's his problem not mine especialy if I'm ok to be around. Also doesn't it make him kind a WAAC douche that gets moody because of having a bad match of a toy soldiers game?
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.
So, we should play rather delicately, taking good attention of our opponents body language and face expressions and adjust our level of ingame aggression accordingly and rather avoid that nasty, jock worthy tabling. Good point, I get it now.
Or maybe rather get a grip? Seriously my wife loves romances, fears spiders and is in general womanly to 11 and still has thickier skin when it comes to games than the casual laid back forge the narrative brigade here. Quit being special delicate flowers people.
Also there is nothing worse than a whiny HAACTFG refusing games left and right with his smug OP this OP that commentary. I would love to take you all into a Antonov 225 and drop at GWHQ, they would fix the game in no time.
If my opponent is not having fun solely because he is being tabled, that's his problem not mine especialy if I'm ok to be around. Also doesn't it make him kind a WAAC douche that gets moody because of having a bad match of a toy soldiers game?
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.
So, we should play rather delicately, taking good attention of our opponents body language and face expressions and adjust our level of ingame aggression accordingly and rather avoid that nasty, jock worthy tabling. Good point, I get it now.
You're taking it to extremes, but to be honest, yes. If my opponent really was in a bad way game-wise on T3 or before, if I'd had really good luck or outplayed him and he wasn't enjoying himself, I'd go as far as to let him have a unit back to even it up, or even introduce a new objective in his favour, something like that. The chief job of any player in a game like this, even in tournaments, is to make sure the guy across the table is having a good time.
I'm not saying play to lose, but if it's obvious your opponent isn't enjoying himself, then in my opinion, it's your responsibility to try and make them have a more enjoyable game. Not everyone, and in fact a minority, I'd guess, will react badly to losing, but for the few that do, it's decent to throw them a chance; a game that's a foregone conclusion is no fun for anyone in the end.
If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )
Yonan wrote: If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )
That does work, and is something I've done before, but when time is limited, it's easier I find to just give them some reinforcements rather than going through the motions of deployment and all that malarkey again. In general, I'll start again if it's decided by Turn 2, but after that, it's less hassle just to keep going.
With the option for an unbound army I will be able to field the sentinel regement i've always wanted to do, 20 odd armoured sentinels at 1500pts running around will confuse some players and be funny as hell to play
Yonan wrote: If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )
I like the concept of handicap but I'm afraid it could be taken as an insult...
Starcraft is a Blizzard game. There is a link though - Blizzard also makes Warcraft, which was originally made as a Warhammer game but things turned sour and rather than waste the game, they changed some things and it became Warcraft instead of Warhammer. A while later they also created Starcraft which of course can draw imperium > terran, tyranid > zerg and protoss > eldar comparisons, but then they're generic sci-fi concepts anyway.
Yonan wrote: If the game turns south like that I'd rather just call it and start again. Have done that before and it's perfectly acceptable imo. Your way works too though, I'm all for handicap systems - reinforcements arriving is a workable mechanic ; )
I like the concept of handicap but I'm afraid it could be taken as an insult...
Really? It's a common thing in pretty much any competitive game. There are better players and worse players, handicaps allow them to play together with a similar chance of winning.
Yonan wrote: A while later they also created Starcraft which of course can draw imperium > terran, tyranid > zerg and protoss > eldar comparisons, but then they're generic sci-fi concepts anyway.
They are also massively dissimilar races...
Even the Zerg and Nids have little in common beyond the basic concept of being Hive minded swarms with evolutionary schticks.
Yeah well, the point about Starcraft is that it's the most competitive RTS ever, and although SC:BW was never really balanced, the Korean scene gave us a good idea of what balance (and insane skill) means.
Starcraft 2 has that DNA and is probably going to be the most balanced strategy game ever (it has been pretty balanced between meta shifts actually) and is thus an ideal the WH40K rules could start moving towards.
Starcraft has no lore to follow so it is easy to have some balance. But if I remember correctly from my warcraft tft days they where on patch 100+ so not that well balanced if they still didn't get it right after 99 trys.
Also, when someone nerfs Zergling rush by doubling the cost, no one realy complains about having painted over 50 Zerglings which have suddenly become less effective. So big changes can occur. Units can be removed totally between different versions of the game etc. Less of a gamer investment.
OgreChubbs wrote: Starcraft has no lore to follow so it is easy to have some balance. But if I remember correctly from my warcraft tft days they where on patch 100+ so not that well balanced if they still didn't get it right after 99 trys.
As the meta changes, balance needs adjustment. That's perfectly normal.
Either way, WC3 / TFT was probably much less balance than SC, and balance is unrelated to lore imo.
Races are very specific and balance is asymmetric in SC2, so there is no valid reason for lore to make it any more difficult.
WC3 and SC have approximately the same amount of lore too.
The big difference is that those games have had a thousand times more players than WH40K / WHFB.
I'm waiting for someone a program to run the beginning of a Starcraft game for them.
A game that is so balanced basically has a select few possible starting builds, so for the first ~5 mins you could just have a program control all your units while you stare at the computer and supervise.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm waiting for someone a program to run the beginning of a Starcraft game for them.
A game that is so balanced basically has a select few possible starting builds, so for the first ~5 mins you could just have a program control all your units while you stare at the computer and supervise.
Not only are there things happening in the first 5 minutes, it's also a very good time to warm up your fingers...
I agree it seems dull, and clearly the APM is not there, but it's a critical time for scouting / proxying.
Back on topic: there would be less fluff vs WAAC if WH40K implemented a regular balance update.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm waiting for someone a program to run the beginning of a Starcraft game for them.
A game that is so balanced basically has a select few possible starting builds, so for the first ~5 mins you could just have a program control all your units while you stare at the computer and supervise.
SC2 games are often decided by good scouting/harassing moves in the first few minutes of the game, have a program automate that for you and you'd never win a game against a serious opponent.
Throt wrote: IMO we need to move pat the idea of 'punished' because every army has the same restrictions.
Except that's not true at all. Armies with good troops don't see it as a restriction at all because they'll gladly spend more than 25% of their army on troops. Armies with weaker troops are punished severely because they have to fill a larger troops quota before they can take the things they want. And no matter how you look at it imposing limits like that will be seen as punishment because they're not part of the standard rules. If my army is banned under your rules and wasn't blatantly overpowered then I'm not going to have any interest in those rules. And when you impose blanket restrictions across all armies it is inevitable that people with legal armies under the normal rules will be punished under yours.
Punishment is when something is done purposefully because of something else. IF GW removed wave serpents from the book and said they were too powerful, that is punishment. Think of it as lowering a speed limit in an area. The attempt is to put more control over the area without closing the road. Lowering a speed limit isn't going to solve everything just add some constraint.
Again, it's not going to be the absolute fix.
IMO many people take this hobby waay too seriously as they are so slighted. If it was basketball they would scream no fair because the other team just got a 7ft 5in player.
It also places a maximum on specialty units. Forcing a more balanced army list.
Also not true. It doesn't help balance at all if the overpowered units are troops. For example, Wave Serpents and Necron flyers are troops and could still be spammed. So not only would those lists not suffer any loss in power they'd actually gain in power relative to other lists because those other lists have had relevant options restricted.
To a point you are correct. And if chaos can spam helldrakes, and that guy can buy the op forge world stuff, and this guy necron fliers, screamers, and on and on. The players are more to blame than the game. It really plays just fine as is.
These are the reasons people like high points and Dual FOC. (I am a fan of neither) They maximize the area of their list.
Actually in my experience people like high points because they want to play with all of their toys instead of having to leave half of them behind, and most people hate double FOC.
Also, you're badly wrong about low-point games being more balanced. If anything they're less balanced because it's much harder to take a counter to everything when you have so few points available. Bringing a Land Raider or LRBT in a 500 point game usually gives you a unit that your opponent literally can't even attempt to kill. Bringing flyerspam in a 1000 point game is usually an easy win because your opponent can't afford to bring enough AA to be a meaningful threat to your flyers. Etc. Lowering the point level might make specific overpowered 1850 lists stop dominating, but you can almost guarantee that some other overpowered list will replace them.
YEs people like to take all their toys, that's why the game grew from a skirmish game to what it is now. All the 'broken' rules have allowed people to take all their toys which shows that the issue becomes the player more than the game.
Many of us have good evenly matched games with these rules that people yell are so terrible.
If points were regulated, you would not see a land raider in a 500 point game.
And why do they hate dual FOC...most of them hate it because their spammed army can now be more easily countered because it has opened the spam for the other armies that are usually walk overs.
You have proven my point. If someone is taking flyer spam at 1000 points that's the player, not the game. When people write spam lists the game does become rock, paper scissors, lizard, spock..
People hide behind the loopholes blaming the company for the decisions that they choose to make. IMO that's just sad.
Throt wrote: To a point you are correct. And if chaos can spam helldrakes, and that guy can buy the op forge world stuff, and this guy necron fliers, screamers, and on and on. The players are more to blame than the game. It really plays just fine as is.
Lol, seriously? "The game is just fine as long as you just avoid all of the many balance issues and never attempt to win". If there are game-breaking options available then the game deserves every bit of blame that it gets.
All the 'broken' rules have allowed people to take all their toys which shows that the issue becomes the player more than the game.
And, again, no. If the rules allow X then you can't whine and cry when someone does X. The problem here is GW's incompetent and/or lazy "game designers", not the players who bring lists that you don't approve of.
If points were regulated, you would not see a land raider in a 500 point game.
So the game is fine, as long as you play it at low point levels and impose a bunch of restrictions that aren't found in the actual game?
And why do they hate dual FOC...most of them hate it because their spammed army can now be more easily countered because it has opened the spam for the other armies that are usually walk overs.
Sigh, no. People hate dual FOC because it enables obnoxious spam armies. Even people who play armies that would win more frequently if they got access to multiple FOCs tend to dislike the idea.
If someone is taking flyer spam at 1000 points that's the player, not the game.
No, it's absolutely the game. If flyerspam lists break the game at 1000 points then the game should contain restrictions on how many flyers you can bring in a 1000 point game. Only an incompetent idiot like GW's rule authors would publish an unrestricted game like 40k and think it's a great idea.
People hide behind the loopholes blaming the company for the decisions that they choose to make.
You know why? Because GW deserves the blame. Good games made by competent game designers don't have these problems. The only reason we're having a discussion about what lists are "ok" to play is because GW's rule authors are shamefully incompetent and didn't bother to make a better game.
And no, most overpowered list aren't the result of "loopholes". Bringing three Riptides in a 1000 point game isn't the result of finding some complex interaction between obscure rules and arguing that the gray area should favor the Riptide player, it's just taking advantage of a straightforward option that wasn't balanced properly.
In all fairness, I would like to point out that paper rules and the long delay between editions have traditionally prevented GW from creating balance.
Balance is created in reaction to players, the more players you have, the faster you discover the problems, the faster you can fix them.
There is almost nobody on this planet playing 40K in comparison with SC2, so it makes sense that balance would progress much slower here.
However, the only critical factor here is that rules are still paying, and paper.
Because they are paying, people whine when a new edition lands every 2/3 years.
Because they are paper, it's practically impossible to make a quarterly release.
Until those two limitations are removed, there can be no balance, because players, even the slowest ones, move infinitely faster than the ruleset.
Having house rules lets people try and compensate for the lack of a quarterly update, and that's a good thing, as long as it's treated as such and not as a divide between good and evil.
I'd like it if people would stop hammering GW like that and realize for a second that unlike almost every corporation we deal with, they do not make 80% profit, they do not have the margin required to offer good deals to most of their resellers, and they are investing in this business instead of selling it and making financial placements, for purely personal reasons.
Sure, their balance could be improved, but you have to admit it's been improving seriously and the number of "broken" things is rather limited (undercosted Riptide, BaronFarseer -stars, the rest is mostly whine from people who don't want to adapt to the new rules and army lists afaik).
Actually the broken things are very common. It's just that you have to look on both sides. Look for broken good, broken bad, and so on and you'll find many things.
And in the digital age some changes really could have been used. Heldrake too good? Why wait when you can just change the hull mount to 180 rather than 360?
morgoth wrote: In all fairness, I would like to point out that paper rules and the long delay between editions have traditionally prevented GW from creating balance.
This argument went out the window with the widespread availability of the internet 15 years ago, certainly 10 years ago. "Patching" a tabletop game is as easy as making a FAQ with a list of changes. Changes can be simple hacks between editions as a stop-gap measure that improves balance in an easy way, such as a points adjustment, while more complex but better changes are applied next edition - of which there have been seven now.
StarTrotter wrote: And in the digital age some changes really could have been used. Heldrake too good? Why wait when you can just change the hull mount to 180 rather than 360?
This is especially amusing because the only reason the Helldrake got a 360* turret in the first place was an online FAQ/errata. By the book it was just a hull-mounted weapon with a 45* arc.
StarTrotter wrote: And in the digital age some changes really could have been used. Heldrake too good? Why wait when you can just change the hull mount to 180 rather than 360?
This is especially amusing because the only reason the Helldrake got a 360* turret in the first place was an online FAQ/errata. By the book it was just a hull-mounted weapon with a 45* arc.
Which is exactly my point! They FAQd it to make it broken. Before then, the baledrake was deadly but not broken whilst the autodrake wasn't really all that hot. Once that hit though, bam they went deadly. All it would take to fix was some minor addition of rules. Would the game still be a broken mess? Yes but everybody needs to drag along the FAQ anyways so why complain about that if you work to improve things. Waveserpent too good? Reduce the range. 2++ rerollables a thing? 2++/4++or5++. Bam! There we go guys we are fixing the game. If they did that, I'd at least give them some respect. Show that somebody in there cares.
morgoth wrote: In all fairness, I would like to point out that paper rules and the long delay between editions have traditionally prevented GW from creating balance.
This argument went out the window with the widespread availability of the internet 15 years ago, certainly 10 years ago. "Patching" a tabletop game is as easy as making a FAQ with a list of changes. Changes can be simple hacks between editions as a stop-gap measure that improves balance in an easy way, such as a points adjustment, while more complex but better changes are applied next edition - of which there have been [i]seven[/] now.
The Internet wasn't really that widespread 15 years ago, but the question you have to ask is not if it was possible, but rather if it was sensible.
There are a lot of very backwards people who still buy stuff in brick and mortar shops when the same stuff is available from their couch, delivered to their home, for less and with better service.
In other words, a non-paper edition of the rules would have been a huge problem rather than a solution, certainly around 4th/5th, and it may become practical for 8th.
They can't really avoid paper either, the only thing they can do is create a minimal rulebook, and have printout of this quarter's version available for cheap in your FLG/GW stores, because some people will still need that paper.
They could even have FAQs available in their own stores, given out for free - no internet required. A couple pages would have cost them nothing, and the improved balance and perception of good customer service would have vastly outweighed the minuscule cost of doing so.
The two biggest complaints people have against GW and 40K are price and poor balance. It would have been *very* sensible to do something like this.
morgoth wrote: Balance is created in reaction to players, the more players you have, the faster you discover the problems, the faster you can fix them.
Yes, number of players is a factor, but the much bigger factor is playtesting. A good playtesting process lets you avoid the worst balance issues and focus your "patching" on fine-tuning minor things to make the perfect game. GW, on the other hand, believes that playtesting consists of maybe playing a few games for fun on your lunch break and then publishing the rules. And so 40k books are published with blatant balance issues and unclear rules that should never have survived from the original rough draft.
I'd like it if people would stop hammering GW like that and realize for a second that unlike almost every corporation we deal with, they do not make 80% profit, they do not have the margin required to offer good deals to most of their resellers, and they are investing in this business instead of selling it and making financial placements, for purely personal reasons.
I disagree with all of this.
The only reason GW doesn't make 80% profit is their own failures, especially in their retail stores. Sale price compared to production price is pretty good, they just waste tons of money on an inefficient business model and end up with underwhelming profits.
GW has plenty of margin to offer resellers, and does. Stores can make a profit selling GW items at 10-20% off. The issue is that GW is greedy and wants to drive all business to their own stores and website, even when third-party stores are important to their continued success. And so we get lots of direct-only items for no reason at all beyond GW's desire to sell at full price through their own website.
GW is not investing anything into their business. They're cutting costs everywhere and sacrificing quality and long-term growth in favor of making the next financial report show a better profit. I suspect the only reason why GW hasn't sold the business is that nobody is willing to pay GW's current share price for a business with such a questionable future.
Sure, their balance could be improved, but you have to admit it's been improving seriously and the number of "broken" things is rather limited (undercosted Riptide, BaronFarseer -stars, the rest is mostly whine from people who don't want to adapt to the new rules and army lists afaik).
This is completely wrong. The "short" list of balance issues is only short because it only contains the most obvious ones that are so game-breakingly unbalanced that even the biggest GW fanboy has to admit that there's a problem. And when things are that badly unbalanced there's not much point in worrying about fine-tuning the rest of the rules. But once you look past the obvious problems you'll quickly discover that the rest of the game isn't balanced very well either, it's just doesn't get as much attention when the focus is on other stuff.
Then you have armies such as the Wraithknights that crumble to certain armies but other armies will shed tears as they have almost nothing that can properly fight them. Or Scions that have almost no options. Or, better yet, whenever a... Legion of the Damned (almost said Lost and the Damned ) army was in 6th (not sure with 7th), if you tried to play them by themselves without a rule change would instantly lose. Made funnier by one special rule in the codex that was to be used in just one mission fixing that problem.
morgoth wrote: Balance is created in reaction to players, the more players you have, the faster you discover the problems, the faster you can fix them.
Yes, number of players is a factor, but the much bigger factor is playtesting. A good playtesting process lets you avoid the worst balance issues and focus your "patching" on fine-tuning minor things to make the perfect game. GW, on the other hand, believes that playtesting consists of maybe playing a few games for fun on your lunch break and then publishing the rules. And so 40k books are published with blatant balance issues and unclear rules that should never have survived from the original rough draft.
Honestly, I think you do not realize.
Back in open beta SC2, there were still things as broken as the most broken things in 40K today, and that was after months of playtesting and then a closed beta, with people far more knowledgeable about RTS than there even exist about wargames (numbers and competition make it so).
Believe me, I've been in the top 1% in several RTS games and I can tell you balance is no easy thing, it's much harder with a game that lasts 2+ hours on average.
The only reason GW doesn't make 80% profit is their own failures, especially in their retail stores. Sale price compared to production price is pretty good, they just waste tons of money on an inefficient business model and end up with underwhelming profits.
The reason GW does not make 80% profit is that there is almost noone playing this game. That's it. No mass market, no economics of scale, no mass-produced chinese crap that you can simply rebrand / factory tweak and sell as Stanley, Philips or Apple.
morgoth wrote: Balance is created in reaction to players, the more players you have, the faster you discover the problems, the faster you can fix them.
Yes, number of players is a factor, but the much bigger factor is playtesting. A good playtesting process lets you avoid the worst balance issues and focus your "patching" on fine-tuning minor things to make the perfect game. GW, on the other hand, believes that playtesting consists of maybe playing a few games for fun on your lunch break and then publishing the rules. And so 40k books are published with blatant balance issues and unclear rules that should never have survived from the original rough draft.
Honestly, I think you do not realize.
Back in open beta SC2, there were still things as broken as the most broken things in 40K today, and that was after months of playtesting and then a closed beta, with people far more knowledgeable about RTS than there even exist about wargames (numbers and competition make it so).
Believe me, I've been in the top 1% in several RTS games and I can tell you balance is no easy thing, it's much harder with a game that lasts 2+ hours on average.
The only reason GW doesn't make 80% profit is their own failures, especially in their retail stores. Sale price compared to production price is pretty good, they just waste tons of money on an inefficient business model and end up with underwhelming profits.
The reason GW does not make 80% profit is that there is almost noone playing this game. That's it. No mass market, no economics of scale, no mass-produced chinese crap that you can simply rebrand / factory tweak and sell as Stanley, Philips or Apple.
But how do things like the waveserpent slip through? Even worse, What of the heldrake? The thing went from okay to godly and they never tried to fix it at all? They actually made it worse with a faq. As per 80%, to be fair it doesn't help that they are very anti-consumer, slash and burn oriented and focused on the now with zero advertisements and clunky hobby shops. The best advertisement they have going is their games and there's only so far that can go (especially as the ones on ipad aren't quite as "hardcore")
But how do things like the waveserpent slip through? Even worse, What of the heldrake? The thing went from okay to godly and they never tried to fix it at all? They actually made it worse with a faq. As per 80%, to be fair it doesn't help that they are very anti-consumer, slash and burn oriented and focused on the now with zero advertisements and clunky hobby shops. The best advertisement they have going is their games and there's only so far that can go (especially as the ones on ipad aren't quite as "hardcore")
Simple, the Wave Serpent is not overpowered, you're just playing against it with the same army you use to beat anything else and being disappointed that it's not the correct tool.
Surprise, a scredriver isn't that great with nails.
Like a Wave Serpent isn't that great with taking down Land Raiders or Monoliths.
The Heldrake 360° was a pretty dumb mistake considering it's one of the weaknesses of all flyers, but it makes sense when you think about the very small amount of resources they probably have handling the FAQ - that would at least explain why they are so infrequent and incomplete.
The undercosting was a mistake as well, but hard to detect until it sees mass competitive play.
But how do things like the waveserpent slip through? Even worse, What of the heldrake? The thing went from okay to godly and they never tried to fix it at all? They actually made it worse with a faq. As per 80%, to be fair it doesn't help that they are very anti-consumer, slash and burn oriented and focused on the now with zero advertisements and clunky hobby shops. The best advertisement they have going is their games and there's only so far that can go (especially as the ones on ipad aren't quite as "hardcore")
Simple, the Wave Serpent is not overpowered, you're just playing against it with the same army you use to beat anything else and being disappointed that it's not the correct tool.
Surprise, a scredriver isn't that great with nails.
Like a Wave Serpent isn't that great with taking down Land Raiders or Monoliths.
The Heldrake 360° was a pretty dumb mistake considering it's one of the weaknesses of all flyers, but it makes sense when you think about the very small amount of resources they probably have handling the FAQ - that would at least explain why they are so infrequent and incomplete.
The undercosting was a mistake as well, but hard to detect until it sees mass competitive play.
Tip it was broken. You just are understating it's power dramatically. It was a transport that was tanky and fired tons of shots and was super mobile. High strength shots? Unreliable as they were minimal in number. Tons of shots? It was tanky and had good toughness (had jink in 6th which made it godly). It's only drawback was that you couldn't take it without troops in them. They were a very blatant unit that was too good. Not the worst ever nor the most broken combo but most glaring for sure.
Still, that shows the lack of care as well. No corrections, they made something worse and never fixed it back up until 2 years pass by and they decide to just change the rules. And perhaps that is the most frustrating part. They don't really tweak things, they largely just change things for the sake of change. (Sometimes I entertain the thought that some Tzeentchian daemon leads the company )
StarTrotter wrote: As per 80%, to be fair it doesn't help that they are very anti-consumer, slash and burn oriented and focused on the now with zero advertisements and clunky hobby shops. The best advertisement they have going is their games and there's only so far that can go (especially as the ones on ipad aren't quite as "hardcore")
That's the thing, when you're not having huge margins, you can either focus on your product (here the game) or focus on advertising, imoGW is doing the right thing by focusing on their product, which is a long term approach.
Where they are fething up in my opinion is their approach of sales channels, where any shop outside of UK has a horrible time, and any shop can't even sell the whole range.
It's a huge mistake on their part to try and use their own sales platform as anything other than a safety net for players who live too far from a shop.
You should be able to order ForgeWorld or any "GW-remote-only" item from your local store, and it should be a better deal without the shipping costs.
Either way, that's long term talk and it still will never bring them close to 80%, they can only ever reach that kind of profitability with a much larger market (hint: a very complex board game that lasts 4 hours, requires flash removal, assembly, painting and such has a rather small target market).
StarTrotter wrote: As per 80%, to be fair it doesn't help that they are very anti-consumer, slash and burn oriented and focused on the now with zero advertisements and clunky hobby shops. The best advertisement they have going is their games and there's only so far that can go (especially as the ones on ipad aren't quite as "hardcore")
That's the thing, when you're not having huge margins, you can either focus on your product (here the game) or focus on advertising, imoGW is doing the right thing by focusing on their product, which is a long term approach.
Where they are fething up in my opinion is their approach of sales channels, where any shop outside of UK has a horrible time, and any shop can't even sell the whole range.
It's a huge mistake on their part to try and use their own sales platform as anything other than a safety net for players who live too far from a shop.
You should be able to order ForgeWorld or any "GW-remote-only" item from your local store, and it should be a better deal without the shipping costs.
Either way, that's long term talk and it still will never bring them close to 80%, they can only ever reach that kind of profitability with a much larger market (hint: a very complex board game that lasts 4 hours, requires flash removal, assembly, painting and such has a rather small target market).
How do they focus on their product? They don't playtest, they do things to upset their current base, continue to mark up prices, price gouge, go for cheap shots and largely ignore their fanbase with little care as well as attempting to cripple hobby shops taht aren't them that sell their goods. Then they have price upturns to no end that make you pay through the nose in places like Australia. One needs to advertise but if your established fanbase is upset, well sales are going to drop and they aren't going to start pointing to that hobby are they? I will agree with you on the Sales platform. The question becomes, why are their models so pricey compared to other wargames? Why does this supplement with only 2 pages of rules cost the same as a codex? Why is the rulebook so costly? If it was at least balanced largely, I could set it aside. If they tried working on it, I could care. If they had some bloody PR, I could care. But they don't Instead, for every one good thing they do, they mess up in two other ways dramatically.
morgoth wrote: In all fairness, I would like to point out that paper rules and the long delay between editions have traditionally prevented GW from creating balance.
GW has chosen to limit themselves to paper rules, paper rules aren't preventing GW from making non-paper rules.
morgoth wrote: I'd like it if people would stop hammering GW like that and realize for a second that unlike almost every corporation we deal with, they do not make 80% profit, they do not have the margin required to offer good deals to most of their resellers, and they are investing in this business instead of selling it and making financial placements, for purely personal reasons.
No company ever makes 80% profit without being a criminal enterprise because of overhead. Good companies might be able to make up to 30% profit for a service industry where there are no material costs, but not with manufacturing which requires a significant amount of overhead.
I don't think that GW provides as much as they should for their retail cost, and their overpriced rulebooks are the worst cost to value ratio for the customer.
How do they focus on their product? They don't playtest, they do things to upset their current base, continue to mark up prices, price gouge, go for cheap shots and largely ignore their fanbase with little care as well as attempting to cripple hobby shops taht aren't them that sell their goods. Then they have price upturns to no end that make you pay through the nose in places like Australia. One needs to advertise but if your established fanbase is upset, well sales are going to drop and they aren't going to start pointing to that hobby are they? I will agree with you on the Sales platform. The question becomes, why are their models so pricey compared to other wargames? Why does this supplement with only 2 pages of rules cost the same as a codex? Why is the rulebook so costly? If it was at least balanced largely, I could set it aside. If they tried working on it, I could care. If they had some bloody PR, I could care. But they don't Instead, for every one good thing they do, they mess up in two other ways dramatically.
1. The Australian problem is not their fault, it's a currency conversion and inventory issue.
2. Because other wargames surf on GW's popularity
3. Because it's just as hard to get two pages to your local store as a full book ?
4. Because getting a book produced in so many languages for so few sales is really expensive ?
5. Don't underestimate how hard it is to balance a game, there are only a few select games that have been clearly better balanced than 40K.
I don't think they're doing awesome, but you can't compare new companies with zero investment to a company that owns shops and is basically the backbone for every fantasy and futurist wargame out there.
People come from GW games to other games far more than the other way around.
morgoth wrote: In all fairness, I would like to point out that paper rules and the long delay between editions have traditionally prevented GW from creating balance.
GW has chosen to limit themselves to paper rules, paper rules aren't preventing GW from making non-paper rules.
morgoth wrote: I'd like it if people would stop hammering GW like that and realize for a second that unlike almost every corporation we deal with, they do not make 80% profit, they do not have the margin required to offer good deals to most of their resellers, and they are investing in this business instead of selling it and making financial placements, for purely personal reasons.
No company ever makes 80% profit without being a criminal enterprise because of overhead. Good companies might be able to make up to 30% profit for a service industry where there are no material costs, but not with manufacturing which requires a significant amount of overhead.
I don't think that GW provides as much as they should for their retail cost, and their overpriced rulebooks are the worst cost to value ratio for the customer.
1. Actually yes, because they can't have players playing with different rules.
2. I don't think you know the real production costs of an iPhone or a Stanley screwdriver or a Philips led bulb. I have researched materials and production costs as well as purchased some of the components at an already very inflated unit price for less than those companies declare the same component's costs. You could say that using a non-western company to channel the majority of the profits is a criminal enterprise but it's not. You are allowed to own a dubai company buying stuff from China and immediately selling it to a EU company at 5 times the price without any physical exchange, and thus declare minimal profit in the western world. It's easy, anyone with a bit of money has access to that option and it's not a criminal act.
1. The Australian problem is not their fault, it's a currency conversion and inventory issue.
Actually not quite. There's several reasons, one, companies simply up the price because they can. I can't remember who, but Microsoft or Apple got in trouble for pricing ridiculously. As per other factors, several other wargames cost less over there and it doesn't excuse some of the almost double price increases over there right next to other units that only cost 3 dollars more.
Because it's just as hard to get two pages to your local store as a full book ?
Not really. It could be more, they just needed more rules. And if that were so, why were the old supplements years ago cheaper than the rulebooks?
morgoth wrote: 1. The Australian problem is not their fault, it's a currency conversion and inventory issue.
It's a GW issue. It happened back when the currency conversion was $AU1 to $US0.6. Now it's close to $US1 to $AU1 but the prices have not changed. The result is GW making an extra 30-40% margin. Well, the result is hugely declining sales in Australia, but the intended goal is extra margin. As Trotter said, there is parity in pricing for every other tabletop wargame.
morgoth wrote: 1. The Australian problem is not their fault, it's a currency conversion and inventory issue.
As an Australian I am calling bs here. Yes, it is GW's fault. Many companies do charge more here, but that doesn't somehow mean we can let GW take a pass on it. They cite historical exchange rates and higher minimum wages as the reason, which are again bs. If it is cheaper to buy products from the US and pay the shipping to get them here there is NO justification for this.
morgoth wrote: 2. Because other wargames surf on GW's popularity
Do explain to me how a 1128/1 scale game about victorian era stampunk massed naval warfare is somehow riding the popularity of a 28mm company scale sifi game, or even how a 28mm true scale sifi skimish game that uses D20s is riding the popularity of 40k. Hell explain how any games other than Mantic ones (which to be fair are made by the same people that made the GW games) are riding on GWs popularity? If fact I'd argue they are doing the opposite, they are going from strength to strength right now by taking advantage of people's current disillusionment with GW.
morgoth wrote: 4. Because getting a book produced in so many languages for so few sales is really expensive ?
Recently GW have been pulling back to English only for anything but absolutely essential products.
morgoth wrote: 5. Don't underestimate how hard it is to balance a game, there are only a few select games that have been clearly better balanced than 40K.
No. No that is not true at all. I can't think of any game on the market at the moment as poorly balanced as 40k. Please give an example of something that is considered that unbalanced by a majority opinion.
1. For those who still don't get it.
Aussie store buys 5000AUD of stuff from GW, worth 2500 pounds. AUD hikes like crazy, meaning that 5000AUD is now worth 5000 pounds. GW can either say slash the prices in half, give 2500 AUD back to the Aussies, which is the price they paid for the merchandise, or keep the price and let the situation work itself out. There was no easy way out once Aussie stores had purchased GW stuff at the old AUD/pound exchange rate.
2. Many of the other games get attention from GW gamers, who exist mostly because of GW advertising and stores. Once you're in the hobby you may turn to other games, but GW clearly is one of the biggest gates. People leaving GW for those games is also surfing on GW's popularity.
4. Rightly so, what's the point of translating a black library book if you're only going to sell 500 copies, and you need 5000 to even pay for the translation ?
5. Command and Conquer Zero Hour. It's broken, and it's had 4 patches. Worse, people have been map hacking for years.
morgoth wrote: 2. Many of the other games get attention from GW gamers, who exist mostly because of GW advertising and stores. Once you're in the hobby you may turn to other games, but GW clearly is one of the biggest gates. People leaving GW for those games is also surfing on GW's popularity.
This might be true in the UK where the greater population density has allowed GW to drive independent game stores out of business and replace them with GW stores in every town, but it's not true elsewhere. In the US GW's advertising is nonexistent and unless you happen to live in the right part of the right city to be right next to one you've probably never even seen a GW store. The biggest source of new players for miniatures games is probably MTG or RPG players coming into a store and seeing a miniatures game they're interested in. GW's popularity just means that they're the most likely first purchase, remove GW entirely and they'd just buy some other game instead. Remove GW's stores entirely and hardly anyone would even notice that they were gone.
morgoth wrote: 1. For those who still don't get it.
Aussie store buys 5000AUD of stuff from GW, worth 2500 pounds. AUD hikes like crazy, meaning that 5000AUD is now worth 5000 pounds. GW can either say slash the prices in half, give 2500 AUD back to the Aussies, which is the price they paid for the merchandise, or keep the price and let the situation work itself out. There was no easy way out once Aussie stores had purchased GW stuff at the old AUD/pound exchange rate.
morgoth wrote: 1. For those who still don't get it.
Aussie store buys 5000AUD of stuff from GW, worth 2500 pounds. AUD hikes like crazy, meaning that 5000AUD is now worth 5000 pounds. GW can either say slash the prices in half, give 2500 AUD back to the Aussies, which is the price they paid for the merchandise, or keep the price and let the situation work itself out. There was no easy way out once Aussie stores had purchased GW stuff at the old AUD/pound exchange rate.
The mind boggles.
I thought it was really simple...
1. Aussie store buys 2500 pounds worth of stuff from GW, which is 5000 AUD.
2. GW receives 2500 pounds for the stuff.
3. Aussie store prices in proportion of the 5000 AUD
4. AUD/pound fluctuates.
5. GW still only has 2500 pounds
6. Aussie store still prices in proportion of the 5000 AUD
7. Problem: 5000 AUD is now worth 5000 pounds, so the store is pricing way too high
8. Solution:
a. bring the price inline with England: the store loses 2500 AUD or GW loses 2500 pounds.
b. find a middle ground: the store loses a bit less or GW doesn't even make the production costs back
c. have a complex trade agreement that auto-adapts the prices with a maximum of 2.5% change per month, which will be supported 50% by GW as a reduction on next purchase, reviewed on a monthly basis.
I like c., but it's really easy to think of that in hindsight, I would be surprised that a small company like GW had such a thing in place.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.
As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.
The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?
I'll stay thanks. I love 40k - I just don't like the rules or the company. I'll keep pushing for change so that my enjoyment of the hobby will improve. If that degrades your enjoyment, ordinarily I would take that into consideration but due to your complete disregard for mine and others, I'll actually take it as a win.
- In the meantime, China and the internet means that price is a non-issue - for us, GW loses out though. - I can and do get my competitive gaming in elsewhere, but again it's GWs loss. Not just me, but the other people GW has lost there, some directly due to my recommendations. - Since you're an Aussie, you should realize that the exodus from GW in AU is higher than elsewhere, not only was there a great decrease in sales, but an actual loss in the region.
The end result, which is borne out by the data, is that GW is hemorrhaging sales becaue thankfully very few people are willing to take a rogering like you apparently are.
Gunzhard wrote: Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.
Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.
This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.
As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.
The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?
That all might be worth it if the rules were good or if GW deserved my money.
Apparently Australians like a good rogering. That's why we voted in the liberals again. Lol. GW isn't the only company struggling in the current financial climate. The stock market is headed for another big crash you know.
Apologist, apologist. Meh. Sticks and stones. Call me names and I'll act immature too. Let's all be immature.
I'm always up for more hugs. Hugs are great.
My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot. Those who aren't are not compelled to keep playing.
Kavish wrote: "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby.
The thing is I can afford to be a wargamer. I can afford to play Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity as part of my wargaming hobby budget. OR I can afford 'the HHHobby'.
Kavish wrote: My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot.
Your point was obvious and didn't need to be made, of course people are enjoying 40k. Our point is that number is decreasing daily as more people get fed up with this bollocks which you don't seem to acknowledge.
Kavish wrote: "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby.
The thing is I can afford to be a wargamer. I can afford to play Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity as part of my wargaming hobby budget. OR I can afford 'the HHHobby'.
Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.
The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.
Kavish wrote: Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.
What a horrible way to effect change. We love 40k, and we want to enjoy the tabletop game. As it is, we find it lacking so are seeking to improve it by whatever means we can. An important distinction however is that we're putting the game down, not the people that enjoy the game.
The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.
Enjoying the rules is defintiely subjective. The quality of the rules is not. At an objective level when compared to other game systems, the rules are complex without added depth, poorly balanced and poorly written. When you're asked to pay a premium for them, you should expect a premium product in return that is noticeably better than the competition. Objectively, we do not receive that - however much fun you might have with it.
Kavish wrote: My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot.
Your point was obvious and didn't need to be made, of course people are enjoying 40k. Our point is that number is decreasing daily as more people get fed up with this bollocks which you don't seem to acknowledge.
I acknowledge that finecast is flawed. I have been avoiding it like the plague. It is certainly getting very expensive, true. I'm very selective in what I buy these days and am therefore that makes a statement to GW. We buy less, and they will hopefully stop raising the prices so far beyond inflation. No one will pay $60 for a single infantry unit. Surely GW wouldn't be so stupid as to go that far. It has to stop somewhere. The rules are great though. If you easily table everyone, every time your being a jerk (if you realise it or not). It's up to us as the players to keep that kind of thing in check.
Kavish wrote: Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.
What a horrible way to effect change. We love 40k, and we want to enjoy the tabletop game. As it is, we find it lacking so are seeking to improve it by whatever means we can. An important distinction however is that we're putting the game down, not the people that enjoy the game.
The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.
Enjoying the rules is defintiely subjective. The quality of the rules is not. At an objective level when compared to other game systems, the rules are complex without added depth, poorly balanced and poorly written. When you're asked to pay a premium for them, you should expect a premium product in return that is noticeably better than the competition. Objectively, we do not receive that - however much fun you might have with it.
By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?
I think making the rules really machanical is how you make them work perfectly. Unfortunately that also makes the game really dry (see Warmachine and MTG).
Kavish wrote: If you easily table everyone, every time your being a jerk (if you realise it or not). It's up to us as the players to keep that kind of thing in check.
That's only one small aspect of the rules problem. The games take longer than they need to because of cumbersome rules. IGOUGO is a flawed system where the inactive player stands around doing bugger all for 10 minutes at a time. The internal and external balance between codices is horrible with many great units and many shocking units, and whilst perfect balance is impossible, much better balance would be ridiculously easy if GW patched the game between releases and did better testing before release. You should not have units that are so lacklustre (rough riders) competing for slots with units like the pre-nerf vendetta. Look at Necron elites compared to Necron fast attack or annihilation barges for another comparison of bad unit balancing. There are many more examples of poor balancing, which is my main problem with the game - it results in one sided games which is bad regardless of the side that you're on.
Players wouldn't have to artificially limit themselves if the rules were balanced - other companies manage it, GW should be able to too.
By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?
You're right - GW does only respond to money. My money is a drop in the ocean - every additional person we convince to stop giving money adds up fast. Discussing why the game is bad on the forums helps show others why it's bad, what the alternatives are, and why they shouldn't support GW - *especially* if they like 40k. If you want 40k to be better, you can't give GW money, it's the only way we have a chance to make them listen.
The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?
Easily one of the best posts I have seen on here so far and gets right to the point. The issues have been around for a long time, a very long time, yet those with the biggest gripes continue to play and continue griping, always comparing it to another game. There is a simple answer and you've told them what it is, the question now is, do they do the mature thing and realize that griping on forums like these isn't going to change anything, or are they going to continue on.
Either way, we need more people like you on these forums sir!
The codex balance. I agree with you there. Tau and Eldar being the main offenders. All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though. There is an Eldar player in my gaming group. He knows he can kick everyone's ass if he wants to, but he chooses to bring friendly lists so everyone can have fun. There is a Tau player too. He's got all the toys. Riptide, buffmander, rocket broadsides, marker lights, hammerhead gunship... He's not invincible. The last time I saw him play he lost rather convincingly. Land raiders or battlewagons stitch him up pretty good. I think it was Guard that time though. Didn't see what happened as I was busy with my own game.
I don't mind the IGOUGO system. There's deny the witch, armour saves, overwatch, and close combat to be had.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thank you Lobomalo.
Kavish wrote: Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.
Kavish wrote: By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?
That's exactly why I'm here. I love the 40k IP, I grew up playing 40k, and one of my first jobs was working in a GW store.
Look at my sig- I still have my Blood Angels from over 20 years ago. Like it or not I have an emotional investment here, like many others. I want GW and 40k to be what they used to be. Once they were a company I wanted to be a part of, that I couldn't want to see the lastest releases from. My whole group was like this. Now we look at our stuff fondly and laugh about the latest GW PR blunder, pricing absurdity or other misstep they made this week that leads them further down the path to failure as a company.
Ultimately I don't want it to go there. I sincerely don't. I want to see GW return to being a maker of games that I want to play like they used to be. But you're right, they do only listen to money. So here I am, encouraging people to spend their money elsewhere- because it grows the gaming hobby.
Kavish wrote: The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions.
Man, we just had like a six page argument over the timing of Jink. And that wasn't even resolved!
The average number of answers- and this is without even a definitive resolution on everything- for the 40KYMDC 1st page is currently at 24 (1139 posts over 47 topics). The WM/H YMDC is 5. What is your explanation for that?
Kavish wrote: All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though.
You don't see a lot of units that are far less effective than other choices in most of these codices? - Basically any Necron elite compared to the troops, dedicated transports, fast attack, HQs and most heavy support. The praetorians and lychgardes are really overpriced and flayed ones are just plain ineffective. - Rough Riders compared to any other IG unit. The new codex finally did improve a lot of glaring problems though, ie. vendetta, vet upgrades, sentinels... though I'm not sold on them yet. - CSM Zerks, 1KSons, mutilators, possessed and warp talons are all really lacklustre compared to anything nurgle, drakes and bikes. They either cost too much (warp talons), are ineffective (Zerks) or both (1KSons).
Those are the dexes I know the most about. Speaking more from a 6th ed perspective than 7th if that matters, not sure what's changed since the new edition.
Some of the balancing is down to overall "ranged vs assault" rule balance, ie. favouring ranged lately - a criticism of poor rules writing. Others is the arbitrary distinctions between walkers, MCs, vehicles etc. where walkers were a very subpar unit type (somewhat remedied supposedly), another general poor rules thing. But a lot of it is just down to poor costing for the units, where they could easily be adjusted to cost more or less to make many more units "balanced" and therefore increase the avaialble units for every one to use and play against. You won't have to not use penitent engines due to how pathetic they are, and you won't have to avoid riptides since they won't stomp your friends. Everyone wins.
Kavish wrote: All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though.
You don't see a lot of units that are far less effective than other choices in most of these codices?
- Basically any Necron elite compared to the troops, dedicated transports, fast attack, HQs and most heavy support. The praetorians and lychgardes are really overpriced and flayed ones are just plain ineffective.
- Rough Riders compared to any other IG unit. The new codex finally did improve a lot of glaring problems though, ie. vendetta, vet upgrades, sentinels... though I'm not sold on them yet.
- CSM Zerks, 1KSons, mutilators, possessed and warp talons are all really lacklustre compared to anything nurgle, drakes and bikes. They either cost too much (warp talons), are ineffective (Zerks) or both (1KSons).
Those are the dexes I know the most about. Speaking more from a 6th ed perspective than 7th if that matters, not sure what's changed since the new edition.
Some of the balancing is down to overall "ranged vs assault" rule balance, ie. favouring ranged lately - a criticism of poor rules writing. Others is the arbitrary distinctions between walkers, MCs, vehicles etc. where walkers were a very subpar unit type (somewhat remedied supposedly), another general poor rules thing. But a lot of it is just down to poor costing for the units, where they could easily be adjusted to cost more or less to make many more units "balanced" and therefore increase the avaialble units for every one to use and play against. You won't have to not use penitent engines due to how pathetic they are, and you won't have to avoid riptides since they won't stomp your friends. Everyone wins.
Perhaps all melee units should be cheaper. And a small increase in price of jump packs and assault vehicles. The thing is right. If I am really good at Kung fu, and I charge at you with a sword, and you have a gun, who will win?
A large part of the 40k setting is that melee has it's place on the battlefield. It's unrealistic yes, but that's the setting we all know and love. The rules should reflect that. If you wanted, you could rationalise it as melee weapon and armour technology advancing faster than ranged technology. Think plate without crossbows or firearms - arrows were largely ineffective, you had to get in there with a mace and go to town. Or use a ballista ; p
Melee being cheaper would help, but would largely be a bandaid over the ranged-oriented rules. No assaulting out of transports, squishy transports, removal of casualties from the front resulting in actually moving backwards each turn and so on mean a simple points adjustment might not be enough to counteract it, at least not without having something like 2 point boyz which just gets ridiculous.
Points adjustments can fix lots of things - vendettas, night scythes, annihilation barges, 1ksons. Maybe Warp Talons as a faster infantry, but Zerks get screwed over too much by the basic rules. Walkers had the same problem.
It can still be powerful. I had two thunderwolves and a lone wolf survive 6 turns in kill team the other day. They are pretty beast units though. I would like to see the return of being able to assault out of normal transports. Other than that what can we do besides make all the guns weaker or the armour on assault troops better? All that sounds like it could really bust up the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify. Those 3 models where the only models I had on the table. By the end I think I just had the 1 thunderwolf. But it was an epic run.
Like I said, fast assault units can work under the current rules, just like Necron Wraiths - no one argues how powerful they are. Thunderwolf Cavalry are still probably overcosted compared to wraiths - 50 points for an S5 T5 3+ 2w cavalry comapred to 35 for an S6 T4 3+/3++ 2w jump infantry that are overall just awesome. They have the speed and durability to get into close combat whereas zerks, lychgardes, praetorians don't. Praetorians cost 5 more than wraiths, are slow, have half the wounds and no invuln save... there's no way you'd take them over wraiths.
What can be done? That's for GW, whom we pay a lot of money for rules to determine. As is though, it *is* broken when a lot of assault units can't be used effectively and a lot of other units are clearly worse than alternatives in the same codex.
Assault from stationary transports.
Assault from outflank.
Consolidate into a new combat (no charge bonuses).
These three would go a long way to fixing the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The consolidate thing wouldn't make them broken IMHO. Opponents should know your coming and keep some distance between units.
The average number of answers- and this is without even a definitive resolution on everything- for the 40KYMDC 1st page is currently at 24 (1139 posts over 47 topics). The WM/H YMDC is 5. What is your explanation for that?
Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?
morgoth wrote: Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?
No. The number is the average number of posts per topic, not the total number of posts or topics. Non-GWYMDC topics get fewer posts per topic, which means that questions are answered much faster and don't get much discussion beyond "here's the answer". The number of people playing either game is irrelevant, unless you think that 40k has a lot of players who just post "I agree with this" in every YMDC thread while non-GW games don't.
morgoth wrote: Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?
No. The number is the average number of posts per topic, not the total number of posts or topics. Non-GWYMDC topics get fewer posts per topic, which means that questions are answered much faster and don't get much discussion beyond "here's the answer". The number of people playing either game is irrelevant, unless you think that 40k has a lot of players who just post "I agree with this" in every YMDC thread while non-GW games don't.
Maybe there are more people who like to complain about 40k?
WM/H has 48 topics, 201 replies for an average of 4.18 replies per topic. With 17,116 views.
40K has 46 topic, 1,102 replies for an average of 23.95 replies per topic. With 20,620 views.
WM/H YMDC gets 80% odd of the views of the 40k one but generates about one sixth the discussion. Call me crazy but less arguing about rules is good, right? A 'good' rules system would have as little dispute over rules as possible, right?
Maybe there are more people who like to complain about 40k?
Are you implying that people ask how a rule works and twenty odd people jump in and deride GW? Because if that actually happened you would be pretty close to the numbers. Alas I'm pretty sure most YMDC threads are actually rules arguments.
No I am just raising a confounding factor in the analysis. I do not have data to back it up. Strangely, unless you look through and classify all the posts, I think it is not easy to come to a conclusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A smaller player base may not spot as many problems? May have not so diverse a view? Some number churning with statistical significance should be done if you really feel your conclusion is the most definitive and correct one.
).
