But it sure does remove the "I'm too poor to afford better units" factor. If you can afford to buy 5000 points you can afford to buy some strong units in there so you can play a competitive list. So why should you be entitled to buy only the units you want to buy, while other players have the full burden of buying alternative units and altering their own armies to suit your choices?
I wouldn't ask anyone to buy more stuff, that's for sure. I haven't seen yet someone that brings competitive lists to local stores that doesn't have several stuff of the same army on his shelf at home.
It's just 99% of the times players that can field a competitive list have other stuff to tone down their armies, while casual players, even those ones that own large armies, can't tone up their list in order to have a fair match against a top tier.
Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.
Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.
Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece
Yeah, ok your Splinter rifles are crap against hordes lol..... (note i'm a heavy DE player). DE is missing AI for sure now that Splinter Racks are gone and Splinter Cannons are 1/2 the shots.
Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.
Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece
Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.
Really, blame for this is mostly on GW for failing (repeatedly) to write actual balanced rules where you don't have such a huge divide that perpetuates this "100% optimal or feth off" mindset.
Also though, some blame lies on players, because players want listbuilding and finding combos to be part of, if not the most important part, of the game. Not 40k but auticus wrote Azyr comp for AOS before GHB first came out, and from what he's said here and elsewhere one of the major issues with it was people felt it was "too" balanced, and removed listbuilding as a key mechanic to "git gud" with. So I wonder if the game was balanced, if people would feel it was too balanced because it meant they couldn't find combos/exploits/loopholes/etc. to make a 2000 point army behave like a 4000 point army.
I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.
So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!
Formosa wrote: I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.
So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldn't try our best to break them for advantage!
There will always be people who use rules to their advantage. You can't get rid of that it's part of life in general. Usually what a group responsible for a game does is mitigate the units in some way. In this case increasing the points cost. What GW does is wait till they have some other thing that is OP to replace the old thing which is OP so as to keep thier model sales up.
The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.
I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.
You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.
Danny slag wrote: The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.
I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.
You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.
And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.
Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece
Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.
How are those boyz going to charge or deal with 6 Razorwing Jetfighters taking down 40 odd bodies per turn before 40 Warriors and a Scourge pack also drop in on turn three?
(Ok I don't have 6 Razorwings, but then most warbosses don't have 200 boyz)
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
Exactly this, and to add a bit there really isn't incentive for playing tactically, things like crossfire, outflanking an enemy, shooting from the high ground, or penalties/bonus' for different ranges things of that nature. Things like that would help curb the problem. Ultimately though people have to get away from this idea that list building is part of the game, because as long as it is you are going to have crap units and good ones.
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
I would agree with this, except this is exactly what GW has done for 20years and apparently it works just fine. More so than any other game (the only one even coming close being x wing maybe), a significant number of players of 40k seem just fine -excited even-to drop hundreds of dollars every time an army book drops on the good stuff. It’s pretty much the entire reason they release codexes.
Formosa wrote: I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.
So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!
WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.
That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.
So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.
Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.
Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece
Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.
How are those boyz going to charge or deal with 6 Razorwing Jetfighters taking down 40 odd bodies per turn before 40 Warriors and a Scourge pack also drop in on turn three?
(Ok I don't have 6 Razorwings, but then most warbosses don't have 200 boyz)
Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them
200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.
Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them
200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.
There wouldn't be a 'rest of the army' to target - the units mentioned are pretty much it
If we're playing Eternal War there's a good chance there won't be many boyz left to hold anything by the end. If we're playing Maelstrom then you'd be relying on us both rolling/drawing a majority of take and hold type objectives throughout the game, but that's not assured or even likely.
I don't see why two Drukhari air wings shouldn't be taken in competitive play - it mops up hordes and could do a job against elite armies with sheer weight of firepower. Whether it's seen as realistic is down only to the players.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think every army has some form of extreme counter to every other army's extreme builds. Which for me means balance is more down to the players and how competitive they want to be than the game system.
One aspect where I Think competitive DOES ruin 40k (and AOS) is that it becomes the baseline expectation in a way. Loads of good ideas that GW can come out with will get summarily ignored because it doesn't fit into the "balanced play" concept so many people seem to have. Now, this isn't a competitive problem as it is a "matched play only all the time" problem but I blame the competitive mindset for that as well. It results in a very shallow pool of what is available to use, and really limits what becomes worth buying because if it's let's say a campaign book with optional extra rules, there's a very good chance those optional extra rules will never see the light of day in the majority of games, just because people will say how they aren't "balanced" for use.
This would not be a problem in a world where 3 ways to play truly exists, but let's be honest here it really does not work that way; there is one way to play (i.e. Matched) and then the "others" which maybe happen sequestered away in somebody's basement once in a blue moon among the "untouchables" who don't want to use points or balanced missions or whatnot, but the majority can ignore that those lepers even exist.
Sorry, am a bit salty that I Bought malign portents for AOS and despite being cool, I doubt any of the rules there will ever be seen because it's not 100% "balanced".
WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out.
Except the rules in question for the LVO debacle were 100% clear. Tony just chose to exploit an honest mistake by the other player.
Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them
200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.
There wouldn't be a 'rest of the army' to target - the units mentioned are pretty much it
If we're playing Eternal War there's a good chance there won't be many boyz left to hold anything by the end. If we're playing Maelstrom then you'd be relying on us both rolling/drawing a majority of take and hold type objectives throughout the game, but that's not assured or even likely.
I don't see why two Drukhari air wings shouldn't be taken in competitive play - it mops up hordes and could do a job against elite armies with sheer weight of firepower. Whether it's seen as realistic is down only to the players.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think every army has some form of extreme counter to every other army's extreme builds. Which for me means balance is more down to the players and how competitive they want to be than the game system.
Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz
You are aware that your not seeing these lists because GW fixed them 2 weeks into 8th right?
Per the Faq on Sudden Death:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role
Wayniac wrote: One aspect where I Think competitive DOES ruin 40k (and AOS) is that it becomes the baseline expectation in a way. Loads of good ideas that GW can come out with will get summarily ignored because it doesn't fit into the "balanced play" concept so many people seem to have. Now, this isn't a competitive problem as it is a "matched play only all the time" problem but I blame the competitive mindset for that as well. It results in a very shallow pool of what is available to use, and really limits what becomes worth buying because if it's let's say a campaign book with optional extra rules, there's a very good chance those optional extra rules will never see the light of day in the majority of games, just because people will say how they aren't "balanced" for use.
This would not be a problem in a world where 3 ways to play truly exists, but let's be honest here it really does not work that way; there is one way to play (i.e. Matched) and then the "others" which maybe happen sequestered away in somebody's basement once in a blue moon among the "untouchables" who don't want to use points or balanced missions or whatnot, but the majority can ignore that those lepers even exist.
Sorry, am a bit salty that I Bought malign portents for AOS and despite being cool, I doubt any of the rules there will ever be seen because it's not 100% "balanced".
What have always puzzled me in this context is that at least scenario-related rules like that can be made 100% ballanced if you just play double match with reversed roles. Faction-specific scenarios/scenery are a bit tougher to account for, but there is pretty much nothing against "forging a narrative" in which those features suit other factions as well. This is the very area of 40K where all blame is on the players and not on GW. This puzzles me even more in 8th, where not only "competetive" or "tournament" mindset but very matched play rules strip so much flavour away...
Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz
150-210 bodies are pretty standard for orks 8th edition lists
What you're suggesting is also pure list tailoring, which is basically what I'm trying to defend in this thread. Talk to the opponent before starting to play, fix the lists in order to make them on a similar of competitiveness: that's what I usually do when I play 40k. A list with 6 flyers isn't TAC at all. And I'm sure it would lose quite easily against any horde army.
You are aware that your not seeing these lists because GW fixed them 2 weeks into 8th right?
Per the Faq on Sudden Death:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role
That's a drawback
I'll have to find points for a dozen Razorwing flocks to play hide and seek, and maybe some Mandrakes to drop in an obscure corner. It only needs one model to stay on the table long enough for the Jetfighters to thin out the horde before the Warriors and Scourges arrive en masse to help clear up.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work but it gives the Drukhari player at least half a chance.
Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz
150-210 bodies are pretty standard for orks 8th edition lists
What you're suggesting is also pure list tailoring, which is basically what I'm trying to defend in this thread. Talk to the opponent before starting to play, fix the lists in order to make them on a similar of competitiveness: that's what I usually do when I play 40k. A list with 6 flyers isn't TAC at all. And I'm sure it would lose quite easily against any horde army.
I think it could work reasonably well as a TAC list - I'm not sure anyone would find it easy to take down six flyers (firing off over 100 shots per turn) and then 50 infantry dropping in turn three. I think the main problem would be as Ordana raised - keeping boots on the ground in the early game so not to auto lose.
I agree with what you say about opponents talking to agree the level of competitiveness they wish to play. I only took exception at the suggestion a Drukhari list could never beat an Ork horde
40K is a competitive game saying competitiveness is ruining it is like say Jonny Wilkinsons competitiveness ruined rugby or that Bill Belichecks competitiveness ruined football.
Danny slag wrote: The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.
I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.
You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.
And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?
Where did I say one of each unit? I'd like you to point it out? Nice try though to do the usual attempt at straw manning. Are you going to try to pretend there's nothing between one of every unit and spamming only one unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.
Formosa wrote: I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.
So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!
WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.
That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.
So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.
And this is why I'll never play "tournament" players, they aren't interested in a game, tactics, and rolling dice. They only want to build a cheese list that's won before any models even get put on the table, not through tactics but through smarmy rule bending.
WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out.
Except the rules in question for the LVO debacle were 100% clear. Tony just chose to exploit an honest mistake by the other player.
Perfect rules will never defeat a rules lawyer.
You bring up a fair point BUT does anyone actually like Tony now? I don't think so. This means at any major or local event people are going to do the same thing to him over and over. He'll be made into an example of the kind of player no one wants to play with. I hate what he did and he's exactly the kind of WAAC/tournament player that shouldn't play any game that's a social contract like 40k.
Danny slag wrote: The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.
I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.
You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.
And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?
Where did I say one of each unit? I'd like you to point it out? Nice try though to do the usual attempt at straw manning. Are you going to try to pretend there's nothing between one of every unit and spamming only one unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.
Formosa wrote: I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.
So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!
WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.
That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.
So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.
And this is why I'll never play "tournament" players, they aren't interested in a game, tactics, and rolling dice. They only want to build a cheese list that's won before any models even get put on the table, not through tactics but through smarmy rule bending.
'Rules bending' is called cheating. If they are doing that then please call them out on it. If they are just using a really good and over powered army build then they are doing nothing wrong. People who bring strong armies to the table via actual legal armies are usually looking for a tactical game. But in my experience playing 40k I've found that the game is very lightweight when it comes to tactics. Warmachine/Hordes and Imperial Assault have been two games where I feel table tactics mattered a ton. In 40k it feels like your list can carry you harder than it should.
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
I would agree with this, except this is exactly what GW has done for 20years and apparently it works just fine. More so than any other game (the only one even coming close being x wing maybe), a significant number of players of 40k seem just fine -excited even-to drop hundreds of dollars every time an army book drops on the good stuff. It’s pretty much the entire reason they release codexes.
It works as a business model, but not for making a competitive game. Let's not equate the two.
MagicJuggler wrote: To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...
Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.
And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.
If the game were competitive, there wouldn't be so many obvious discrepancies (Take Brimsto...I mean Pink Horrors!). Not to say that a game will be perfectly balanced (banning Akuma is common and Old Sagat is an interesting edgecase), but cycling units is innately a sign of the game itself being broken rather than units per se.
If the game were competitive, there wouldn't be so many obvious discrepancies (Take Brimsto...I mean Pink Horrors!). Not to say that a game will be perfectly balanced (banning Akuma is common and Old Sagat is an interesting edgecase), but cycling units is innately a sign of the game itself being broken rather than units per se.
GW isn't cycling units. They're slapping things as they pop up.
Worse, they're listening 100% to and reacting to feedback from the very people who are continually looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos. They're never going to catch up, because the competitive ITC crowd is going to be one step ahead of them.
Wayniac wrote: Worse, they're listening 100% to and reacting to feedback from the very people who are continually looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos. They're never going to catch up, because the competitive ITC crowd is going to be one step ahead of them.
Catch and 'fix' the excess, leave that which is powerful but fine. The point isn't to nerf what is the best, but that which is 'to good'.
Wayniac wrote: Worse, they're listening 100% to and reacting to feedback from the very people who are continually looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos. They're never going to catch up, because the competitive ITC crowd is going to be one step ahead of them.
Catch and 'fix' the excess, leave that which is powerful but fine. The point isn't to nerf what is the best, but that which is 'to good'.
Making a unit a never-take instead of an auto-take is not a fix.
Wayniac wrote: Worse, they're listening 100% to and reacting to feedback from the very people who are continually looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos. They're never going to catch up, because the competitive ITC crowd is going to be one step ahead of them.
Catch and 'fix' the excess, leave that which is powerful but fine. The point isn't to nerf what is the best, but that which is 'to good'.
Making a unit a never-take instead of an auto-take is not a fix.
Wayniac wrote: Worse, they're listening 100% to and reacting to feedback from the very people who are continually looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos. They're never going to catch up, because the competitive ITC crowd is going to be one step ahead of them.
So the ITC people are not the ones looking for exploits/loopholes/min-maxing combos?
Don't we want them to address those things?
Stormravens, smite spam, brimtones, and conscripts weren't problems that needed addressing?
I'm sure they'll always be a step behind, because it's basically impossible to predict the future and changes need to be in place for a few months anyway to prevent knee-jerk reactions.
Yeah, I would think that ideally the people who are actively looking for exploits, loopholes, and other ways to break the game without actually breaking the rules are the exact type of person they should be listening to, if their goal is to actually address these issues with the game as they pop up. You won't learn gak from the casual player who just plays with whatever they have, makes up their own rules, never plays competitively, and always says that everything is fine because they play the "right" way.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that kind of player, but they aren't going to do much to help when other players just get fed up and quit playing (and buying) one day because they're tired of playing against min/max combos and "broken" stuff. You need people to break the game in order to fix it...in fact that's basically what playtesters are supposed to do, if I'm not mistaken.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I would think that ideally the people who are actively looking for exploits, loopholes, and other ways to break the game without actually breaking the rules are the exact type of person they should be listening to, if their goal is to actually address these issues with the game as they pop up. You won't learn gak from the casual player who just plays with whatever they have, makes up their own rules, never plays competitively, and always says that everything is fine because they play the "right" way.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that kind of player, but they aren't going to do much to help when other players just get fed up and quit playing (and buying) one day because they're tired of playing against min/max combos and "broken" stuff. You need people to break the game in order to fix it...in fact that's basically what playtesters are supposed to do, if I'm not mistaken.
You are not mistaken. That is exactly what playtesters are supposed to be doing.
nou wrote: What have always puzzled me in this context is that at least scenario-related rules like that can be made 100% ballanced if you just play double match with reversed roles. Faction-specific scenarios/scenery are a bit tougher to account for, but there is pretty much nothing against "forging a narrative" in which those features suit other factions as well. This is the very area of 40K where all blame is on the players and not on GW. This puzzles me even more in 8th, where not only "competetive" or "tournament" mindset but very matched play rules strip so much flavour away...
a) not all have time for 2 games in row. Especially with 8th ed that seems to take even longer than ever
b) many of those scenarios might not work that well with just flipping side. Say one side is supposed to have bigger army. Are you expected to carry 2 army lists? Could get tricky to carry.
c) Obviously swapping armies literally(as in I play with your models, you play with mine) is not going to fly well. Now my models aren't painted that well that I would worry too much. However resin models if they break I expect them to pay back but that requires being able to trust on his words. And what about guys whose painting is good enough it would really be of bummer if you scratch their models(this btw is one reason why one of the most stupid ideas GW had with AOS was measure to base which could literally force players to put models on top of other players models! NOBODY does that period to my models and I don't do that to others. That's just basic politeness to ensure you don't damage other players bases or models. Not to mention the way my bases are made they aren't flat so putting other base over one isn't as easy as it might sound)
nou wrote: What have always puzzled me in this context is that at least scenario-related rules like that can be made 100% ballanced if you just play double match with reversed roles. Faction-specific scenarios/scenery are a bit tougher to account for, but there is pretty much nothing against "forging a narrative" in which those features suit other factions as well. This is the very area of 40K where all blame is on the players and not on GW. This puzzles me even more in 8th, where not only "competetive" or "tournament" mindset but very matched play rules strip so much flavour away...
a) not all have time for 2 games in row. Especially with 8th ed that seems to take even longer than ever
This is a confusing statement for me. Not the 2 games in a row bit. I agree with that because... sometimes you just don't have time. But 8th takes WAY less time than 7th. Games that took 4-6 hours in 7th take me 1.5-2 hours in 8th. 8th is miles easier, no charts, no random rolls, no random damage tables, no 3 different books to understand a single datasheet. How are your 8th games taking longer?
It is good to keep in mind that all balancing is always going to be a game of "catching up". This most of us know who have been playing computer games for the past decades. You can only playtest so much before releasing it into the wild as you have a finite supply of playtesters. Plus, when they release a new model, they screw up the entire balance and synergy of the army. Pretty much the same what happens in LoL and HotS when they introduce a new hero.
The big problem is that I would love point balancing from GW to be faster. I would love if they just had a "patchnotes" first Monday of the month or every other month that had all the points of the games updated. That would, however, sell less books so I doubt they will ever do that.
Regarding scenarios I personally would love to see "GW-approved" table setups that could be used to balance the game against. It would at least give us(and them) a general idea what to go for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a confusing statement for me. Not the 2 games in a row bit. I agree with that because... sometimes you just don't have time. But 8th takes WAY less time than 7th. Games that took 4-6 hours in 7th take me 1.5-2 hours in 8th. 8th is miles easier, no charts, no random rolls, no random damage tables, no 3 different books to understand a single datasheet. How are your 8th games taking longer?
I agree that 8th is much shorter, but for some reason battles against IG take ages due to the fact that they can now split-fire at will and that often means that the player agonizes over every single lasgun and mortar decision. Maybe tneva82 is playing with or against IG a lot?
It depends of what armies you're playing. Orks for example are quite popular as a horde army in 8th edition and each mek gun counts as an independent unit once deployed even if they were part of the same battery. Moving all those infantries, throwing lots of dice, split firing, etc contribute to make the game longer, in 7th edition orks tipycally didn't have that many bodies and rely on transports.
According to my experience there's no real difference between 7th and 8th in terms of time required to play a game. It's just easier to table opponents or to force them to concede when you play codex vs index.
nou wrote: What have always puzzled me in this context is that at least scenario-related rules like that can be made 100% ballanced if you just play double match with reversed roles. Faction-specific scenarios/scenery are a bit tougher to account for, but there is pretty much nothing against "forging a narrative" in which those features suit other factions as well. This is the very area of 40K where all blame is on the players and not on GW. This puzzles me even more in 8th, where not only "competetive" or "tournament" mindset but very matched play rules strip so much flavour away...
a) not all have time for 2 games in row. Especially with 8th ed that seems to take even longer than ever
b) many of those scenarios might not work that well with just flipping side. Say one side is supposed to have bigger army. Are you expected to carry 2 army lists? Could get tricky to carry.
c) Obviously swapping armies literally(as in I play with your models, you play with mine) is not going to fly well. Now my models aren't painted that well that I would worry too much. However resin models if they break I expect them to pay back but that requires being able to trust on his words. And what about guys whose painting is good enough it would really be of bummer if you scratch their models(this btw is one reason why one of the most stupid ideas GW had with AOS was measure to base which could literally force players to put models on top of other players models! NOBODY does that period to my models and I don't do that to others. That's just basic politeness to ensure you don't damage other players bases or models. Not to mention the way my bases are made they aren't flat so putting other base over one isn't as easy as it might sound)
@ a) you can always make a photo of terrain layout and play a rematch next week, recreating terrain. With typical FLGS terrain even having exact same pieces isn't usually necessary. I've done this many times. No real problem unless you only play one-off pickup games with strangers.
@ b) just make so that a smaller list is a subset of the larger that is standard 2000pts you would carry nevertheless. No real, unsolvable problem here either.
@ c) that is indeed doable only with trusted friend / frequent play companion, but is perfectly avoidable, see above.
The issue with letting high-end competitive players dictate changes is that it's a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory those types of players should be the ones you want to listen to for balance, because they are the ones breaking things. However, it seems that they have a vested interest in NOT balancing the game, because they feel list building and finding exploitative combos are the key skill in Warhammer, so would you trust people to balance the game when they don't want the balance in the first place, because they feel finding the loopholes/min-maxing to be of utmost import?
Wayniac wrote: The issue with letting high-end competitive players dictate changes is that it's a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory those types of players should be the ones you want to listen to for balance, because they are the ones breaking things. However, it seems that they have a vested interest in NOT balancing the game, because they feel list building and finding exploitative combos are the key skill in Warhammer, so would you trust people to balance the game when they don't want the balance in the first place, because they feel finding the loopholes/min-maxing to be of utmost import?
Which is why most companies don't rely exclusively on feedback from players.
Still, competitive feedback is generally better for fixing balance and rules issues, but you still want to have your paid, professional game developers to go over everything again with a fine toothed comb. GW is still struggling with that aspect, clearly.
Plus, its entirely unknown the amount (if any) playtesters are actively seeking to NOT balance the game. I'd argue that most dedicated, competitive minded gamers would work towards the best balance so that their victories are more attributed to their skill, not in the game's inherent flaws. The outliers to this wouldn't be significant enough to somehow skew the game in a meaningful way. Any issues that would continue in the game would be entirely on the fault of the devs, who ultimately have the final say anyways.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with letting high-end competitive players dictate changes is that it's a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory those types of players should be the ones you want to listen to for balance, because they are the ones breaking things. However, it seems that they have a vested interest in NOT balancing the game, because they feel list building and finding exploitative combos are the key skill in Warhammer, so would you trust people to balance the game when they don't want the balance in the first place, because they feel finding the loopholes/min-maxing to be of utmost import?
No. Players who want list building to be a major element are going to work for balance, because list building is not a brag-worthy skill element if it is easy. If you have blatantly unbalanced stuff then why would anyone respect you for your skill in taking the blatantly overpowered thing that everyone knows you take if you want to win? It narrows the skill and respect gap between the top competitive players and the netlisting hordes who copy the obvious best list. What that player wants is the ability to identify the best thing and use it to their advantage, but for figuring out that strategy to be difficult. And that means improving balance by removing overpowered outliers and narrowing the power range to a point where fewer players are able to simply take the obvious thing and win. Sure, the self-interested competitive players might not get you all the way to perfect balance, but they're going to get you a lot closer than GW has ever come. And then you have the competitive players with an ego investment in being right about game balance, whether it's to impress everyone or simply to solve the interesting puzzle. Those players are going to give you accurate feedback on balance because the alternative is to admit that they aren't right.
The most dangerous player type for balance feedback is casual players, not competitive players. They tend to lack the rules and metagame knowledge to give accurate feedback, and are often single-faction players who are extremely prone to bias in favor of their pet faction. The last thing you want is something like a casual IG player who loses all the time against competitive players because they don't ever invest enough time to learn to play well saying "buff infantry squads to 3ppm and make plasma free, IG are too weak".
This is a confusing statement for me. Not the 2 games in a row bit. I agree with that because... sometimes you just don't have time. But 8th takes WAY less time than 7th. Games that took 4-6 hours in 7th take me 1.5-2 hours in 8th. 8th is miles easier, no charts, no random rolls, no random damage tables, no 3 different books to understand a single datasheet. How are your 8th games taking longer?
I find that up to around 1750, games are easily playable in a couple hours. Hit 2000 points, what seems to be the most popular points bracket, the length of a game jumps to 3-4 hours for some reason even with experienced players.
Peregrine, I remember going around and around with you about what my Armoured Battlegroup should run way back in 5th. I had to have 10 tanks, because that's what's fluffy for a "regulation" Imperial Guard armoured company, and I think you hated me for it and said "why would you even ask for advice" even though I had 400-500 odd points left over, which is what I was asking about.
At the end of the day, CAAC is bad because they'd see those 10 Leman Russes (or 3 Superheavy Tanks now, in my case; boy how times change) or <insert fairly competitive but not that great list here>, and throw a hissy fit.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
you can also have people like Peregrine who, instead of helping me make my list a bit better with the extra 400-500 points while respecting my wishes about what the core of the list was, completely decide that I must be an incompetent fop unworthy of their attentions because I had the audacity to not bow to their every whim when it came to optimizing my list. So instead of improving my 10-LRBT list to make it a more fun and interesting list with a good 25% of the points left to spend, I instead got embroiled in an argument and probably ended up with a less fun list at the end.
Peregrine, I remember going around and around with you about what my Armoured Battlegroup should run way back in 5th. I had to have 10 tanks, because that's what's fluffy for a "regulation" Imperial Guard armoured company, and I think you hated me for it and said "why would you even ask for advice" even though I had 400-500 odd points left over, which is what I was asking about.
At the end of the day, CAAC is bad because they'd see those 10 Leman Russes (or 3 Superheavy Tanks now, in my case; boy how times change) or <insert fairly competitive but not that great list here>, and throw a hissy fit.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
you can also have people like Peregrine who, instead of helping me make my list a bit better with the extra 400-500 points while respecting my wishes about what the core of the list was, completely decide that I must be an incompetent fop unworthy of their attentions because I had the audacity to not bow to their every whim when it came to optimizing my list. So instead of improving my 10-LRBT list to make it a more fun and interesting list with a good 25% of the points left to spend, I instead got embroiled in an argument and probably ended up with a less fun list at the end.
*shrug* both extremes are bad.
This. They guy stomping on some player who plays an Imperial Fist army with centurions, whirlwinds and land speeders with Ynarri Dark Reaper spam is just as bad as the guy throwing a fit and leaving a game because their opponent brought Mortarion in a pure Death Guard list.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with letting high-end competitive players dictate changes is that it's a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory those types of players should be the ones you want to listen to for balance, because they are the ones breaking things. However, it seems that they have a vested interest in NOT balancing the game, because they feel list building and finding exploitative combos are the key skill in Warhammer, so would you trust people to balance the game when they don't want the balance in the first place, because they feel finding the loopholes/min-maxing to be of utmost import?
Keep in mind that the majority of players will never know how much balancing has happened, because the playtesters have all signed NDA's prohibiting them from discussing most of their involvement. It's a bit disingenuous to throw shade on them like this, because for all we know they caught 99 other problems, but commissars/dark reapers/storm ravens/etc. made it through the rounds.
It should also be noted that just because playtesting is done, does not necessarily mean identified issues are acted on.
Having done video game QA many moons ago, QA finds all sorts of issues that make it into games and programs because Dev either doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to fix it, or simply never gets told.
Vaktathi wrote: It should also be noted that just because playtesting is done, does not necessarily mean identified issues are acted on.
Having done video game QA many moons ago, QA finds all sorts of issues that make it into games and programs because Dev either doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to fix it, or simply never gets told.
Having been on the developer/design side of the same process, I confirm that from the other end. The issues are there and sometimes they get shipped anyways for any number of reasons.
Edit: We thank you for your service! Games QA can suuuuuuck.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with letting high-end competitive players dictate changes is that it's a double-edged sword. Yes, in theory those types of players should be the ones you want to listen to for balance, because they are the ones breaking things. However, it seems that they have a vested interest in NOT balancing the game, because they feel list building and finding exploitative combos are the key skill in Warhammer, so would you trust people to balance the game when they don't want the balance in the first place, because they feel finding the loopholes/min-maxing to be of utmost import?
Keep in mind that the majority of players will never know how much balancing has happened, because the playtesters have all signed NDA's prohibiting them from discussing most of their involvement. It's a bit disingenuous to throw shade on them like this, because for all we know they caught 99 other problems, but commissars/dark reapers/storm ravens/etc. made it through the rounds.
This. Even companies like WotC, who do ridiculously amounts of play testing and QA loops for MtG drop the ball from time to time. Last minute changes, "play testing meta" (when play testing evolves a meta that does not match the actual meta after release) or combos that no one has thought about have caused major balance issues multiple times in the last two decades - and WotC has been doing what GW just started doing now since combo winter almost killed the game in 1998.
I thought it was the ITC organisers and top players who playtested 8th and would continue to do so for future releases or did I read that wrong? I'm sure that was on one of the early Warhammer Community posts for 8th.
Broken combos should be patched. This is something MTG does after every release. There is a restricted /banned list for a reason.
Or are we to believe that non-competitive players want Dark Reapers to be insanely broken? What happens if in your casual gaming group, someone makes a dark reaper list just by chance. "These models are my favorite. I'm going to bring 20 of them!" What do you do?
Just because tournament and competitive play highlights these issues, doesn't mean they wouldn't come to light eventually anyway. You don't have to be a genius to spot an undercosted unit.
Marmatag wrote: Broken combos should be patched. This is something MTG does after every release. There is a restricted /banned list for a reason.
Or are we to believe that non-competitive players want Dark Reapers to be insanely broken? What happens if in your casual gaming group, someone makes a dark reaper list just by chance. "These models are my favorite. I'm going to bring 20 of them!" What do you do?
Just because tournament and competitive play highlights these issues, doesn't mean they wouldn't come to light eventually anyway. You don't have to be a genius to spot an undercosted unit.
"They can't be someone's favorite model because the models are bad and made of Finecast so it won't happen".
Marmatag wrote: Broken combos should be patched. This is something MTG does after every release. There is a restricted /banned list for a reason.
Or are we to believe that non-competitive players want Dark Reapers to be insanely broken? What happens if in your casual gaming group, someone makes a dark reaper list just by chance. "These models are my favorite. I'm going to bring 20 of them!" What do you do?
Just because tournament and competitive play highlights these issues, doesn't mean they wouldn't come to light eventually anyway. You don't have to be a genius to spot an undercosted unit.
"They can't be someone's favorite model because the models are bad and made of Finecast so it won't happen".
Because the second hand market and long time players don't exist do they?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Peregrine, I remember going around and around with you about what my Armoured Battlegroup should run way back in 5th. I had to have 10 tanks, because that's what's fluffy for a "regulation" Imperial Guard armoured company, and I think you hated me for it and said "why would you even ask for advice" even though I had 400-500 odd points left over, which is what I was asking about.
I didn't hate you for it, but it was a perfect example of a very irritating trend. You get completely stuck on the idea of having exactly one list (usually based on misconceptions about how the fluff works) and then defend it to the death, finding a reason why every suggestion anyone gives you (whether it's how to improve your win rate or how to make the game more enjoyable for your opponents, or even how to improve the fluff) is unacceptable and you need to continue playing the exact list that you're using.
As for the thread in question, you posted a list with zero scoring units in it (back in 6th, when only non-vehicle troops could score), not a list that was a bit less than tournament-optimized. That's a list that automatically loses every game you play, a completely non-viable option. Even dumping your entire remaining points into scoring units would just get you to the level of "my opponent is not wasting their time by slaughtering me", not to the point of being a good list outside of the absolute weakest environments. And sure, playing very weak lists because of stubborn loyalty to a fluff concept, as incorrect as it may be, is something you have a right to do. But it's annoying when people post threads in the tactics section, the place where you seek advice on how to win the game, and then ignore any advice on how to win the game that isn't "do what you're already doing". Maybe you personally weren't guilty of it that time, but a lot of those threads seem to be coming from people who have zero interest in tactics discussion and just want to hear people tell them how awesome they are at 40k and how all of their ideas are the best ever.
I'm fairly certain it was the army list section, not the tactics section.
And as for what I wanted to hear... I'm fairly certain I was asking what to do with the last 400-500 points. That can range from "what is optimal" (which is how you see it) to "what is cool-looking" or "what is fluffy" or "what would you like to see, mr Random Internet Guy?".
It was asking what 4 or 500 points of stuff would compliment 10 tanks (3 Vanquishers, 5 Battle Tanks, 2 Demolishers), and I was asking mostly anyone, not just optimizers.
And yes, I did damn near lose every game I play. And you know what? I never met anyone who hated playing me except the CAACs who just tore their own eyes out at the idea someone could use 10 LRBTs. The most competitive player in my area tabled me effortlessly with Grey Knights in 5th (not that he had to, as I couldn't score), and then turned around and told me it was the most enjoyable game he'd ever had.
So I'll continue to play unoptimized lists (or even lists that lose every game, try not to have an aneurysm) and when I ask for the last few points I could throw down to mix it up and make things look good on the table top, I'll make sure to put in the thread title something about "Peregrine Beware" or somesuch, just so you don't get confused and distraught over the idea that I have a certain way I like to play and it's not the same as yours.
And yes, I did damn near lose every game I play. And you know what? I never met anyone who hated playing me except the CAACs who just tore their own eyes out at the idea someone could use 10 LRBTs.
Had these people not heard of entire tank regiments?
And yes, I did damn near lose every game I play. And you know what? I never met anyone who hated playing me except the CAACs who just tore their own eyes out at the idea someone could use 10 LRBTs.
Had these people not heard of entire tank regiments?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm fairly certain it was the army list section, not the tactics section.
I'm fairly certain you're wrong, I looked up the thread when you mentioned it. Link. And the army list section is considered a "how to win games" section as well, otherwise what's the point of posting a list for feedback?
As for the rest, you're just demonstrating my point: you must have exactly 10 tanks because that's what your mistaken understanding of the fluff dictates, and you continue to make excuses for why it's a good idea. Fine, it's your weird fluff rules, you're free to lose every game if that's what makes you happy. But it's ridiculous to post a tactics thread that starts with the premise of "I'm ok with losing every game I play". That isn't about tactics, it's about getting people to tell you what you want to hear.
We have. The list in question was based on a limited and very biased understanding of the fluff, not a fluff-accurate representation of an IG armored force. A "realistic" IG tank regiment consists of far more than just LRBTs, and its supporting assets (mechanized infantry, artillery, air cover, etc) would appear in a typical battle. And aside from the fluff issue, even if you can find an example of a force like that in the fluff it's still reasonable to object to seeing it on the other side of the table. Back in 6th, when this discussion happened, it was a one-dimensional list with zero scoring units and no hope of winning unless you tabled your opponent. It produced boring one-sided games, you either had answers for LRBTs with zero scoring units and won effortlessly, or failed to have answers and got wiped off the table. There was very little middle ground where the game was interesting, and you could probably guess the outcome of the game before anyone put models on the table. And that kind of game shouldn't happen, even if you can find some obscure fluff reference that says it's possible.
Oh, you're right about the Tactics section, my mistake!
As for the rest of your post: Would you like me to cite a "realistic" tank regiment for you? Perhaps the relevant diagrams from four editions of Imperial Guard codexes/Apocalypse, or perhaps just Forge World's take on what an Armoured Company is from the Imperial Armour books? Or maybe you'd like to read, rather than see a diagram, the part that says Imperial Guard regiments are deliberately devoid of supporting units? I'm happy to screenshot/photograph any citation you need, but it is demonstrably provable that the core company formation of an Imperial Guard tank regiment is 10 vehicles. I can promise 3 citations, and more besides if you're unconvinced.
As for your little rant about games, sure, yeah, you're exactly right. Which is why in my local area people enjoyed games against it and asked me to play them (save CAACs who didn't know me).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Would you like me to cite a "realistic" tank regiment for you? Perhaps the relevant diagrams from four editions of Imperial Guard codexes/Apocalypse, or perhaps just Forge World's take on what an Armoured Company is from the Imperial Armour books?
Please do. You'll find that the diagram in question (from the back of IA1: Second Edition) clearly has supporting units included, not just lots of LRBTs. And that's not even including the temporarily attached units from other IG regiments that would accompany the armored regiment in battle.
Or maybe you'd like to read, rather than see a diagram, the part that says Imperial Guard regiments are deliberately devoid of supporting units?
Paper regiments, yes, depending on the source. Some sources claim that regiments are literally one-dimensional and have zero supporting units, other sources (like IA1:2nd) claim that regiments are heavily focused on one particular unit type but include the relevant supporting units. In practice IG regiments fight together. To quote the FW armored battlegroup list: "even the most jaded tank commander knows that without the infantry his tank is impotent". A tabletop representation of an IG armored force would consist of a substantial number of tanks, but also include mechanized infantry, air cover, etc, because that's how an armored regiment would actually fight in a real battle.
As for your little rant about games, sure, yeah, you're exactly right. Which is why in my local area people enjoyed games against it and asked me to play them (save CAACs who didn't know me).
That has nothing to do with my point. It's the tactics section, not the "talk about how we all had fun" section. Implicit in calling it the tactics section (and its related list forum, which only exists to keep the tactics forum clear of list threads) is that it's for discussion of tactics, how to win games. A thread that starts with a premise of "I don't care if I lose every game I play" is not about tactics, and does not belong in the section for that kind of discussion.
And this is what I find so incredibly irritating: people that have no interest in winning games or improving their skill at winning still, for some reason, feel compelled to participate in the discussion areas dedicated to the subject. And then, when the responses they get inevitably consist of "that's a terrible idea, don't do it" they get annoyed and complain about how "WAAC" players are ruining everything and don't want to allow "casual" players to enjoy the game the way they want. Which isn't true at all, you just voluntarily posted in the place where winning is the goal.
I already admitted it was a mistake to post it in Tactics rather than Army List or General Discussion. That was an error and perhaps I could ask the mods to move it if you're so incensed about the category it's in.
Even the codex tells you that the reason regiments are done that way is to make them inefficient figthing without support.
Now, I run infantry DA with support RW so im not gonna tell you you cant play full tanks if you like, just as I dont use sm tanks because i dont like them, and use bikers and dreadnoughts for that role.
Galas wrote: Even the codex tells you that the reason regiments are done that way is to make them inefficient figthing without support. Now, I sam infantry DA with support RW so im not gonna tell you you cant play full tanks if you lije, just as I dont use sm tanks because i dont like them.
Right, yes, but I am playing a regiment, not a battlegroup. Inefficiency is part of the gig if people don't like to team me with other regiments.
Fortunately, I do actually bring support from other regiments for the last 400-500 points. If the points gets bigger, the support gets bigger, because I can't afford 20 LRBTs until like 4k, at which point I've about 1k of support.
Its like Godwin's law, but for Martel and Unit, where the longer the thread the greater the chance of complaining about BA or a discussion about tanks/baneblades.
Ordana wrote: Do we really need another thread gak up by Unit trying to peddle his tank armies and complaining no one wants to play his baneblade spam?
Can we go back to whining about Competitive players please? Much more fun.
I'm actually whining about the competitive players and not trying to peddle anything. EDIT: If you prefer I can take it to PMs.
I thought you guys would be in favor of fluff trumping competitiveness. Have you even read the thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine, now we can reach WAAAY BACK into the depths of 2nd edition when an Imperial Guard tank company had exactly 10 tanks. Since 2nd Edition.
I think both casual and competitive are perfectly viable and you can choose how to play the game the way you like personally. The only issue with competitive play I have right now is soup. While its fine if people want to play soup to min max it does have me concerned for things it could do to mono faction players. A unit has the potential to be well balanced when maintained inside a specific codex but is very under costed when used with other codexes. Hopefully, GW can make it so the unit is costed appropriately both in soup and mono faction but the ability to combine armies so easily definitely makes balancing units more difficult.
I like variety. I've noticed that competitive lists can spam whatever units the person thinks are the best in the codex. So I tend not to spend too much time playing against them.
So no, I don't think competitiveness ruins 40k. I suppose if it came to dominate my local scene, then I'd change my tune.
Something tells me though that I'd still be able to find other people like me who make army list choices based on model preference or story rather than points efficiency, synergy or some other way the rules can impact decision making. Most of my opponents just want the rules to let their stuff do something cool.
Yes, but if the game were designed better it wouldn't be as big a problem. Granted, I still think eighth is the healthiest this game has been in years.
Blacksails wrote: Its like Godwin's law, but for Martel and Unit, where the longer the thread the greater the chance of complaining about BA or a discussion about tanks/baneblades.
Wait, there's two of them now?...
As for actually being on topic I don't think competitiveness ruins things. I think people taking that extra set to game a system, and a poorly structured system that leaves a lot of holes in it for that to happen, are what ruins things.
There’s one thing which I don’t think has been touched on where I believe that the mindset does harm the game, but it’s not really just a 40k problem. Or ‘Warhammer games’ problem. It’s something I’ve felt for a very, very long time but a ‘Malign Portents’ thread expressed it well:
Wayniac wrote:
Cons: Like basically everything here will never see the light of day in any sort of Matched Play game, even though there are two pitched battle scenarios that don't seem too bad...
So basically, another cool idea that will be totally ignored because it doesn't really fit into the "100% balance" matched play concept so prevalent in the game. Like most interesting things, there are just too many potentials to get bonuses and whatnot for it to be accepted.
For ‘fantasy’ gamers we all do exhibit a lack of imagination at times. Far too often do we succumb to “2000pts, line up across roughly symmetrical board, go” syndrome. If we actually read some of the rulebooks and fiction - and not just the GW ones, it afflicts all games - heck even the history books there are usually some fantastic scenario ideas in there somewhere, but we still turn up with The One List for The One Way To Play.
Historicals too - though at least there is often less pushback if you can tie it in as a (sometimes approximate) refight of a particular battle / skirmish, even if different sides are involved (Waterloo as Thirty Years War for instance). Can still be difficult, and this is in the context of a long-term group of regulars who - to be fair to them - don’t usually need much persuasion.
I appreciate that time is often the limiting factor, it may be our only ‘hobby night’ of the week and “line up and go” at least gets us going. But it gets slightly depressing after a while. And to quote Slaanesh from that ‘Portents’ book:
“It would be ... dull.”
(Edit for clarification - yes, I know that doing it ‘on the fly’ is rarely a good idea - though not universally bad. But I have often met a strange resistance even to “hey mate, I’ve got an idea we could try some time...”)
I think restricting to oneself (and possibly others in terms of setting norms in the community) to a subset of possible scenarios (equal points matched play), at a certain points level (whatever "normal full sized" game points value are), only using the items in a given army list that have been determined as competitive (are they worth it? is this unit viable?) pretty much impoverishes ones hobby experience by definition.
It's a subset of a subset of a subset of the possible game experience.
Ordana wrote: Do we really need another thread gak up by Unit trying to peddle his tank armies and complaining no one wants to play his baneblade spam?
Can we go back to whining about Competitive players please? Much more fun.
I'm actually whining about the competitive players and not trying to peddle anything. EDIT: If you prefer I can take it to PMs.
I thought you guys would be in favor of fluff trumping competitiveness. Have you even read the thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine, now we can reach WAAAY BACK into the depths of 2nd edition when an Imperial Guard tank company had exactly 10 tanks. Since 2nd Edition.
And then comes questions like how many tanks are in reality operational at all(it's not like there's these things called "casualties" or "damage" now is it?) and even more pressing how many tanks of company would in reality be assigned to the pittance sized battle field of about football field 40k games are located at. Tanks don't generally move side by side and cover large width. Larger than your typical 40k board represents.
My experience has overwhelmingly also been players typically just want tournament standard points, line up... go.
I do agree it makes for a very dull experience over time, and I attribute the churn and burn I have experienced to exactly that. I've noted that the average lifespan of a GW gamer is about 2.5 years. After that they tend to sell their stuff off and move on because they are bored, because their experience is essentially rush paint to play in tournaments, then play the same tournament style or scenarios for a couple years until burnout is achieved.
A lot of that comes down to "other scenarios aren't fair". A lot of those guys also never touch a piece of 40k fiction nor care to, so in terms of experiencing a lot more of the 40k universe on the table than they could be with their standard scenarios, I hear a lot of times during campaigns that they dont' care about that stuff.
auticus wrote: My experience has overwhelmingly also been players typically just want tournament standard points, line up... go.
I do agree it makes for a very dull experience over time, and I attribute the churn and burn I have experienced to exactly that. I've noted that the average lifespan of a GW gamer is about 2.5 years. After that they tend to sell their stuff off and move on because they are bored, because their experience is essentially rush paint to play in tournaments, then play the same tournament style or scenarios for a couple years until burnout is achieved.
A lot of that comes down to "other scenarios aren't fair". A lot of those guys also never touch a piece of 40k fiction nor care to, so in terms of experiencing a lot more of the 40k universe on the table than they could be with their standard scenarios, I hear a lot of times during campaigns that they dont' care about that stuff.
Its kind of a self fulfilling thing.
Yep. I mean, for me there's so much more than "matched play, 2000 points, symmetrical missions". I absolutely get why those are a staple of tournament play (although, and my memory is very hazy as I'm going back over 15 years, 2nd and 3rd edition 40k had Attacker/Defender missions and I seem to recall those being used in tournaments), but I get increasingly frustrated when that becomes the ONLY way people want to play. Nobody just wants to kind of eyeball some roughly equal forces (who cares about a few points difference here and there?) and come up with a cool terrain layout and use a variant mission or even just an ad-hoc mission that we both come up with on the fly, and have some fun. It's always "What size game?" and "Which eternal war/maelstrom/ITC mission are we using" and while those are okay, they get very boring very quickly. There's all this cool stuff that GW puts out that basically just gets ignored because it's "different", and even for a regular pick-up game people are completely unwilling to adjust their perception of balance and just look to have a good time, instead of seeing the whole thing as a competition to win. That's why I feel competitiveness ruins 40k; because it so frequently bleeds out of a tournament setting, instead of staying contained, and as a result I feel a lot of the hobby gets lost.
Its the player bases strong desire to play "real 40k" and use the same scenarios as tournaments do, because tournaments are the game standard.
Either because they are practicing for tournaments, or because they just want to play by the same rules as everyone else.
A lot of people have said on forums, in talks, and in campaign voting sessions that alternate scenarios are not "real 40k" (just like you've heard forgeworld and expansion splat books like cityfight, etc in the past were not "real 40k") and there is a very strong need to make sure every game is the same as every game in terms of rules and scenarios being chosen from.
That helps define their current standings. If I beat you in a tournament scenario, that gives me an idea of how I may fare in a tournament I'm going to. It also means I can hop on Dakka and discuss tactics because my experience is in the standard scenarios.
If I beat you in some non standard scenario, the proves nothing and I can't really even discuss it in the same context as the overall public if their discussions center around standard tournament play because I will be discredited for winning a scenario that "doesn't count" or "was unfair and unbalanced" or "didn't follow standard tournament protocol".
Our club put in place a no tournament practice rule. The tables at club night are simply not available for such purposes. There's a local store that has tournament practice night on the same day and we send people interested in that there. They'll get a wider variety of opponents who will offer a greater challenge, an opportunity to analyze the meta with like minded individuals and contacts for organizing things like car pools and shared accommodations for traveling to events in nearby cities.
People are free to play matched play games with the scenarios they like but they are doing themselves no favours if they think that gaming on our non standard terrain tables, against some of the least efficient army lists ever, is going to help their performance at an upcoming event. Especially when there's a dedicated group for that at the exact same time less than 10 minutes away.
auticus wrote: My experience has overwhelmingly also been players typically just want tournament standard points, line up... go.
I do agree it makes for a very dull experience over time, and I attribute the churn and burn I have experienced to exactly that. I've noted that the average lifespan of a GW gamer is about 2.5 years. After that they tend to sell their stuff off and move on because they are bored, because their experience is essentially rush paint to play in tournaments, then play the same tournament style or scenarios for a couple years until burnout is achieved.
No bias in there at all...a 2.5 year span would create a considerable churn and you'd see tons more armies on eBay.
Anecdote fight!
I've been at it for 10 years in tournaments and over 20 in the hobby. The people at my shop are the same guys for at least 6 years now. Any players "lost" had life events (kids) or moved.
auticus wrote: My experience has overwhelmingly also been players typically just want tournament standard points, line up... go.
I do agree it makes for a very dull experience over time, and I attribute the churn and burn I have experienced to exactly that. I've noted that the average lifespan of a GW gamer is about 2.5 years. After that they tend to sell their stuff off and move on because they are bored, because their experience is essentially rush paint to play in tournaments, then play the same tournament style or scenarios for a couple years until burnout is achieved.
A lot of that comes down to "other scenarios aren't fair". A lot of those guys also never touch a piece of 40k fiction nor care to, so in terms of experiencing a lot more of the 40k universe on the table than they could be with their standard scenarios, I hear a lot of times during campaigns that they dont' care about that stuff.
Its kind of a self fulfilling thing.
Yep. I mean, for me there's so much more than "matched play, 2000 points, symmetrical missions". I absolutely get why those are a staple of tournament play (although, and my memory is very hazy as I'm going back over 15 years, 2nd and 3rd edition 40k had Attacker/Defender missions and I seem to recall those being used in tournaments), but I get increasingly frustrated when that becomes the ONLY way people want to play. Nobody just wants to kind of eyeball some roughly equal forces (who cares about a few points difference here and there?) and come up with a cool terrain layout and use a variant mission or even just an ad-hoc mission that we both come up with on the fly, and have some fun. It's always "What size game?" and "Which eternal war/maelstrom/ITC mission are we using" and while those are okay, they get very boring very quickly. There's all this cool stuff that GW puts out that basically just gets ignored because it's "different", and even for a regular pick-up game people are completely unwilling to adjust their perception of balance and just look to have a good time, instead of seeing the whole thing as a competition to win. That's why I feel competitiveness ruins 40k; because it so frequently bleeds out of a tournament setting, instead of staying contained, and as a result I feel a lot of the hobby gets lost.
auticus wrote:Its the player bases strong desire to play "real 40k" and use the same scenarios as tournaments do, because tournaments are the game standard.
Either because they are practicing for tournaments, or because they just want to play by the same rules as everyone else.
A lot of people have said on forums, in talks, and in campaign voting sessions that alternate scenarios are not "real 40k" (just like you've heard forgeworld and expansion splat books like cityfight, etc in the past were not "real 40k") and there is a very strong need to make sure every game is the same as every game in terms of rules and scenarios being chosen from.
That helps define their current standings. If I beat you in a tournament scenario, that gives me an idea of how I may fare in a tournament I'm going to. It also means I can hop on Dakka and discuss tactics because my experience is in the standard scenarios.
If I beat you in some non standard scenario, the proves nothing and I can't really even discuss it in the same context as the overall public if their discussions center around standard tournament play because I will be discredited for winning a scenario that "doesn't count" or "was unfair and unbalanced" or "didn't follow standard tournament protocol".
Both those points are sadly true - for some strange reason 40K is "publicly" used almost exclusively as a "serious game for measuring skill" despite it being quite disfunctional for this purpose. From my experience, 40K becomes drastically different experience when you can find a true "let get out of ruts and explore" type of 40K companion and can actually play all those special rules/scenarios/terrain etc...
As to post-game discussions, that is also very true and is also a form of community self-filtering - people who like custom scenarios eventually wander off due to lack of feedback, either to other games/communities (inquisimunda/inq28 and necromunda communities come to mind) or to closed groups (like I do) as it is the only way for productive discussion. Most "tournament preparation, standard games only" folks here probably don't even realise, that tournament/meta focused tactical talks often fail to apply when the context shifts to more involved scenarios (and not because "if you don't play optimal lists you don't try to win" reasons) or strange, localised "metas" as "what is usefull, what is useless" can also shift substantially.
That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
auticus wrote: My experience has overwhelmingly also been players typically just want tournament standard points, line up... go.
I do agree it makes for a very dull experience over time, and I attribute the churn and burn I have experienced to exactly that. I've noted that the average lifespan of a GW gamer is about 2.5 years. After that they tend to sell their stuff off and move on because they are bored, because their experience is essentially rush paint to play in tournaments, then play the same tournament style or scenarios for a couple years until burnout is achieved.
No bias in there at all...a 2.5 year span would create a considerable churn and you'd see tons more armies on eBay.
Anecdote fight!
I've been at it for 10 years in tournaments and over 20 in the hobby. The people at my shop are the same guys for at least 6 years now. Any players "lost" had life events (kids) or moved.
I'm speaking from my own local experience here. I don't claim to know everyone outside of my area or their habits. A lot of our lost players also had life events (mainly they got girlfriends, married, and had kids) but almost all cite boredom and burn out when they put their stuff up on ebay or the local buy/sell page.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
On warseer, on here, and on a few other forums I have suggested tags to posts that let you explain the context of your desire. IE if I am discussing how to pwn my opponents into submission I would tag my topic as [tournament] or something and if I wanted a more casual or general topic it would be tagged with [casual play] or something.
That never worked out though lol because that idea gets binned since the majority of people already talk tournament and just as assume you are as well.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
And most of the time when someone says "I found X to be really good" in contradiction to the tournament meta consensus they're simply wrong about it being good. They might enjoy the unit's fluff or be really proud of the paint job they did on it, but it isn't an effective choice from a rules point of view. And they only fall back on "BUT ITS NOT ALWAYS TOURNAMENTS" as a way to avoid admitting that they were wrong about their strategy claim.
Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
The problem is that "prides itself on being about options" and "actually having options" are not the same thing. Honest evaluation of list choices doesn't invalidate those options, it merely acknowledges the fact that GW invalidated them already. Pretending that they are valid doesn't make them viable choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Our club put in place a no tournament practice rule. The tables at club night are simply not available for such purposes.
How exactly do you enforce this? Ban anyone who brings a list that is "too powerful" for your personal standards?
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
Online discussion tends to resolve around competitive play because for casual play you simply do whatever you feel like.
What is there to discuss for list building in a casual environment? What unit is best? doesn't matter. Should I run X, Y or Z? Doesn't matter, do whatever you want.
Once you start talking about 'merit' you start going into 'what is better' which naturally leads to 'what is best' and now were back to 'competitive meta'.
That is not to say you can't have discussions about casual gaming. Fun scenario's. Interesting situations that happened ect. But when it comes to tactics & lists the answer is always 'doesn't matter, do whatever you feel like'.
You're posting over-simplified formations and marketing gimmicks (obviously a LRBT bundle box is going to have LRBTs, not LRBTs and a conversion kit for a HQ Chimera and some random infantry) and ignoring explicit statements that you are wrong about unit organizations. But even if you're right in some interpretation of the fluff it's still an extremely narrow version of the fluff. You're claiming to be talking about strategy, but you're rejecting anything that doesn't fit your one extremely specific list and starting from a premise of "I don't care if this actually works". That isn't strategy discussion, it's a fluff debate in the wrong forum section.
As an example, I give this quote from you:
A sponsonless Hellhammer is 476 (roughly 24 power) and a max-sponson Hellhammer is 676 (roughly 34 power). A Hellhammer is 30 power.
I have no sponsons on any of my Hellhammers for fluff reasons. Badda bing, badda boom, I'm spending 18 power (ish) that I could have otherwise saved (30 vs 24 times 3).
You've defined your fluff so absurdly narrowly that even the secondary weapon choices on your units are absolute law that can not be changed, regardless of how it impacts the game on the table. I mean, yay for you, I'm glad you've found your one tiny niche in the hobby, but it's a mindset that is incompatible with actually playing the game.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
Online discussion tends to resolve around competitive play because for casual play you simply do whatever you feel like.
What is there to discuss for list building in a casual environment? What unit is best? doesn't matter. Should I run X, Y or Z? Doesn't matter, do whatever you want.
Once you start talking about 'merit' you start going into 'what is better' which naturally leads to 'what is best' and now were back to 'competitive meta'.
That is not to say you can't have discussions about casual gaming. Fun scenario's. Interesting situations that happened ect. But when it comes to tactics & lists the answer is always 'doesn't matter, do whatever you feel like'.
You can definitely talk about good synergies for casual play with X working well with Y and when supported by Z it makes a good combo even if X,Y, and Z basically never see use on a tournament table.
Jumping back to 7th, you could have a bunch of interesting combos with formations or detachment rules that made for good synergy but would never work in a pure tournament environment because they would get rolled by psychic Death Stars, Warp Spider spam, etc. For example I loved the mess out of Blitz Brigade with Orks and that synergied decently well with the Dakkajet formation, Flash Gitz, Tankbustas, MANz, MAWB with slugga Boyz, etc. It was a list that could hold its own against a lot of stuff but it wouldn't have the chops to deal with tourny Eldar, Bark Bark Star, etc. There is a middle between the whole tournament bleeding edge min/maxing and the casual "bring whatever you want" mentality. Honestly it's a shame that more discussion wasn't given to the middle ground topics because looking back at 7th and there are a ton of interesting formations that basically never got played because it wasn't one of those that made up the top 5% of the meta.
Vankraken wrote: You can definitely talk about good synergies for casual play with X working well with Y and when supported by Z it makes a good combo even if X,Y, and Z basically never see use on a tournament table.
You really can't, because it removes the entire concept of "working well" or "good combo". A choice is not "working well" if it is a weak option that can only succeed when your opponent makes an even weaker choice. What the discussion is really saying is "this is a weak choice, but I'm going to use it anyway", and that immediately puts the discussion onto something other than strategy.
Now, you can still keep the meaning of the concept if you're talking about a "what if GW fixed the major balance issues" metagame, where everyone is still playing competitively but that blatant balance mistake in {list of the month} has been changed. For example, in 8th it would still make sense to talk about strategy choices in a single-detachment, single-faction tournament format. Some of the choices you'll be making will be less than ideal in a different environment, but you aren't hyping up stuff that is utter trash in a normal game like many of these "casual strategy" threads do.
Personally, I would have preferred that rather than Stratagems (which really are shunting many of these "formation bonuses" into a "do you have the unit?" list of manabombs) or Formations, that many of these bonuses were built into loadout options. So instead of a Deliverance Broodsurge, you could pay extra points for War Rigging on a Goliath, etc.
That said and done, there were several interesting formations in 7th. I mostly made use of the Helcult and Chaos Warband myself because I at least liked to pretend towards semi-competitive (all the Obsec), but there were some fun ones out there too, especially if you built the list around it: From the Warpack letting you make a Chaos Walker a Character (and thus potentially your Warlord), to Mogrok's Bossboyz letting you play Orks as a "betastrike" list, there was some room for cheekiness.
Vankraken wrote: You can definitely talk about good synergies for casual play with X working well with Y and when supported by Z it makes a good combo even if X,Y, and Z basically never see use on a tournament table.
You really can't, because it removes the entire concept of "working well" or "good combo". A choice is not "working well" if it is a weak option that can only succeed when your opponent makes an even weaker choice. What the discussion is really saying is "this is a weak choice, but I'm going to use it anyway", and that immediately puts the discussion onto something other than strategy.
Now, you can still keep the meaning of the concept if you're talking about a "what if GW fixed the major balance issues" metagame, where everyone is still playing competitively but that blatant balance mistake in {list of the month} has been changed. For example, in 8th it would still make sense to talk about strategy choices in a single-detachment, single-faction tournament format. Some of the choices you'll be making will be less than ideal in a different environment, but you aren't hyping up stuff that is utter trash in a normal game like many of these "casual strategy" threads do.
Eh, there's a fine line between trash and janky. Like, it's one thing to say (7th examples) "Guardians are just as competitive as Scatter Laser Windriders" while it's another thing to state that "I am in a no-Forgeworld environment and feel that a Storm Guardian Host gives me some cover-busting and semi-expendable bodies" or so. And of course, there were the units like Breachers, Deathmarks, Lictors and Mawlocs, Neurothropes, etc. that weren't "A-game" themselves but were nowhere as bad as, say, Thousand Sons.
Marmatag wrote: Isn't this supposed to be the play the way you want edition? No one is forcing you to play with competitive rules and matched play restrictions.
It just so happens that the ITC combined missions are far and away the most fun and balanced way to play 40k right now.
I think this 'it can be whatever you want it to be' attitude by the developers is the biggest problem with 8th. Its a lie and delusion. A game has to be designed to function, it can't be all things and expected to be any good.
Marmatag wrote: Isn't this supposed to be the play the way you want edition? No one is forcing you to play with competitive rules and matched play restrictions.
It just so happens that the ITC combined missions are far and away the most fun and balanced way to play 40k right now.
I think this 'it can be whatever you want it to be' attitude by the developers is the biggest problem with 8th. Its a lie and delusion. A game has to be designed to function, it can't be all things and expected to be any good.
Yep, precisely. "Play the way you want, as long as others agree it's the right way to play" is more like it.
Marmatag wrote: Isn't this supposed to be the play the way you want edition? No one is forcing you to play with competitive rules and matched play restrictions.
It just so happens that the ITC combined missions are far and away the most fun and balanced way to play 40k right now.
I think this 'it can be whatever you want it to be' attitude by the developers is the biggest problem with 8th. Its a lie and delusion. A game has to be designed to function, it can't be all things and expected to be any good.
Yep, precisely. "Play the way you want, as long as others agree it's the right way to play" is more like it.
GW gave you ALL the tools and continues to expand them. They're not in the business of forcing people to play any particular way.
Vankraken wrote: You can definitely talk about good synergies for casual play with X working well with Y and when supported by Z it makes a good combo even if X,Y, and Z basically never see use on a tournament table.
You really can't, because it removes the entire concept of "working well" or "good combo". A choice is not "working well" if it is a weak option that can only succeed when your opponent makes an even weaker choice. What the discussion is really saying is "this is a weak choice, but I'm going to use it anyway", and that immediately puts the discussion onto something other than strategy.
Now, you can still keep the meaning of the concept if you're talking about a "what if GW fixed the major balance issues" metagame, where everyone is still playing competitively but that blatant balance mistake in {list of the month} has been changed. For example, in 8th it would still make sense to talk about strategy choices in a single-detachment, single-faction tournament format. Some of the choices you'll be making will be less than ideal in a different environment, but you aren't hyping up stuff that is utter trash in a normal game like many of these "casual strategy" threads do.
That is looking at it in a really narrow perspective that closes the ability to look at all options and develop strategies and tactics to make those options work to a degree of success. Flash Gitz for example never really saw tournament play but you sure as hell can discuss how to get the most mileage out of them and what tools you can use with them to develop a functional gameplan. The purpose of 40k is to be a tabletop war game that is hopefully fun to play. Building good combos (good as in these elements work well together to achieve a synergy) is part of strategy and not every strategy has to be min/max must win against all things. Also sometimes playing the unexpected gives your a tactical advantage because the opponent might not know how to handle that unit because it operates differently than the sort of stuff they are use to seeing. Might be getting a bit of hyperbole here but if anything other than the optimal choices are what should be disucssed then armies like 7th edition Dark Eldar or Orks should not be allowed to be discusses as strategy because those are inferior options when instead you could be playing Craftworld Eldar or Space Wolves.
In 6th, the FOC doubled at 2000 points. Many tournaments disliked this and resorted either to 1850 or "1999+1" events.
In 7th, the most common houserule (still used in 8th) is that you get to redraw a Maelstrom Objective if it's an impossible one. ("Cast a Psychic Power." "But I'm playing Necrons." "Well, you should have thought of that!"). Skies of Death was outright rejected too.
For ‘fantasy’ gamers we all do exhibit a lack of imagination at times. Far too often do we succumb to “2000pts, line up across roughly symmetrical board, go” syndrome. If we actually read some of the rulebooks and fiction - and not just the GW ones, it afflicts all games - heck even the history books there are usually some fantastic scenario ideas in there somewhere, but we still turn up with The One List for The One Way To Play.
This is something people seem to learn over time. I think we all dream of more diverse scenarios, campaigns, and all the cool storytelling options, but then we actually play them and someone figures out how to game the scenario or its just unbalanced and one sided and its just not as fun as we dreamed. Dedicated players look to fix it; patch up the holes and make it work, but eventually you spend more time trying to make it fun than having fun and go back to playing something that was designed to be fun in the first place.
Peregrine wrote: How exactly do you enforce this? Ban anyone who brings a list that is "too powerful" for your personal standards?
No enforcement required really. This isn't a store, it's a group of people. So when you say things like "we don't do tournament practice games here" people understand what they are joining.
There's one regular who is enamoured by things like spamming minimum sized Ynnarii/Craftworld Dark Reapers because it's "so good!" but even he doesn't seem to have any trouble with the ethos of the group.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
And most of the time when someone says "I found X to be really good" in contradiction to the tournament meta consensus they're simply wrong about it being good. They might enjoy the unit's fluff or be really proud of the paint job they did on it, but it isn't an effective choice from a rules point of view. And they only fall back on "BUT ITS NOT ALWAYS TOURNAMENTS" as a way to avoid admitting that they were wrong about their strategy claim.
Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
The problem is that "prides itself on being about options" and "actually having options" are not the same thing. Honest evaluation of list choices doesn't invalidate those options, it merely acknowledges the fact that GW invalidated them already. Pretending that they are valid doesn't make them viable choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Our club put in place a no tournament practice rule. The tables at club night are simply not available for such purposes.
How exactly do you enforce this? Ban anyone who brings a list that is "too powerful" for your personal standards?
But things aren't black or white. This is the min/maxing mentality and extremes that just isn't true. Things aren't "OP" or "Trash". Theres a good amount of units in between. And many units maybe aren't usefull in the context of one list but are usefull in the context of other one.
Yeah maybe deepstriking 20-man guardian blobs aren't as OP as spamming Dark Reapers and Shining Spears+Ynnari detachment but they are actually a competitive choice that works in other kind of lists.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
And most of the time when someone says "I found X to be really good" in contradiction to the tournament meta consensus they're simply wrong about it being good. They might enjoy the unit's fluff or be really proud of the paint job they did on it, but it isn't an effective choice from a rules point of view. And they only fall back on "BUT ITS NOT ALWAYS TOURNAMENTS" as a way to avoid admitting that they were wrong about their strategy claim.
Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
The problem is that "prides itself on being about options" and "actually having options" are not the same thing. Honest evaluation of list choices doesn't invalidate those options, it merely acknowledges the fact that GW invalidated them already. Pretending that they are valid doesn't make them viable choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Our club put in place a no tournament practice rule. The tables at club night are simply not available for such purposes.
How exactly do you enforce this? Ban anyone who brings a list that is "too powerful" for your personal standards?
But things aren't black or white. This is the min/maxing mentality and extremes that just isn't true. Things aren't "OP" or "Trash". Theres a good amount of units in between. And many units maybe aren't usefull in the context of one list but are usefull in the context of other one.
Yeah maybe deepstriking 20-man guardian blobs aren't as OP as spamming Dark Reapers and Shining Spears+Ynnari detachment but they are actually a competitive choice that works in other kind of lists.
auticus wrote: Powergaming *is* black or white though. Its either undercost for what it does and worth taking, or its balanced or overcost and thus not worth taking.
Its pretty much the definition of min maxing.
even if something is like 1% slightly weaker than another choice you end up not taking it.
everyone else wouldn't care and it really wont effect anything but thats how certain people in certain formats think.
In a "casual" world of one-off scenarios, asymetrical terrain and "non-meta representative landscape of available players" such things as "how to best utilise miniatures available at hand" against a non-"meta compliant" lists and units are great tactics (actual tactics, not mere list building excersises) discussion topics. Of course, in some cases the only conclusion is that a particular unit is beyond saving, but in most cases you can actually learn how to use things properly... But to understand this one have to actually play the game this way, not theoreticize about a game he last played a decade and three editions ago...
auticus wrote: Powergaming *is* black or white though. Its either undercost for what it does and worth taking, or its balanced or overcost and thus not worth taking.
According to Internet opinions, but that doesnt often translate to the table for sensible people.
All you have to do is go to a Thousand Sons thread to see people proclaiming doom by tzaangor. That doesn't mean we listen or don't find success with other options. Especially with the gaps narrowing more and more.
auticus wrote: Powergaming *is* black or white though. Its either undercost for what it does and worth taking, or its balanced or overcost and thus not worth taking.
I don't agree with this.
Every single discussion about competitive balance is discussed in the context of the meta, or how units perform based on what you're *most* likely to see. It's safe to assume that if you go to a tournament, you will see Dark Reapers. You will also see Guard, be it as a standalone or part of Imperium. There will be Chaos, too.
So when you're building your list, you might be vulnerable to a Necron list, or a Tyranid list. But you don't worry about that during construction, because those are the edge cases.
That said, some units are objectively good, regardless of what your opponent brings, and some units are objectively bad. These are generally consistent across game types and styles.
Yeah and I agree, but I see people respond to Perigrine and a few others stating that its not black or white, when indeed to them it *is* very much black or white.
I agree that the min/maxing mentality is black or white. What I was responding is that barring some units that obviously are objetively bad in all scenarios or objetively OP in every situation, theres a ton of options that maybe are a little less effective in raw mathematics but can be used properly to achieve a good competitive result. With more effort from the player, of course. Thats why most people netlists and go the min/maxing route.
It's only black and white when you have singularly OP units.
It's not black and white for Tyranids.
It is black and white for Eldar.
It is black and white for Tau.
I can't "spam" a single unit, and i have to think about synergy in my list to have a snowballs chance in hell. The Tyranid codex isn't strong, but it is balanced, so i'm happy with it. So far i think it is the best codex they've released in 8th edition.
I was listening to the Long War podcast and they started talking about Knight Crusaders. They described them as "not existing in the current state of 40k."
Any approach that does that to a given unit is probably worth some serious thought about pros and cons.
Galas wrote: But things aren't black or white. This is the min/maxing mentality and extremes that just isn't true. Things aren't "OP" or "Trash". Theres a good amount of units in between. And many units maybe aren't usefull in the context of one list but are usefull in the context of other one.
Yeah maybe deepstriking 20-man guardian blobs aren't as OP as spamming Dark Reapers and Shining Spears+Ynnari detachment but they are actually a competitive choice that works in other kind of lists.
You're right, it isn't black and white. There are tiers of lists/units in competitive play, and most competitive players acknowledge this. But with the posts I'm talking about it usually is trash-tier choices being hyped up as "good in casual games" or whatever, and "casual" becomes an excuse to avoid admitting that the person who proposed the idea was wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: I was listening to the Long War podcast and they started talking about Knight Crusaders. They described them as "not existing in the current state of 40k."
Any approach that does that to a given unit is probably worth some serious thought about pros and cons.
The "approach" is playing 40k. Players did not do something to a unit, they simply acknowledge the fact that GW has published poor rules for it and the unit is not viable if you're planning to make good list-building decisions.
Don't you think there is a fundamental problem when everything involves "good list-building decisions" which, by your own admission, often involves ignoring over 50% of a book? When "good list-building decisions" basically means "Ignore the fluff, ignore the background, ignore everything that you wanted to take and take this other stuff instead because it's just way better" that seems like a pretty big problem. If you're going to ignore almost everything that makes 40k worth considering as a game, why even play such an awful game?
Wayniac wrote: Don't you think there is a fundamental problem when everything involves "good list-building decisions" which, by your own admission, often involves ignoring over 50% of a book? When
"good list-building decisions" basically means "Ignore the fluff, ignore the background, ignore everything that you wanted to take and take this other stuff instead because it's just way better" that seems like a pretty big problem. If you're going to ignore almost everything that makes 40k worth considering as a game, why even play such an awful game?
There's a problem, but it's one that comes from GW. Pretending that bad units are somehow not bad is not fixing the problem, it's just denying that one exists.
Wayniac wrote: Don't you think there is a fundamental problem when everything involves "good list-building decisions" which, by your own admission, often involves ignoring over 50% of a book? When "good list-building decisions" basically means "Ignore the fluff, ignore the background, ignore everything that you wanted to take and take this other stuff instead because it's just way better" that seems like a pretty big problem.
Good list building decisions will always exist.
If you play Ultramarines versus Ultramarines, each player can still make good and bad choices given the same exact codex. And this is because, even in a fair scenario, there are good and bad choices based on context.
The problem arises when there is ALWAYS a best choice. This is what you have with Eldar Dark Reapers right now, and what you've had with Imperial Guard since the jump of 8th. There is always a best choice regardless of context. Competitive play highlights this, and we get adjustments that are beneficial for everyone.
Wayniac wrote: Don't you think there is a fundamental problem when everything involves "good list-building decisions" which, by your own admission, often involves ignoring over 50% of a book? When
"good list-building decisions" basically means "Ignore the fluff, ignore the background, ignore everything that you wanted to take and take this other stuff instead because it's just way better" that seems like a pretty big problem. If you're going to ignore almost everything that makes 40k worth considering as a game, why even play such an awful game?
There's a problem, but it's one that comes from GW. Pretending that bad units are somehow not bad is not fixing the problem, it's just denying that one exists.
It's really strange that when my friend plays a knight we have a great time and the knight does cool and powerful stuff.
"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.
A few things I've learned about 'competitiveness' over the years.
-Competitive play is not 'friendly play'. You are playing to win.
-If you don't want to deal with people who are powergamers, don't play competitively.
-Being competitive doesn't make you a bad person by default, it's just a different style.
-Most competitive players are more than happy to show you a few tricks.
-Not knowing what kind of gamer you're playing tends to make both parties unhappy.
"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.
So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?
I'm not sure i understand your point. Please clarify.
-Competitive play is not 'friendly play'. You are playing to win.
I must challenge this statement.
Whenever people say this, I picture someone who can't handle losing.
Playing to win doesn't make you competitive. I play to win outside of tournaments but i'll let people take things back, or explain "gotcha" stuff before it happens. Playing to win? Sure. Exploiting every advantage? No.
Whenever people say this, I picture someone who can't handle losing.
Playing to win doesn't make you competitive. I play to win outside of tournaments but i'll let people take things back, or explain "gotcha" stuff before it happens. Playing to win? Sure. Exploiting every advantage? No.
I think we may be seeing this differently.
Playing to Win and being Competitive, IMHO, are the same thing. But 'Playing to Win' doesn't make you a cheater or a scumbag. A good guy who's Playing to Win or being Competitive (however you want to see it) is not pulling his punches and he's maximizing his chances to win. He's not necessarily a jerk, but he's not putting down a 'fun casual list'. He's making his army as effective as possible.
Exploiting advantages isn't a bad thing, either. It's part of the game, and as long as he makes it clear (or you already know) what kind of game it'll be, that's perfectly fine.
I see it like basketball, in a way. You've got guys that are really good on the court, aggressive even. That's how they play, that's their fun. It would be unwise, knowing this, to go up and try to play with them if you have several ailments and injuries and aren't really good at basketball. And you'd look like a fool if you complained about it. Of course, those guys on the court should be like, "Are you sure you're ready for this?"
My competitive mentor is pretty adamant about that. He'll sit and go through someone's list with them and explain, "If we play I'm going to win easily, but this is exactly why..."
"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.
So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?
No. I'm saying that every approach has pros and cons.
I happen to think the cons of competitive play are bad enough that I called them "bad decision making" but that's not fair. It was an overstatement. Obviously if someone enjoys what they see as the features of competitive play they are well served by playing that way.
A good comparison is magic the gathering. There are truly powerful competitive decks that people use to play for money to the point that some people live off being a pro magic player. The ability to identify the good cards and choose to make an effective deck is part of the challenge of the game. However no one thinks it's okay to take a top tier legacy deck to the 60 card casual night. The 60 card casual players though have probably a few hundred times the cards to choose from when making their deck. Only a tiny fraction are "legacy playable" whereas the vast majority can be included in a 60 card casual deck.
I've just noticed that for those of us who don't do competitive gaming, we have a lot more material to work with. More scenarios, a variety in points sizes (including unequal ones) more units to actually field because it's okay if they're not the most powerful. That sort of thing. Just like how the more casual you are in magic, the greater the size of your card pool is. When the average competitive level of a deck goes down, a greater number of the cards becomes a worthwhile selection.
So I totally accept the competitive approach for those who enjoy it. A given unit might not currently be tournament "viable." If you're a tournament player you simply accept that and get on with the fun of finding the units that are viable or even amazing and making your army. If you're in a non-competitive environment then the way to make these units actually work is to lower the competitive level of the average list. Just like how you don't need to use the best possible card for every given slot in a magic deck if you're just playing with friends around the kitchen table.
What I find truly strange are those who want the skill test of list building but seem to think that the designers have failed unless every unit is costed such that everything is always viable. And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.
People with this issue could just accept the reality of competitive play and accept that finding points efficiency in the codex is part of the deal. Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building. But no, the fact that an approach make the issue into a non-issue isn't good enough. Instead of win-at-all-costs or casual-at-all-costs it's blame-the-designer-at-all-costs.
Part of the issue also is that GW is *really* bad at offering non-pickup/tournament style gaming.
The game basically is built around a conventional pitched encounter battle. This really isn't what like half the factions or unit in the game would engage in fluffwise (those Dark Eldar slave raiders arent going to fight a Guard tank company from the front in broad daylight, that Manticore probably has a minimum range measured in tens of thousands of meters, and what in earth are strategic bombers doing in small arms range?), and, more to the point, is basically all the game offers.
Want to play a cultist guerilla uprising? Convoy raid in mountain passes? Sabotage a Deathstrike missile launch area? A decapitating strike on an enemy command post? The game offers means for none of this stuff, at least not in the way other games do.
Vaktathi wrote: Part of the issue also is that GW is *really* bad at offering non-pickup/tournament style gaming.
The game basically is built around a conventional pitched encounter battle.
I think this might be us bringing our baggage into the situation. I had a friend join in on our 40k night and he got into the game, got some miniatures and paints and plays. He's just going off the rulebook and he sees non conventional pitched encounter battle as the norm. Why?
He just worked through the rulebook, playing the scenarios with different friends as he went. If you start in the Open Play section (it is the simplest sort of introductory way to play) and play through the scenarios you'll get non standard games almost immediately.
Want to play a cultist guerilla uprising? Convoy raid in mountain passes? Sabotage a Deathstrike missile launch area? A decapitating strike on an enemy command post? The game offers means for none of this stuff, at least not in the way other games do.
Have you looked outside of the matched play section in the rulebook? Some of the scenarios in the Open and Narrative play are perfect for that.
Chamberlain wrote: It's really strange that when my friend plays a knight we have a great time and the knight does cool and powerful stuff.
Ok?
"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.
Alternatively, you have different goals for the game, and what is "worse" for you is "better" for other people. Some people enjoy a game where it's a match of skill vs. skill, not just pushing random models on the table and making gun noises as you talk about how cool and powerful they are.
Chamberlain wrote: And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.
It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.
Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building.
Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Have you looked outside of the matched play section in the rulebook? Some of the scenarios in the Open and Narrative play are perfect for that.
They really aren't. Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.
It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.
This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.
It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.
Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.
No kitchen table magic group is out of line when they say that the tier 1 legacy deck is inappropriate for their casual gaming night.
It's okay to figure out together with your gaming friends what you want out of the game and have an expectation of appropriateness. Like if someone wants tournament practice and I show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario, that would be inappropriate. That person would be better served playing someone other than me.
Also, just because a relaxed approach makes a horde IG list inappropriate doesn't mean it makes the infantry squad datasheet invalid in the same way a competitive approach does to many units. Just because it's super, super powerful to take a bunch of ynarri/craftworld minimum sized reaper squads with line of sight ignoring exarch weapons doesn't mean it's invalid to take reapers in a relaxed game at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.
I'm sure the next time we use one of the very evocative stratagems from the narrative scenarios we'll have a good laugh at how you think they are "very bland generic missions."
As for your deathstrike idea, I think Hold at All Costs would be a great fit. if you have the spot at the centre of the table (hint, put your deathstrike missile launcher model there) at the end of the game, the missile launches. If not, it's been stopped.
The usual argument seems to be that "tournament practice" or "bring your best" is the default assumption, which turns into a strawman of sorts where it's automatically the person who "show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario" is at fault for wanting something other than "100% optimal or GTFO"
It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.
This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.
It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.
Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.
No kitchen table magic group is out of line when they say that the tier 1 legacy deck is inappropriate for their casual gaming night.
It's okay to figure out together with your gaming friends what you want out of the game and have an expectation of appropriateness. Like if someone wants tournament practice and I show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario, that would be inappropriate. That person would be better served playing someone other than me.
Also, just because a relaxed approach makes a horde IG list inappropriate doesn't mean it makes the infantry squad datasheet invalid in the same way a competitive approach does to many units. Just because it's super, super powerful to take a bunch of ynarri/craftworld minimum sized reaper squads with line of sight ignoring exarch weapons doesn't mean it's invalid to take reapers in a relaxed game at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.
I'm sure the next time we use one of the very evocative stratagems from the narrative scenarios we'll have a good laugh at how you think they are "very bland generic missions."
As for your deathstrike idea, I think Hold at All Costs would be a great fit. if you have the spot at the centre of the table (hint, put your deathstrike missile launcher model there) at the end of the game, the missile launches. If not, it's been stopped.
I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.
I'm not denying any gap at all. I'm just saying that if you build armies and set up games that don't intentionally concentrate on the extremes of points efficiency you're less likely to have "not viable" units.
And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.
And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.
If someone actually wants to maximize the enjoyment of a game, then accepting that data sheets will not be equal and getting on with the challenge of list building is a far better choice than waiting for GW to do something they don't really have any reason to do-- provide you with that "consistent internal and external balance." Their current approach is working for them just fine and people are enjoying list building at the competitive level. They learned it would be successful based on how list building worked in AoS.
If playing a subset of available units makes you sad, then I've presented another solution. Play more relaxed. Go for more variety and play more unequal points scenarios. Actually work through all the game content in the main rulebook and then chapter approved 2017 and definitely try the open war cards (they're great). Approach list building like you're making the characters in a story rather than trying to win a future game by picking the best stuff.
Either approach will work better than holding out for GW to fix something that's working for them and many of their growing customer base.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.
I'm not denying any gap at all. I'm just saying that if you build armies and set up games that don't intentionally concentrate on the extremes of points efficiency you're less likely to have "not viable" units.
And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.
And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.
If someone actually wants to maximize the enjoyment of a game, then accepting that data sheets will not be equal and getting on with the challenge of list building is a far better choice than waiting for GW to do something they don't really have any reason to do-- provide you with that "consistent internal and external balance." Their current approach is working for them just fine and people are enjoying list building at the competitive level. They learned it would be successful based on how list building worked in AoS.
If playing a subset of available units makes you sad, then I've presented another solution. Play more relaxed. Go for more variety and play more unequal points scenarios. Actually work through all the game content in the main rulebook and then chapter approved 2017 and definitely try the open war cards (they're great). Approach list building like you're making the characters in a story rather than trying to win a future game by picking the best stuff.
Either approach will work better than holding out for GW to fix something that's working for them and many of their growing customer base.
1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.
2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.
3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.
Chamberlain wrote: And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.
Sigh. No. I don't really feel like giving a long explanation of how badly wrong you are, but this shows a very limited understanding of what balance is and how it works. Improving balance does not remove the skill of list construction, it merely shifts it from identifying the right tools for the strategy you're trying to execute instead of simply identifying where the author made a 500 point unit cost 100 points. In fact, the game as it is now is the opposite of skill-intensive, because identifying the overpowered things to use is so easy.
And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.
Again, you're wrong here. But even setting aside the difficult goal of perfect balance it's certainly possible to come much closer than what GW has done. The game is in the state it is in because GW is incompetent, not because the task is impossible.
It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.
This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.
It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.
Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!
Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.
Just because it's impossible in the long run to keep a game balanced does not mean you do not put in the effort to balance it. Or do you walk around with soiled clothes, or don't put gas in your car?
The key is that, in this digital era, why are they relying on old tools to balance the game? It's to sell books full of errata.
It's fine for them to release new stuff that may break the balance, it's not okay that they drag their feet or make people pay for the updates that brings things back into balance, nor is it to release things with pretty glaring balance issues when they're a billion dollar company that can afford a round of QA testing.
Vertrucio wrote: Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.
Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.
Funny that, they do have terrain and table layout guidelines.
Oh and scenarios/missions, etc.
Still not seeing why lack of balance is so excusable.
You can't lay all the blame on the company behind it, but you can lay the lion's share of it at the feet of the billion dollar company that can't do a bit of QA.
The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.
One of the reasons why people use the argument of blaming the players for imbalances is because people willing to use those in a pickup game are considered odd, but who left those issues in the first place?
I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.
tneva82 wrote: Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!
And yet other companies do it. Stop excusing incompetence by GW.
Vertrucio wrote: Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.
Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.
Of course good luck selling that to players.
Only if you assume a straw man of 100% mathematically perfect balance, rather than what people actually want. The difference between literal 100% perfect balance and a game that is "unbalanced" by swapping a model's bolter for a pistol and chainsword is imperceptible to the players, so it doesn't matter. GW could vastly improve the game by improving balance to a level that is much closer to the ideal, and the only reason to waste time on arguing about perfect balance is to excuse GW's failure to do so.
Vertrucio wrote: Funny that, they do have terrain and table layout guidelines.
They do not have exact layout within 1mm telling exactly what terrain piece in what shape. Even slight difference in shape would throw balance off again.
So who now is presenting an unrealistic standard of imbalance here?
Because I design games with tolerances that can easily handle well over 1mm variances.
In fact, it's those variances in table layouts is what makes playing miniature games interesting.
It certainly doesn't excuse me in putting out rules and units that are terribly designed just because I couldn't possibly account for terrain being placed on the board.
So yeah, I get it, you like 40k. It's fun, but that doesn't excuse balance issues where present. If you can work around those issues great, but don't go blaming others for using things that eventually are revealed as imbalanced.
Otherwise, if there weren't problems, or that they never should bother with balance, why are they selling a book that is basically all balance updates? Why aren't you playing 1st or 2nd edition still?
tneva82 wrote: Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!
And yet other companies do it. Stop excusing incompetence by GW.
Vertrucio wrote: Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.
Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.
Of course good luck selling that to players.
Only if you assume a straw man of 100% mathematically perfect balance, rather than what people actually want. The difference between literal 100% perfect balance and a game that is "unbalanced" by swapping a model's bolter for a pistol and chainsword is imperceptible to the players, so it doesn't matter. GW could vastly improve the game by improving balance to a level that is much closer to the ideal, and the only reason to waste time on arguing about perfect balance is to excuse GW's failure to do so.
I think tneva was being sarcastic here but who knows...
Suffice to say as far as my position that I choose fluff above winning and above casualness. My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.
I don't hold anyone else to that standard (I do sometimes rib people for doing unfluffy things like 7th Edition Space Wolves summoning Bloodthirsters when everyone had Daemonology). Generally, I am fine playing "casual" players who care more about list strength than fluff, and I am also fine about playing competitive players who care more about list strength than fluff from the other direction. The way I become bent out of shape is when people tell me I'm playing wrong (e.g. Peregrine, who seems to believe that if you're not being competitive you're wrong or deserving of ridicule).
This thread is like two ships passing in the night.
I'm on the competitive "side", but seriously some of you guys need to reel it back on what you deem valuable units. If something is 95-95% as efficient as the best unit it's still a good pick. Even if it's 75% to 85% it can still be a reliable unit.
And the non-competitive side needs to stop treating discussion of units as a slight against their sensibilities.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.
Where does it say that the proper way to build an army is to make it as strong as possible? Or that building an army of any given level of power and tuning is what's mandated by the game?
I want a game where people have choice. Just like in magic where some people can choose to make a tier 1 legacy or modern deck and take it to events with 100s of people while others can have fun playing with a pile of commons and uncommons around the kitchen table.
Neither is the objectively right or wrong way to play a game, but each is a way to play the game.
2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.
In that same Long War podcast where they talked about knights pretty much not existing in the game of 40k, they were talking about them because they saw the potential for them to suddenly be good enough. How can a unit swing so completely from "effectively does not exist" to be an option tournament minded players are excited about with no change to the points cost or any other balancing mechanism? A new release might be shifting the larger meta. It's simply not possible to provide balance for a situation where the value of something goes from non existence to a counter for what's new without any change to the balance mechanisms like its points values.
I also think that 8th is way, way more balanced than 7th. That they've already hit the point of good enough and that GW is certainly not ignoring it. They have a plan for FAQ and meta review at set times during the year. They're actively soliciting feedback. The largest 40k event in the history of the game had one of their playtesters in the top 8.
The current state is what GW wants. It's not ignoring the problem at all. It's a feature for 40k just like it is for Magic. Competitive metas contain a subset of the available choices. True for 40k, true for X-Wing, true for Magic.
3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.
The only thing it might fix is your current dissatisfaction. Seriously, play some Hold at All Cost and Death or Glory with unequal points for a while. It can be transformative when you realize your expectations are causing the problem, rather than the thing you are blaming. Maybe question the idea that the proper or right way to select an army is to make it as strong as possible?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vertrucio wrote: The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.
I think they have access to data that GW simply does not. Had the LVO been played through computers and every point of data that would be useful to someone doing balancing work, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of data an online multiplayer game generates in a day.
I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.
Think about Magic the Gathering. It has an online game and a new version (Arena) is in beta. It has loads of players. They just hit a new daily record of logged in players.
And yet, they don't take the data and do their best to make perfect balance. They do the opposite. Their development team intentionally overcosts and undercosts cards to craft an experience. And like 40k, it has to be multiple experiences. Draft, casual kitchen table magic, competitive constructed, multiplayer, multiplayer commander and on and on. And yet they persist in making unbalanced cards.
Unbalance accomplishes something for them. FFG accomplished the same thing with X-Wing and now GW has as well with AoS and 40k. Just because you or I may not like the results doesn't mean it's not working exactly as intended. And now GW is doing it again with Shadespire. All cards not being balanced in that game is going to lead to the same deck and list building fun that the other games i mentioned have.
And those of us who are not into competitive anything can solve our problem the same way kitchen table magic players do. Stop trying to make the strongest list possible and be open to the wider amount of game content beyond equal points matched play games. Jace the Mindsculptor just got unbanned in magic's modern format! I better get some copies for my kitchen table deck! Oh no wait, that's a terrible idea. *I* would be ruining everyone else's fun if I did that.
I don't know if it was in this thread. But I read some people complaining that why shoould I be toning down my list shouldn't the onus be on my opponent to build a better one.
That kind of logic, bedsides being the more polite version of git good. Makes the wrong assumption that toning down / scaling up on the competitive scale are equally difficult. It's not Scaling down is easier.
Peregrine wrote: it merely shifts it from identifying the right tools for the strategy you're trying to execute instead of simply identifying where the author made a 500 point unit cost 100 points. In fact, the game as it is now is the opposite of skill-intensive, because identifying the overpowered things to use is so easy.
GW just needs to put out the most egregious fires. When it becomes too easy, GW will step in at the time they promised they would (see their post on FAQ scheduling) and tweak things. The common thread of top eldar lists at the LVO is known to them. One of the people in the top 8 is one of their playtesters.
And listening to competitive based podcasts (people who actually go to all the big events and do well) I don't think it's the opposite of skill intensive at all right now. The talk these people engage in is pretty deep and serious when it comes to list building.
Again, you're wrong here. But even setting aside the difficult goal of perfect balance it's certainly possible to come much closer than what GW has done.
Even if that were true, I don't think they have the design goals you think they should. So when they do what they want to do, it doesn't look like what a competent person with goals they don't have would do, so you describe it as incompetence. I think 40k is accomplishing exactly what GW wants it to accomplish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I don't know if it was in this thread. But I read some people complaining that why shoould I be toning down my list shouldn't the onus be on my opponent to build a better one.
What about if there was no individual onus in that situation? That you talked about the kind of game you wanted and figured out what was appropriate rather than assuming the default is to make a strong a list as possible.
In that (theoretical) situation, there's a problem. There'd be no need to talk about "onus" if things were fine.
A perfectly valid solution is to agree that what you want is competitiveness. That your expectation really is that everyone should build the best possible list. Then go to town and do it. But when you have a mismatch of expectations, you get problems.
That kinf of logic, bedsides being the more polite version of git good. Makes the wrong assumption that toning down / scaling up on the competitive scale are equally difficult. It's not Scaling down is easier.
I think scaling down is way easier. As is playing the larger area of scenario and game content available beyond equal points matched play. I think stepping back from equal points matched play where each person builds the strongest list possible is a great way to solve issues people have that they attribute to balance errors by GW but are actually about not getting on the same page with your opponent.
"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.
So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?
No. I'm saying that every approach has pros and cons.
I happen to think the cons of competitive play are bad enough that I called them "bad decision making" but that's not fair. It was an overstatement. Obviously if someone enjoys what they see as the features of competitive play they are well served by playing that way.
A good comparison is magic the gathering. There are truly powerful competitive decks that people use to play for money to the point that some people live off being a pro magic player. The ability to identify the good cards and choose to make an effective deck is part of the challenge of the game. However no one thinks it's okay to take a top tier legacy deck to the 60 card casual night. The 60 card casual players though have probably a few hundred times the cards to choose from when making their deck. Only a tiny fraction are "legacy playable" whereas the vast majority can be included in a 60 card casual deck.
I've just noticed that for those of us who don't do competitive gaming, we have a lot more material to work with. More scenarios, a variety in points sizes (including unequal ones) more units to actually field because it's okay if they're not the most powerful. That sort of thing. Just like how the more casual you are in magic, the greater the size of your card pool is. When the average competitive level of a deck goes down, a greater number of the cards becomes a worthwhile selection.
So I totally accept the competitive approach for those who enjoy it. A given unit might not currently be tournament "viable." If you're a tournament player you simply accept that and get on with the fun of finding the units that are viable or even amazing and making your army. If you're in a non-competitive environment then the way to make these units actually work is to lower the competitive level of the average list. Just like how you don't need to use the best possible card for every given slot in a magic deck if you're just playing with friends around the kitchen table.
As a long time magic player who has both placed well in tournaments and regularly plays 60 cards casual, 100% agree. I had a round which intentionally increase minimum card limit to 120 just so you would have more diverse decks - a ton of card suddenly appeared regularly which would usually just barely not have made the cut.
What I find truly strange are those who want the skill test of list building but seem to think that the designers have failed unless every unit is costed such that everything is always viable. And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.
Too much black-and-white here. If you are a magic player, you must know about the card "One with Nothing". No matter how much you lower the bar of your casual meta game, this card will never become viable - not even in a cube draft, where the cube is filled with the most terrible cards you could find.
The reason why GW is at fault here is because even if you lower the bar, very few units enter the ring. Some are just so bad that they cannot compete with most of the game.
An example where balance is done well and works just like describe, is Death Guard anti-tank. In tournaments, you see little besides blightlord terminators and PBC, but when playing new players, narrative scenarios or otherwise casual games, suddenly predators, helbrutes, defilers and blight haulers are fine options as well. No one is freaking out because you brought hel brutes because of PBC.
The balancing everyone is upset about is stuff like the ork index. Tournament game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Narrative game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Playing a new player with dark imperium minis? Green tide.
If you bring a dread mob army you will lose the game by getting wiped out unless your opponent has really, really bad dice.
This is especially true for any army that used to rely on elite choices or transports. Neither is working well right now, no matter how casual you make your game. A unit of chaos terminator that is just equipped with what's in their box and in no way optimized will still evaporate a unit of Grey Knights each turn.
People with this issue could just accept the reality of competitive play and accept that finding points efficiency in the codex is part of the deal. Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building. But no, the fact that an approach make the issue into a non-issue isn't good enough. Instead of win-at-all-costs or casual-at-all-costs it's blame-the-designer-at-all-costs.
Well, in GWs case the designers are to blame. I play WH40k with the very same people I play kitchen table magic with. People that buy what they think looks awesome in their army, with little regard to how they perform on the battlefield.
One of them got two riptides for his birthday when they were released in 6th, he had been playing Tau since 3rd. Each time he brought them he ended up apologizing for utterly destroying his opponent, up to the point where he had to shelve his two beautifully painted models because they were so powerful no other player could stop them.
Another story goes back to 4th edition, where a player in our group started his eldar hovertank army, which has always consisted of the same three fire prisms plus six wave sperpents filled with guardians, wraith guard, fire dragons, a seer council, dire avengers and Eldrad. With 7th edition codex, he suddenly started wiping out whatever he faced, up to the point where no one wanted to play him anymore.
This does not happen when playing Magic the Gathering (or any other game, for that matter), none of their armies were even close to comparable to legacy top tier decks. Even things like Umezawa's Jitte, Skullclamp, Arcbound Ravager, Jayce the Mind Sculptor or other powerful cards that are banned in multiple tournament formats have never caused as much trouble to our group as GW's attempts at balancing. We had a player regularly playing the world champion's miracle deck and he still got clobbered every other game.
A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary.
As someone who has been about 15 years in the game industry I would love to meet this unicorn you speak of. Even the largest companies that have insane amount of money at their disposal are unable to do this perfectly from the beginning and still work on balancing many years after release(Riot and Blizzard come to mind).
And yet other companies do it.
Please name these companies. These companies must be under siege from other companies trying to hire these legendary game designers.
---
On a more serious note I think GW would be in a much easier position if they could update the point values more regularly, much like what we see in digital games. I would even say that the points should be available for free online if they were really hardcore about making the game more balanced.
Don't get me wrong. GW could do a lot better than they are currently doing, but to argue that there exists some god designer is rather ludicrous.
The fact everything is in print makes them harder to update regularly. If they had their points online in digital format, then publishing quarterly updates would be a lot easier and feasible.
I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.
Where does it say that the proper way to build an army is to make it as strong as possible? Or that building an army of any given level of power and tuning is what's mandated by the game?
I want a game where people have choice. Just like in magic where some people can choose to make a tier 1 legacy or modern deck and take it to events with 100s of people while others can have fun playing with a pile of commons and uncommons around the kitchen table.
Neither is the objectively right or wrong way to play a game, but each is a way to play the game.
2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.
In that same Long War podcast where they talked about knights pretty much not existing in the game of 40k, they were talking about them because they saw the potential for them to suddenly be good enough. How can a unit swing so completely from "effectively does not exist" to be an option tournament minded players are excited about with no change to the points cost or any other balancing mechanism? A new release might be shifting the larger meta. It's simply not possible to provide balance for a situation where the value of something goes from non existence to a counter for what's new without any change to the balance mechanisms like its points values.
I also think that 8th is way, way more balanced than 7th. That they've already hit the point of good enough and that GW is certainly not ignoring it. They have a plan for FAQ and meta review at set times during the year. They're actively soliciting feedback. The largest 40k event in the history of the game had one of their playtesters in the top 8.
The current state is what GW wants. It's not ignoring the problem at all. It's a feature for 40k just like it is for Magic. Competitive metas contain a subset of the available choices. True for 40k, true for X-Wing, true for Magic.
3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.
The only thing it might fix is your current dissatisfaction. Seriously, play some Hold at All Cost and Death or Glory with unequal points for a while. It can be transformative when you realize your expectations are causing the problem, rather than the thing you are blaming. Maybe question the idea that the proper or right way to select an army is to make it as strong as possible?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vertrucio wrote: The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.
I think they have access to data that GW simply does not. Had the LVO been played through computers and every point of data that would be useful to someone doing balancing work, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of data an online multiplayer game generates in a day.
I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.
Think about Magic the Gathering. It has an online game and a new version (Arena) is in beta. It has loads of players. They just hit a new daily record of logged in players.
And yet, they don't take the data and do their best to make perfect balance. They do the opposite. Their development team intentionally overcosts and undercosts cards to craft an experience. And like 40k, it has to be multiple experiences. Draft, casual kitchen table magic, competitive constructed, multiplayer, multiplayer commander and on and on. And yet they persist in making unbalanced cards.
Unbalance accomplishes something for them. FFG accomplished the same thing with X-Wing and now GW has as well with AoS and 40k. Just because you or I may not like the results doesn't mean it's not working exactly as intended. And now GW is doing it again with Shadespire. All cards not being balanced in that game is going to lead to the same deck and list building fun that the other games i mentioned have.
And those of us who are not into competitive anything can solve our problem the same way kitchen table magic players do. Stop trying to make the strongest list possible and be open to the wider amount of game content beyond equal points matched play games. Jace the Mindsculptor just got unbanned in magic's modern format! I better get some copies for my kitchen table deck! Oh no wait, that's a terrible idea. *I* would be ruining everyone else's fun if I did that.
1. Tiers exist in MTG and Yugioh too. I used to play those ya know. Choice is an illusion in TCGs as you need to decrease your odds of a bad hand, and choice is almost an illusion in wargames as well. Difference is you get more room to work with in a wargame, but that room only goes so far before you admit you should take a mathematically better unit.
I had to have an argument about Sternguard vs Tactical Marines for Pete's sake. There isn't a mathematical niche for Tactical Marines and OS is a useless rule. Just saying "But fluff!" doesn't fix that issue.
And where does it say you should make a bad army? I'm all ears for that.
2. Nobody cares about some podcast. Knights aren't making rounds for a reason because "potential" isn't the same as "actually doing something".
Also almost anything is more balanced than 7th. You're not raising the bar high with that, so you've got impossibly low standards rather than Perigrine or me having impossibly high standards.
3. IOW, you're defending lazy game design with your low standards. Playing at uneven point levels STILL doesn't change your choice is an illusion. Yeah you do your scenario with uneven point levels, but how does that fix the problem with units like Tactical Marines and Dark Reapers being on opposite ends of the spectrum?
auticus wrote: The fact everything is in print makes them harder to update regularly. If they had their points online in digital format, then publishing quarterly updates would be a lot easier and feasible.
I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.
I also feel like actual attempt at higher level balancing is something very recent in the studio altogether. This is why I think this year is going to be important. It will tell us whether they are serious about addressing serious issues and what lengths they will go to improve the game.
It would be nice if they also modified stats and rules on specific units that need help. Sometimes point cost is only one symptom of why a unit isn't being used.
This whole idea that competitive players are ruining the balance is so ridiculous.
"Competitiveness is ruining 40K!"
"Why?"
"BECAUSE MY SUPER HEAVY DIES TURN 1." (implicitly stating that your opponent should be unable to kill your super heavy, even if he/she commits significant firepower)
"Right, so let's nerf the problematic & overpowered units." (How would you determine the OP units without significant play data?)
"WTF, competitive players nerfing models, total bs, violates my fluff."
My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.
And this is why fluffy lists are nonsense.
You can literally create any justification for any list you'd make. I'm not meaning to pick on you, but you really do serve to highlight how any two people would have entirely different definitions of fluff.
Jidmah wrote:The balancing everyone is upset about is stuff like the ork index. Tournament game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Narrative game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Playing a new player with dark imperium minis? Green tide.
This could well be the case. If so, it's a fire GW should put out. My guess is that the codex is their solution to this problem. Would I rather have seen a larger overhall in either a FAQ or Chapter Approved, yes. This is one instance where GW could have done a way better job for the ork players who are interested in it and for making the army work
That said, we do have an ork fan in our group and he plays all sorts of stuff. His amount of losing doesn't stand out as exceptional. It's possible we are all that horrible or that we really are building truly unoptimized lists. It's sort of like how if mill is a bad strategy in a given standard but it can still beat a pile of cards at the kitchen table.
My position is not that all possible imbalance is a good thing because it allows competitive players to work their list building magic. I'm just saying that it's okay that some imbalance creates the competitive subset of datasheets while those who take a army selection approach that isn't concerned with strength have more options. Does that mean all armies are equal? No. Orks need work to get more datasheets into even this widened pool of options.
I play WH40k with the very same people I play kitchen table magic with. People that buy what they think looks awesome in their army, with little regard to how they perform on the battlefield. One of them got two riptides for his birthday when they were released in 6th, he had been playing Tau since 3rd. Each time he brought them he ended up apologizing for utterly destroying his opponent, up to the point where he had to shelve his two beautifully painted models because they were so powerful no other player could stop them.
I have a super low opinion of 6th and 7th in terms of game balance. 8th is far better in terms of how much stuff gets included when you stop list building for power. I would not have taken this tact with 6th or 7th. It took too much work and wasn't supported by the basics of how the game is played despite how GW was going on about how the game was meant to be casual. AoS and later 8th showed they saw where things went wrong and actually addressed it with multiple ways to play. And made sure to have an on ramp that covers the basics in Open play.
That said, If the goal was the cool models that the player liked being used on the table, why didn't you just adjust the points size of the game? Why was equal points so unquestionable in the face of a problem?
Obviously this is a case of a design failure, but why respond with helplessness? What I'm saying might seem crazy to most, but if you do find power issues in your game, why not set up a scenario the next time you play that person where you get some extra stuff? The goal for the players you describe was to make your army out of things you think are cool, so why not use the tools in the current rulebook to get the job done?
I can already hear the objections a person might make "It's not my job to fix the game!! It should just work at equal points!" Why? Why should you expect equal point value games to be the best way to play the game when a full half of the Open Play scenarios in the main rulebook recommend unequal power levels?
So then you have three options:
1) Do what needs to be done so the models can hit the table. Which is actually what happens if you just take the rulebook for the game and go through it and play through the content.
2) Blame the game designer and keep the model on the shelf until they create a single way to play that somehow works for all people with all possible armies.
3) Accept that not all armies are viable for equal points matched play and get busy discovering the data sheets and army builds that are viable.
The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.
People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.
The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.
In the end my goal is just more enjoyable game play for more people.
I see people going into equal points pick up games with expectations that might be harming their enjoyment. Those who go into competitive play with enthusiasm are totally fine with it. It's the "matched play by default" player that thinks their army should be better that has the trouble.
To go back to the thread title: Is competitiveness ruining 40k?
Only to the degree that people are internalizing an approach to the game as the default or real way to play that doesn't actually bring them enjoyment. And then doubly so if they are the kind of person who will then blame someone else for the issue rather than seeing if another way would bring them joy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.
I've noticed this trend as well. And on top of that when I listen to any interview on warhammerTV with rules writers, they don't really seem concerned with balance or similar issues. The things they say always seem to be about getting the rules to evoke the right feeling or fictional element or experience rather than trying to make a competitive environment.
I think the competitive-matched-play-as-default 40k might actually be bolted on by the fan base rather than being a core part of 40k. It may actually be the least appropriate way to engage with the game.
Though it is quite suitable for those who go into it wanting to play competitively. Loads of people had a blast at the LVO and are looking forward to both Adepticon and any competitive events in the UK (Is there one at Warhammerfest?). It just seems like it might make a really poor default approach.
Marmatag wrote: This whole idea that competitive players are ruining the balance is so ridiculous.
"Competitiveness is ruining 40K!"
"Why?"
"BECAUSE MY SUPER HEAVY DIES TURN 1." (implicitly stating that your opponent should be unable to kill your super heavy, even if he/she commits significant firepower)
"Right, so let's nerf the problematic & overpowered units." (How would you determine the OP units without significant play data?)
"WTF, competitive players nerfing models, total bs, violates my fluff."
My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.
And this is why fluffy lists are nonsense.
You can literally create any justification for any list you'd make. I'm not meaning to pick on you, but you really do serve to highlight how any two people would have entirely different definitions of fluff.
.... which is why I said later in the post that I don't really mind what people run being fluffy or unfluffy. I did mention that I might give a good ribbing to people, like Space Marines who use "Lost Legion" geneseed or Bloodthirster-summoning Space Wolf armies from back in 7th, but I will never once tell someone their army is unfluffy without the qualifier of saying "in my opinion."
The fluff is entirely fabricated, and how much you want your fluff to be based on stuff GW has explicitly written (e.g. playing Imperial Fists 2nd Company, with the 2nd Company commander and characters named in the fluff, all painted fluffily down to Sergeant McGee with a silver stripe where a tyranid in that one book clawed at him) versus being your own bolt-on to the setting (e.g. playing a set of "monsters from beyond who brainwash humans but are totally not Tyranids with GSC) is entirely on you.
I don't think that's nonsense. I think it's perfectly fine for me to believe that someone's "Free Colonial" humans who own one system and somehow don't fall to Chaos/Imperium/myriad-other-threats-that-murder-solitary-human-worlds is a bit silly, and for you to say "yeah, suck it up, that's my fluff." At the end of the day, I'm not going to turn down a game over it. That's the biggest difference between me and most casual players: I don't let the competitiveness of the opponent's list get to me, because some of the best competitive lists can be justified in the fluff fairly trivially.
BUT, I do have my own headcanon, and I enjoy and cherish that headcanon, so telling me how to play my own army is not something I appreciate. In return, I try not to tell people how to play their army (though I'm sure I have because I'm a fallible human).
The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.
People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.
The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.
Without matched play restrictions the delta between armies is exacerbated.
I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.
Matched play doesn't come with expectations. It comes with a set of rules & restrictions. The expectations you bring are your own. Is it fair for you to expect your Super Heavy to live past turn 2? Why or why not? Further, just because you spend an inordinate amount of time crafting, painting, converting, basing a miniature, doesn't mean it has value on the table.
The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.
People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.
The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.
Without matched play restrictions the delta between armies is exacerbated.
I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.
Matched play doesn't come with expectations. It comes with a set of rules & restrictions. The expectations you bring are your own. Is it fair for you to expect your Super Heavy to live past turn 2? Why or why not? Further, just because you spend an inordinate amount of time crafting, painting, converting, basing a miniature, doesn't mean it has value on the table.
This is why I bring 3 superheavies, because it's unfair of me to expect one to live past turn 2. I think it /is/ reasonable to expect that of three.
As for the rating being questioned here: meh, there are things I do all the time that are unquantifiable social norms. Every day I do things that aren't "rated" or "calculated" or written down anywhere but that are still tailored to the social situation I am in. I think this is what he means with lists: take the context of your social surroundings into consideration when you write your list.
Martel732 wrote: Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?
Honestly I think at this point he's just using anything as an excuse to talk about his "fluffy" 3 superheavies army that people seem to hate playing against but he never brings anything else.
I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.
Martel732 wrote: I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.
Agree, this whole argument is predicated on models being killable. And, as Tyranids, I find it absolutely hilarious people claim their toughness 8 model with 24+ wounds isn't survivable. Drop matched play restrictions and killing them becomes much easier, though.
Just because Eldar, Guard, and Imperium have tools readily available to kill T8 3+ with a billion wounds doesn't mean the rest of us do.
And Necrons have no answer outside of the pylon, lol, and no one plays pylons.
Martel732 wrote: Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?
Honestly I think at this point he's just using anything as an excuse to talk about his "fluffy" 3 superheavies army that people seem to hate playing against but he never brings anything else.
Actually I moved clubs to one that is far less (? maybe more? Not sure what casual means anymore) casual, and people don't have a problem at all now.
Martel732 wrote:I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.
Sure. Wish I could play you because I'd totally take a 300 point handicap in the list against you. Because I play it for fun, not points efficiency. You could take a 40,000 (heh, warhammer 40,000) point list against my 3 baneblades, though I'd probably tell you not to bother deploying and that I've lost.
Martel732 wrote: Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?
When did three turns come up?
Also if you want an answer: Necron Pylons. I haven't had the misfortune (?) of playing Dark Reaper spam yet.
Ah yes that very common matchup of Baneblades v Necron Pylons...
What do you expect? I'm known for bringing superheavies and I arrange my games ahead of time (because dropping 3 superheavies on people by surprise is dumb) and they bring Pylons or whatever their anti-superheavy weapon of choice is. Last time it was 3 trukks full of Tankbustas with bomb squigs, though they killed one and severely crippled another one before the game ended and I lost on objectives.
Martel732 wrote: Heavy venom cannons are actually the perfect baneblade killers. They do it faster than any weapons I have. The -1 to hit poops on the IG even worse.
I haven't had the fortune (or misfortune maybe?) of playing Tyranids locally; they're not a popular army. I'd be surprised to learn they can't handle superheavies at all, though. There are very few factions in the game that literally have 0 tools required for it.
Having the tools and bringing them in a non-tailored list is very different. I have to dedicate a big chunk of my BA lists to clearing chaff, which is 100% useless vs your list, or really, most lists with baneblades. Which are all magically Valhallan, of course.
I don't like that there's a strat that turns them into IKs in melee, either. IKs don't get a strat that turns them into a baneblade for shooting.
Martel732 wrote: Having the tools and bringing them in a non-tailored list is very different. I have to dedicate a big chunk of my BA lists to clearing chaff, which is 100% useless vs your list, or really, most lists with baneblades. Which are all magically Valhallan, of course.
I don't like that there's a strat that turns them into IKs in melee, either. IKs don't get a strat that turns them into a baneblade for shooting.
My Baneblades are Vostroyan for fluff reasons, and yeah, that stratagem (and defensive gunners) is a slap in the face to IK players, though IKs remain better in the edge case of assaulting other superheavies.
Also crucially, I encourage people to tailor their lists against me because I would rather lose to a tailored list and have fun than crush a TAC list and not. The challenge (for me) then becomes building a list that makes it hard to tailor against; e.g. I can spend 1212 points on superheavies and 800 points on other stuff, or like 1800 points on superheavies and 200 points on other stuff.
The baneblade I play against is also perma-buffed with +1 armor and -1 to hit. Obviously, additional baneblades couldn't have that. I really hate primaris psykers.
I'd have to decline a game against you. I'm a mono-GK player (aka a masochist) and have nothing that would even bother your tanks. I mean yes, in theory I have acess to Lascannons and multi meltas but my standard config only has 2 twin Lascannons and 1 multi-melta.
I already faced a knight and that didn't end well for me.
Martel732 wrote: The baneblade I play against is also perma-buffed with +1 armor and -1 to hit. Obviously, additional baneblades couldn't have that. I really hate primaris psykers.
Psykers are one of those things I don't always run. My regiment hates them (the commander spent part of her childhood on a shrine world operated by a very conservative SOB order) and so the only ones they use are 2 Astrotelepaths (for interplanetary communication) and 1 Primaris Psyker (issued by the Departmento Munitorum) and they usually don't show up to the battlefield, because my regimental commander (Lord Marshal Katerina Malinenko, if you're curious) keeps them on a VERY tight leash. Sometimes they do though.
But yes, I don't go out of my way to optimize my list like most competitive players do, and it shows, I think. I could be much meaner than I am.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd have to decline a game against you. I'm a mono-GK player (aka a masochist) and have nothing that would even bother your tanks. I mean yes, in theory I have acess to Lascannons and multi meltas but my standard config only has 2 twin Lascannons and 1 multi-melta. I already faced a knight and that didn't end well for me.
My 3 superheavy list got crushed by GK at NOVA spamming GKGMs in Dreadknight Armour. You've got the tools in your army - but yes, if you're unwilling to tailor I understand. That's a pretty un-fluffy list anyways, from my narrow point of view.
Martel732 wrote: Heavy venom cannons are actually the perfect baneblade killers. They do it faster than any weapons I have. The -1 to hit poops on the IG even worse.
3 baneblades would shred 8 carnifexes so badly.
lascannons are cheaper and overall stronger against baneblades.
Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.
Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.
Martel732 wrote: Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.
Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.
Yes, the extra d6 (compared to the index version) on the main gun is a bit silly. I get why they did it, so the Baneblade is not automatically worse than its points in Russes, but it's a bit naff regardless.
Martel732 wrote: Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.
Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.
The guns don't float in space, they need to be held or be mounted on something. In this regard the lascannon is cheaper.
The Russ fix was also hamfisted. The general fix should have been flamers/blasts get +1 hit per 5 models in target unit. Not giving the Russ double dice on its main gun. It all cascaded from there, imo.
Martel732 wrote: The Russ fix was also hamfisted. The general fix should have been flamers/blasts get +1 hit per 5 models in target unit. Not giving the Russ double dice on its main gun. It all cascaded from there, imo.
We could start a whole new thread about the problem with blast mechanics, but yes, the 2d6 Russ is what caused a lot of trouble.
Unfortunately, something else needed to happen, because Russes were fairly atrocious during the index days. (Perhaps just that Grinding Advanced worked on all weapons, not just the turret? Though you'd have to change the Tallarn regimental doctrine to something else, probably... not sure).
Well Russes got quite a few other buffs in their codex. For instance, the ability to overwatch on 5s is rather significant.
They were dramatically overbuffed.
To be fair i would rather see Russes on the table than heavy weapon teams x9, and a ton of artillery vehicles. But russes are too good right now, that punisher is a joke.
That Carnifex that Martel likes to complain about is similar in cost to the Punisher Russ. I mean one of these is not like the other one...
Marmatag wrote: Well Russes got quite a few other buffs in their codex. For instance, the ability to overwatch on 5s is rather significant.
They were dramatically overbuffed.
To be fair i would rather see Russes on the table than heavy weapon teams x9, and a ton of artillery vehicles. But russes are too good right now, that punisher is a joke.
That Carnifex that Martel likes to complain about is similar in cost to the Punisher Russ. I mean one of these is not like the other one...
Yes, the Punisher is pretty scary. It's also worth noting that its direct analogue among superheavies, the Stormlord, didn't get more shots or anything like the other Baneblades got.
Can I ask what you mean by overwatch on 5s? Both of the ways I can think of involve opportunity costs that one may not be willing or able to pay.
Marmatag wrote: Just the stratagem, 1CP to hit on 5s. Guard have command points for days. You're probably starting with 12 and you get them back on 5s.
Oh, yeah, Defensive Gunners is even better on superheavies, though I don't usually get them back on 5s (my warlord is by no means a Grand Strategist, lol. Even my Regimental Commander uses Honoured Duelist, which is still fantastic in some ways... kinda). It is a much nastier stratagem on a Baneblade; tbqh it fairly routinely gets used on Russes too 'round here and hasn't been that impressive. Usually it kills a few things and then they come steaming in and prevent the tank from shooting for the rest of the game.
Marmatag wrote: The point is even without that nonsense shoot twice rule Russes got better. That was just one example as to how.
That's a fairly naff buff, I think, It's undeniable they got better (Regimental tactics in general boosted the whole army!) but a single stratagem that can be used once per phase on a single tank and has a cost associated with it and isn't even limited to Leman Russ tanks is hardly the way I'd go about it. The problem isn't that the Russ didn't get buffed (it did) but it's that without grinding advance it'd be truly awful. They needed something more than just "army wide rules are better than index rules" as their buff.
Marmatag wrote: I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.
Fix problems only when they actually exist. If you make an army based on what you think is cool or what you are excited to paint and your opponent does likewise and you play, you'll have a result. Most of the time you'll enjoy yourselves. If something happens, think about it and plan for the next game accordingly. Try a different scenario, adjust the army sizes. It's also hard to evaluate whether or not the problem is real or if a string of bad dice caused the game to go a certain way. Either way it's probably fun to play a wide variety of game sizes and scenarios if you have a bad experience in one of them.
Marmatag wrote: I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.
Fix problems only when they actually exist. If you make an army based on what you think is cool or what you are excited to paint and your opponent does likewise and you play, you'll have a result. Most of the time you'll enjoy yourselves. If something happens, think about it and plan for the next game accordingly. Try a different scenario, adjust the army sizes. It's also hard to evaluate whether or not the problem is real or if a string of bad dice caused the game to go a certain way. Either way it's probably fun to play a wide variety of game sizes and scenarios if you have a bad experience in one of them.
And what about matched play / playing to win precludes this process?
I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.
For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.
I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.
Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.
I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?
What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.
Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.
Marmatag wrote: And what about matched play / playing to win precludes this process?
In a lot of communities equal points pick up games are a default norm. So you may find it difficult to get someone to agree to an unequal points scenario.
If you have no problem with the implications of competitive list building and playing rigorous tournament style games, then there's simply no problem to solve.
Deadnight wrote: I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.
For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.
I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.
Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.
I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?
What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.
Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.
Excellent post. There isn't much I disagree with there.
Deadnight wrote: Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve.
This skill would also allow a player to adjust their power level to meet that of a new player who possibly bought and painted some less than optimal choices as well, wouldn't it? Because it's about understanding what goes into list crafting rather than concentrating on just identifying the tiny minority of best lists and playing one of those.
For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand.
My group is currently starting up an adaptation of Path to Glory for 40k. We're going to have a random assortment of our collections as we play each game. We'll make do with what we get and do our best to carry the day in the scenarios. I think our selection of 40k units to populate those tables will definitely be an application of list building skill. Not to maximize power level but to ensure the game works well regardless of what is rolled.
And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that.
There are exactly the considerations we need to have when making our tables for our Path to Glory adaptation. Though to be fair, there's no assumption of equal forces in a path to glory campaign where people agree to go random. We just need it to work. To look at the type of things that are on the list and find their 40k equivalents.
I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.)
I think communication is actually the most important thing. When people have these negative experiences with competitive players, it's often a result of expectations not matching up and certainly something that can be dealt after it happens with through polite conversation about future games.
People who approach teaching games with a competitive attitude are "that guy" kinds of people, and they're not always going to tournaments or playing outside of narrative, anyway. This attitude transcends how you approach the game.
Instructional games, where one player has a lot more knowledge of the game, will never be competitive, but they're not about playing 40k in its truest sense as they are helping someone learn the rules of the game. Seeing rules applied in real time help more than reading them on the page, right?
And we really are conflating two things here:
1. Competitive mindset 2. Matched play
Regardless of whether or not you have a competitive mindset, matched play is probably right for you. John Q Random, starting 40k for the first time, is best served with matched play rules.
Unless you can make a case that the game is somehow more approachable without any restrictions on psychic powers, or the ability to bring detachments with every race, and a ton of random sized squads. I would consider this the antithesis of a learning experience in 40k.
Like consider this.
Two players are starting 40k. One guy bought Eldrad, because, cool, he's like the leader of the army or whatever. Then he casts smite! Neat! got it with a 5. D3 mortal wounds. Oh, now he gets +1 to cast. He rolls a 7. Cool! it goes off again. D3 mortal wounds. Now he gets +2. Casts smite again, getting a 6 and a 2. He uses runes of the Farseer to reroll the 2, getting a 3. Neat! D6 mortal wounds. In one psychic phase this model did 2D3 + D6 mortal wounds. Let's just say he does 8 mortal wounds. What happens next game? Don't use Eldrad? Come to the forums and complain Eldrad is OP?
Marmatag wrote: Regardless of whether or not you have a competitive mindset, matched play is probably right for you. John Q Random, starting 40k for the first time, is best served with matched play rules.
I think Open Play is the best for the new player.
Unless you can make a case that the game is somehow more approachable without any restrictions on psychic powers, or the ability to bring detachments with every race, and a ton of random sized squads. I would consider this the antithesis of a learning experience in 40k.
I think this is a caricature of open and narrative gaming. The real new player open play experience is playing a game with a start collecting box and maybe another thing or two. If you're intentionally pushing on the points where Open Play has less restrictions than Matched Play then you have a mindset problem.
Two players are starting 40k. One guy bought Eldrad, because, cool, he's like the leader of the army or whatever. Then he casts smite! Neat! got it with a 5. D3 mortal wounds. Oh, now he gets +1 to cast. He rolls a 7. Cool! it goes off again. D3 mortal wounds. Now he gets +2. Casts smite again, getting a 6 and a 2. He uses runes of the Farseer to reroll the 2, getting a 3. Neat! D6 mortal wounds. In one psychic phase this model did 2D3 + D6 mortal wounds. Let's just say he does 8 mortal wounds. What happens next game? Don't use Eldrad? Come to the forums and complain Eldrad is OP?
I guess it sort of depends on the context of a larger game. The last smaller game with a new player we had they took eldrad and a genestealer patriarch ate him. He did crazy things during the psychic phase, but one even reasonable cult ambush roll and another player picked him off.
Personally I'd encourage the new player with Eldrad to try as many different powers as possible to see what he likes. The mindset that says "this is the best way to do as much damage as possible with Eldrad given the freedom of Open Play rules!" is really the problem you identified as being conflated with matched play. Now you're conflating it with the other two ways to play.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
I raised this in the Tactica Mechanicus thread we both post on (you more frequently and valuably than I) and was shouted down. Not by you, I might add.
Just because, for example, Kataphron Breachers are not statistically top tier does not mean all discussion of them should be squashed flat. You might use them and find they are the unit your opponent becomes completely terrified of and has to shut down at the expense of their tactical sense. You might admire their large base size, good save and multiple wounds as a barrier unit. Whatever it is, the Dakka Tactics threads can definitely be anti-discussion at the expense of the competitive hive mind.
My opening experience with 8th edition 40k (I came from Age of Sigmar) was opinionated experts telling everyone which units in the codex weren't even worth talking about. Every post on a facebook group would get the same couple of people commenting again and again about how X or Y was so bad or whatever. People stopped posting lists and I left the group.
Chamberlain wrote: My opening experience with 8th edition 40k (I came from Age of Sigmar) was opinionated experts telling everyone which units in the codex weren't even worth talking about. Every post on a facebook group would get the same couple of people commenting again and again about how X or Y was so bad or whatever. People stopped posting lists and I left the group.
I've found Facebook is the absolute worst place to discuss anything 40k related. The neckbearding that goes on there is absurd. I remember watching someone get chewed out for posting a list that wasn't competitive, and the neckbeards were jumping down his throat. It was then that i decided that 40k facebook is best for your FLGS groups to arrange games.
In open play, what's stopping a GSC player from null-deploying everything into ambush? Nothing says "fun" like having nothing to do on your first turn because everything is waiting to slaughter you turn 2. The 50% on the board rule is so important for game balance it's not even funny.
Wayniac wrote: That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.
There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.
I raised this in the Tactica Mechanicus thread we both post on (you more frequently and valuably than I) and was shouted down. Not by you, I might add.
Just because, for example, Kataphron Breachers are not statistically top tier does not mean all discussion of them should be squashed flat. You might use them and find they are the unit your opponent becomes completely terrified of and has to shut down at the expense of their tactical sense. You might admire their large base size, good save and multiple wounds as a barrier unit. Whatever it is, the Dakka Tactics threads can definitely be anti-discussion at the expense of the competitive hive mind.
I haven't found this to be true. The Tyranids tactica thread has mostly good people and good discussions happening. I've wandered into the Eldar tactica thread and only one guy was a neckbeard. Being a jerk on the internet doesn't go hand in hand with being a competitive player. Outside of tactics threads, most of the people here on dakka are talking about stuff they have never even faced, just reading tournament results and assuming that <X> is true or <Y> is true.
Marmatag wrote:I've found Facebook is the absolute worst place to discuss anything 40k related. The neckbearding that goes on there is absurd. I remember watching someone get chewed out for posting a list that wasn't competitive, and the neckbeards were jumping down his throat. It was then that i decided that 40k facebook is best for your FLGS groups to arrange games.
Good advice for sure.
In open play, what's stopping a GSC player from null-deploying everything into ambush? Nothing says "fun" like having nothing to do on your first turn because everything is waiting to slaughter you turn 2. The 50% on the board rule is so important for game balance it's not even funny.
We actually really enjoy it when the GSC player does that. It definitely gives a "just another bug hunt" slant to the game. Like you need to accomplish what you came to do but you don't know where the enemy is or where they will show up. It can be very tense. So you go after any objectives as best you can. The GSC has to show up or they'll lose.
Similarly it's actually awesome when all the grey knights teleport in and try to cut your army's key units in a single turn. As is an all drop pod assault by space marines. We've had no real issues with it.
Most of these open/narrative bogey men scenarios can actually be pretty fun. We had an endless daemon horde scenario a while back. I'm sure many matched play regulars would have gak their pants at the prospect of summoning daemons without paying points for them. The game was great despite it centering around one of the big fears people have about non-matched play with daemons.
Marmatag wrote: It seems like you're having a singular experience and trying to draw general conclusions from that.
Nah, I think it's far more likely that the typical new player doing open play has an experience like mine. Just think of a new customer recruited at a GW store that gets some sort of starter set and starts playing through the rulebook. They're simply not going to have the problems you fear in open and narrative play until they come up against someone who is intentionally trying to break the game on those points of difference. It's going to take "that guy" who actually does the things you are afraid of to cause a problem.
I get the desire to justify your concerns by minimizing the validity of my experience. I think it's better though to consider the possibility that your concerns about the way open play might break down are really about feeling like you need to be protected from what some bad other player might do to you. Just think about what some theoretical horrible person might do without the matched play restrictions!! It'll be awful!
You're the one who made the distinction between the mindset and the way to play, remember?
Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.
You are arguing for a demonstrably less balanced game, with ad-hoc and feelings based rules/balance.
The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.
On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules. (And the GW clerk said, "Yeah you'd pile in and consolidate. But just slide your models in. let's get to the fighting! also buy this box of <models>")
If the goal is never to learn the game and never to play a matched play game - go nuts do whatever. But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from balanced 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place. How is your group affected by the potential change with Guardsmen going from 4ppm -> 5ppm? Probably not at all. Hugely significant to the rest of us.
Marmatag wrote: Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.
Oh noes! My gaming is going to spontaneously combust. it's inevitables!
The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.
About a month ago we had a couple of new players and we had a three player game where they each played their start collecting boxes against my start collecting nurgle daemons. And they were both teamed up against me. But since we were playing Death Or Glory if I could have just held on one more turn, I would have won.
On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules.
Wow you are conflating things. Now people don't know the rules because open play says the rules aren't important? That's hilarious.
But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place.
Here it is. The smug "you're not really even playing real 40k" attitude. I thought that might show up.
I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes
it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.
We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players
so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all
8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun
Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp
i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.
Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into
I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg
Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest
Marmatag wrote: Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.
Oh noes! My gaming is going to spontaneously combust. it's inevitables!
The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.
About a month ago we had a couple of new players and we had a three player game where they each played their start collecting boxes against my start collecting nurgle daemons. And they were both teamed up against me. But since we were playing Death Or Glory if I could have just held on one more turn, I would have won.
Nice anecdote. This is not the experience of everyone. I have played start collecting vs start collecting games and they were horribly imbalanced and one sided. Because one army had a twin lascannon, and the other didn't have anything to match the range. But again, a balanced environment doesn't matter if you don't mind blowing someone off the table. Personally i prefer closer games.
On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules.
Wow you are conflating things. Now people don't know the rules because open play says the rules aren't important? That's hilarious.
It wholly does. Rules matter more when you care about the outcome of the game. I doubt anyone in your group will have a monster piling into a solid wall and fighting something it can't see on the other side which is technically within 1".
But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place.
Here it is. The smug "you're not really even playing real 40k" attitude. I thought that might show up.
Not really, explain why game balance matters to you, please. So far you've done a good job arguing that it doesn't. If balance doesn't matter to you, rules adjustments and points adjustments shouldn't either. So if competitive 40k is ruining 40k for you, at this point you need to explain exactly how, because it doesn't seem like you give a care in regards to any semblance of balance. You are able to create your own fun and balanced games, so why does the competitive nature of players matter even in the slightest?
Arnt you missing the point that open play is an rpg style the fun is in the events of the game not the winning
Competive play the fun is winning and for some people thats all that matters i think the trouble happens when people lack empathy for others and keep chasing the high of winning
ian wrote: I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes
it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.
We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players
so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all
8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun
Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp
i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.
Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into
I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg
Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest
EDIT - i missed this piece in bold. This is a byproduct of open play. Your games would be far more balanced without this "house rule." You should insist on matched play restrictions, this would go away.
It would have been far worse had he discovered the Yncarne. Faaaar far worse.
I've done the facebook thing. I've advocated against the heldrake often, but I follow it up with why you might use it and what I think the shortcomings are. I still think it's valuable, but you need to list build with certain things in mind when doing so.
ian wrote: Arnt you missing the point that open play is an rpg style the fun is in the events of the game not the winning
Except open play does very little, if anything, to support an RPG-style narrative, character progression, etc. Open play is a zero-sum competitive-style game, except with poor balance and a deliberate removal of fluff-driven army construction rules.
I dont think its a byproduct i think its the whole point if you go into open play not worrying about wining any inblance can be sorted on the fly, ie 3+ and a random patrol turns up.
I do agree open play is much easyier to break which is why it needs to be played like an rpg
Matched play is harder to break but it can be done which is why i think the competive edge should be razor sharp
If you take alook at other competive sports or games that are big they have much stricter rules than 40k could ever have.
It reminds me of glitchs in computer games i always think do people have fun knowing there going to win that way
ian wrote: I dont think its a byproduct i think its the whole point if you go into open play not worrying about wining any inblance can be sorted on the fly, ie 3+ and a random patrol turns up.
Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp
Your issue here is twofold:
1. Your opponent discovered a good unit. When you are losing you go looking for answers, and he found one.
2. You are feeling "gutted" from 40k because you abandoned matched play restrictions allowing him to cheese out and cast the same power multiple times.
It sounds like you're already worried about winning based on this post i've quoted. So you dropped matched play, and you're still concerned about having a good game, and the lack of matched play psychic restrictions is directly damaging your enjoyment.
Mybe rpg is the wrong phase i think its more about the events that happen so a story can be told or created , ie do you rember when my grot killed that knight on that last wound, its like a kick about on the beach bags for goals loose rules and you rember when the ball went flyinv into that kid instead of who won
ian wrote: I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes
it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.
We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players
so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all
8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun
Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp
i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.
Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into
I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg
Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest
This is why I HATE house rules that are not formed by committee. You often wind up playing by the rules of the person with the most forceful personality.
Marmatag wrote: It seems like you're having a singular experience and trying to draw general conclusions from that.
Nah, I think it's far more likely that the typical new player doing open play has an experience like mine. Just think of a new customer recruited at a GW store that gets some sort of starter set and starts playing through the rulebook. They're simply not going to have the problems you fear in open and narrative play until they come up against someone who is intentionally trying to break the game on those points of difference. It's going to take "that guy" who actually does the things you are afraid of to cause a problem.
I get the desire to justify your concerns by minimizing the validity of my experience. I think it's better though to consider the possibility that your concerns about the way open play might break down are really about feeling like you need to be protected from what some bad other player might do to you. Just think about what some theoretical horrible person might do without the matched play restrictions!! It'll be awful!
You're the one who made the distinction between the mindset and the way to play, remember?
You remind me that we have a acronym in the Fire Emblem community.
It's PEDM. Otherwise known as, "Personal Experience Doesn't Matter".
This happens when someone goes to a forum asking why everyone hates Character X, as Character X turned out super good for them. Math shows that the character's growth rates lead to terrible averages. The phrase was super popular in threads where someone asked about Meg in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.
Nowadays with the games being piss easy with grinding (which is why Conquest is the best Fates path: it was punishing you for being a bad player and essentially NO grinding), you may not hear it as much outside us Insanity players, but the phrase does crop up a good amount still.
ian wrote: I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes
it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.
We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players
so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all
8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun
Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp
i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.
Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into
I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg
Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest
Can you play against other people?
Your facing someone bringing competitive netlists while you desire a casual game. And to top it off hes bending the rules to favor him.
Your facing 'that guy'. Unless you can find a way to convince him to stop being 'that guy' your option is to simply stop playing against him. ignore his whining and have fun playing against people who think as you do.
Marmatag wrote: It seems like you're having a singular experience and trying to draw general conclusions from that.
Just to add a little support to otherwise self-defending and great discussion by Chamberlain - he is not having a singular experience. I play custom/narrative scenarios exclusively and in abundance and voices like mine or his have been present in this very thread from the start. But it is true that people like us are in a minority in "commonly visited places" like interwebz or FLGSs - I haven't played a game at any for nearly two years now, despite having played more than 50 games last year alone. So even if we were living next door to one another you wouldn't even know about my existence if I weren't active on dakka. And I'm not alone in this. We are still waiting for GW data survey results, but I'm very much interested how the actual distribution of open-narrative-matched attitudes amongst 100.000 replies looks like.
One thing I want to add to what both Deadnight and Chamberlain are illustrating here is that "relative listbuilding" requires at least the same amount of knowledge about 40K as competetive "build to win" listbuilding (I would even say that it requires more, as there are no "casual netlists", so there is less people to actually help you accuire apropriate knowledge). It is just that "ballanced 40k experience" goal in such environment is completely different than "ballanced and fair field for skill testing/development" goal of matched/competetive mindset. You can desing a "ballanced experience" for a matchup of experienced player against a relatively "fresh meat", which will be satisfying to both. At the same time, providing those same two players with just a "fair field" will produce one-sided results, often leading to disapointment by the less experienced player and may lead to droping 40K altogether.
It is also a commonly repeated misconception, that "CAAC" or "NAAC" or "fluffy casual" players could as well don't bother with the rules or point costs at all because they dismiss "build to win is a part of the game" approach and are so far removed from ballanced games it doesn't matter. We do play by the rules (even in an RPG world only few people go diceless storytelling because human psychology likes an effort of solving puzzles created by arbitrary rulesets) and point costs/PL are a necessary accessory during game preparation to make informed decisions and ballanced games of desired killyness/flow. And from what I can see in multitude of discussions it is that narrative leaning players are usually better aware of limitations of point systems in sandbox environment while most competetive minded players seek and advocate some unachievable holy grail of adequate point costs in an ever shifting meta...
Personally I feel that the competitive scene is actually quite toxic, with people spamming certain combinations and 'soup' lists which combine multiple aspects from multiple armies.
However this is only part of the problem. Shoddy rules, poor balancing and a notable lack of playtesting, not to mention the awful kneejerk FAQ's which arbitrarily nerf and buff units in a vacuum without considering the reasons these are so powerful in the first place, and do so in an extremely heavy handed way.
So, yes, competitiveness is a problem, but it is only a small part of a larger sum.
ian wrote: I dont think its a byproduct i think its the whole point if you go into open play not worrying about wining any inblance can be sorted on the fly, ie 3+ and a random patrol turns up.
So why even bother with a game at that point, if you're just making up rules as you go along and doing whatever seems cool? Why roll to see if a patrol turns up on a 3+? You already decided that it would be cool for a patrol to turn up, so just declare that one did and tell a story about how awesome it was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ian wrote: Mybe rpg is the wrong phase i think its more about the events that happen so a story can be told or created , ie do you rember when my grot killed that knight on that last wound, its like a kick about on the beach bags for goals loose rules and you rember when the ball went flyinv into that kid instead of who won
I would be more convinced by the idea of 40k being that kind of game if playing it didn't require spending thousands of dollars buying models, hundreds of hours painting them, and then 3+ hours per game once you're finally able to play. 40k is not a casual investment, it's a hobby that requires an immense amount of effort. And I don't know how people can invest that kind of effort and only want "just kick the ball around" as a return on that investment.
nou wrote: Just to add a little support to otherwise self-defending and great discussion by Chamberlain - he is not having a singular experience. ... So even if we were living next door to one another you wouldn't even know about my existence if I weren't active on dakka. And I'm not alone in this.
We play in someone's basement each week and then once a month rent a multipurpose room at a condo development. There are 7 of us in our core group and then about another 10 who show up for events but don't necessarily organize anything. The largest local 40k group is entirely tournament focused. Even their narrative events are competitive matched play events with prizing for the winner and all that (they just happen to play narrative or custom scenarios using the ITC tournament rules). A handful of them know we exist because we post some pictures of games to a facebook group every now and again, but I doubt they understand just how much open play and narrative we do. They probably think we play the same way they do, but just at people's houses or whatever.
There's another group of five or six guys who play at eachother's places each week. I'm on their mailing list but my schedule rarely lines up with them. The host for the night picks the scenario and sets up the terrain and tells people what size army to bring and then they do a multiplayer game. From the times I've been there and from reading their emails, it seems they always all play on the same table. I don't think the local tournament players know about this group at all. They never share pictures or stories with the larger community as they have their email list.
We are still waiting for GW data survey results, but I'm very much interested how the actual distribution of open-narrative-matched attitudes amongst 100.000 replies looks like.
Whatever the results are their Warhammer Community site certainly doesn't just concentrate on matched play. The recent article about doing Devastation of Baal narrative games even specifically recommended not playing with equal power levels. So GW must believe some sufficiently large portion of their customer base would like an article like that.
And from what I can see in multitude of discussions it is that narrative leaning players are usually better aware of limitations of point systems in sandbox environment while most competitive minded players seek and advocate some unachievable holy grail of adequate point costs in an ever shifting meta...
Absolutely. Part of the advantage of starting a 40k journey (or refreshing one's take on it) by playing through the scenarios in the Open Play section of the main rulebook is that it will expose you to games when the points values don't match in terms of army strength. By having them be intentionally mismatched. Some scenarios even recommend one side having double the power level as the other.
I consider it the first step for anyone who really wants to understand the game the way the people making it understand it*. Play in a way where you think (or fear) that things might fall apart and see what's really going on. See if maybe there's something more to 40k than just doing equal points matched play over and over.
But only do so f you actually want to. If your approach is working for you, then don't bother. But if there's a problem, then maybe there's a solution to be found in a wider view of what the game could be. Maybe those units don't have to set on the shelf unused.
* A good example of this is the recent Legion of Nagash interview on WarhammerTV. The rules guy comes on and nothing he says has anything to do with matched play concerns. It's all about how the rules are evocative of the fictional concept. Pretty much every big release has some sort of rules writer interview and there's a consistent trend.
Unit1126PLL wrote: (e.g. Peregrine, who seems to believe that if you're not being competitive you're wrong or deserving of ridicule).
I don't find people deserving of ridicule because they don't play competitively. I've made this clear many times in the past, people like you just keep jumping to the conclusion that anyone who defends competitive play must exclusively defend competitive play. The people I find deserving of ridicule are:
1) CAAC TFGs who scream at you about how you aren't being "casual" enough, despite their level of obsession with the game and insanely strict rules about what lists are acceptable in their personal version of it having absolutely nothing to do with the term "casual" as it is defined in any other context. And CAAC TFGs are inevitably smug s about how "casual" is the one morally acceptable way to play the game, and everyone else is TFG and ruining the hobby.
2) People who make "casual strategy" posts where they propose an idea with a claim that it is good, encounter criticism from people who understand the game better and point out that it isn't an effective strategy, and then fall back on "BUT IT IS CASUAL WHY CANT YOU CASUAL" rather than admit that they were simply wrong about it being a good strategy. IOW, people who don't care about whether or not their strategy advice is good or leads to a better understanding of the game, and post threads for the sole purpose of getting people to agree with them and feed their narcissism.
3) People who assume that if they aren't playing competitively they must be "fluffy" or "casual", even when their lists don't match the fluff well at all. A list with a bunch of random units with random upgrades is seldom a fluffy list, but because it isn't good at winning games people will insist on defending it as "fluffy" and object to any criticism of its choices.
In your case I find you immensely frustrating and wrong because you get stuck on questionable fluff ideas like "I must have exactly X tanks, no more, no less" or making which sponsons your tanks are equipped with an essential part of your fluff, and refuse to change anything about your list no matter how much it hinders your or your opponent's enjoyment of the game. I mean, you're complaining about how your tanks are not fair in a power level system because your fluff does not permit sponsons on them FFS. It's an absurd zero-compromise position to take, especially when half your posts seem to be about how your choices are not working out well for you.
Exactly. I even made a suggestion or two in his list to at least get Plasma Scions so that he had more bite in the list and offered to help find ways to get Conscript shields but probably wouldn't have listened.
I'd like to take the other side of this argument that competitive 40k has made my experience of the game much better.
I don't have a close group of friends to play 40k with so I rely on pick-up games at the local. Most of the guys that play there are really competitive guys with tournament experience/goals. But the community is great. My first night I showed up with my army I just unboxed from 5th edition and got destroyed. But during and after several of the guys gathered around the table and gave me all kinds of suggestions from army construction to tactical maneuvers, explained what their army did, why it did it and how to counter it.
Now months later we have a robust super competitive group of guys who hang out and talk tactics, what the current meta is. We take turns playing the eldar guys with the shining spears and reaper spam to see what we can do to beat them. We lend each other models if someone wants to try before you buy. The owner of the FLGS will make the most broken list he can dream of (7 flyrants was the last I played but 30 dark reapers got rid of that one) and torment us with it until someone beats it.
No one gets pissed. Everyone is mature and supportive. Hell I played a dude in a MAGA hat while I was wearing my Black Panthers shirt and we both had a great time (okay maybe we weren't wearing those exact outfits but it was pretty obvious we come from different sides of the political spectrum.)
I can't play as much as I did when 8th first came out but I try to stop by when I can to just "talk shop" keep up with the local, west coast and national meta. There are some really competitive painters/converters (I'm pretty sure a couple have entered golden deamons) as well around that are always willing to offer advice or critique.
TFG at the shop was the super fluffy guy who refused to change his list and threw mantrums when he lost, gloated when he rolled well and was just a jerk. He was a terrible opponent the first time I played him.
I wish 40k were more balanced so we could move on from identifying the best units (done) and more into crazy anti-meta lists and tactics instead of the current rock, paper, bazooka that it seems 40k has turned into but without the competitive side of the hobby I don't think I would enjoy it as much.
I am just wondering how you would have felt if every game you played was againts the eldar guys. And after weeks of losing you all figured out that the only way to beat it was a very small number of ways.
That world would seem to limit the point in building and painting your own army because at this point its not about the models you like and the hobby part. its about stats of what works
I do agree that it can be fun figuring out how to beat a really strong list but it feels like a big restriction on the variaty of the hobby
Competiveness ultimatly leads to a focus on a few ways to play unless the rules change , that is when you start getting to players skill vs skill which will get honed down to the point where the gap between the top players skill is so small that the game is decided by who got the best rolls.
However because the rules change its much more about the race to find the best combo rather than honing skills or the other aspects of the hobby. ( the top players are very good but have to use the best unit combos to compete )
On a side note to build skill your go in stages as you grow. Going against the best with out the right tools just leads to injury
After a few weeks GW will bring down the nerf hammer on dark reapers because dozens of competitive events were dominated by that OP list and they finally stopped looking away from such problems.
Then the meta changes and everyone will be trying different models again, either bringing back retired stuff or buying and painting other stuff.
Competitive gaming does not make a good game bad. It just makes bad games show their true, ugly face.
Jidmah wrote: After a few weeks GW will bring down the nerf hammer on dark reapers because dozens of competitive events were dominated by that OP list and they finally stopped looking away from such problems.
Then the meta changes and everyone will be trying different models again, either bringing back retired stuff or buying and painting other stuff.
Competitive gaming does not make a good game bad. It just makes bad games show their true, ugly face.
How have they been 'looking away from such problem"?
GW has been entirely open with when they are making changes to the game, March and September. Plus a faq 2 weeks after a codex comes.
They aren't 'looking away' they are doing exactly what they said they would.
(this can ofc all change depending on what they do in the March update).
ian wrote: That world would seem to limit the point in building and painting your own army because at this point its not about the models you like and the hobby part. its about stats of what works
Alternatively, if building and painting is your highest priority, just build and paint the models you like even if you never use them in a game. Plenty of people build and paint models that have no gaming purpose whatsoever, and don't seem to have any problem with the fact that they're producing awesome display pieces.
However because the rules change its much more about the race to find the best combo rather than honing skills or the other aspects of the hobby. ( the top players are very good but have to use the best unit combos to compete )
Why are you making the ridiculous assumption that racing to find the best combo is not a matter of honing skills? Identifying winning strategies faster than everyone else so that you can stay ahead of the meta and turn the advantage into wins is a skill, and one you can work to improve.
ian wrote: That world would seem to limit the point in building and painting your own army because at this point its not about the models you like and the hobby part. its about stats of what works
Alternatively, if building and painting is your highest priority, just build and paint the models you like even if you never use them in a game. Plenty of people build and paint models that have no gaming purpose whatsoever, and don't seem to have any problem with the fact that they're producing awesome display pieces.
Shock horror some people actually enjoy painting and would like to use in game what they paint. Now imagine that. What a novel concept isn't it?
tneva82 wrote: Shock horror some people actually enjoy painting and would like to use in game what they paint. Now imagine that. What a novel concept isn't it?
There's a difference between "painting matters most, and hey I guess that game is cool" and "painting matters most but it's also extremely important that I win games and have an effective list". If playing and winning is so important then it isn't fair to consider that person a painting-focused hobbyist who can not be happy unless they are painting exactly the models they want to paint.
nou wrote: Just to add a little support to otherwise self-defending and great discussion by Chamberlain - he is not having a singular experience. ... So even if we were living next door to one another you wouldn't even know about my existence if I weren't active on dakka. And I'm not alone in this.
We play in someone's basement each week and then once a month rent a multipurpose room at a condo development. There are 7 of us in our core group and then about another 10 who show up for events but don't necessarily organize anything. The largest local 40k group is entirely tournament focused. Even their narrative events are competitive matched play events with prizing for the winner and all that (they just happen to play narrative or custom scenarios using the ITC tournament rules). A handful of them know we exist because we post some pictures of games to a facebook group every now and again, but I doubt they understand just how much open play and narrative we do. They probably think we play the same way they do, but just at people's houses or whatever.
There's another group of five or six guys who play at eachother's places each week. I'm on their mailing list but my schedule rarely lines up with them. The host for the night picks the scenario and sets up the terrain and tells people what size army to bring and then they do a multiplayer game. From the times I've been there and from reading their emails, it seems they always all play on the same table. I don't think the local tournament players know about this group at all. They never share pictures or stories with the larger community as they have their email list.
We are still waiting for GW data survey results, but I'm very much interested how the actual distribution of open-narrative-matched attitudes amongst 100.000 replies looks like.
Whatever the results are their Warhammer Community site certainly doesn't just concentrate on matched play. The recent article about doing Devastation of Baal narrative games even specifically recommended not playing with equal power levels. So GW must believe some sufficiently large portion of their customer base would like an article like that.
And from what I can see in multitude of discussions it is that narrative leaning players are usually better aware of limitations of point systems in sandbox environment while most competitive minded players seek and advocate some unachievable holy grail of adequate point costs in an ever shifting meta...
Absolutely. Part of the advantage of starting a 40k journey (or refreshing one's take on it) by playing through the scenarios in the Open Play section of the main rulebook is that it will expose you to games when the points values don't match in terms of army strength. By having them be intentionally mismatched. Some scenarios even recommend one side having double the power level as the other.
I consider it the first step for anyone who really wants to understand the game the way the people making it understand it*. Play in a way where you think (or fear) that things might fall apart and see what's really going on. See if maybe there's something more to 40k than just doing equal points matched play over and over.
But only do so f you actually want to. If your approach is working for you, then don't bother. But if there's a problem, then maybe there's a solution to be found in a wider view of what the game could be. Maybe those units don't have to set on the shelf unused.
* A good example of this is the recent Legion of Nagash interview on WarhammerTV. The rules guy comes on and nothing he says has anything to do with matched play concerns. It's all about how the rules are evocative of the fictional concept. Pretty much every big release has some sort of rules writer interview and there's a consistent trend.
I must admit, you seem to have won a lottery and live in a worldwide centre of "out of the rut" players. To date I considered myself lucky by having a four (now sadly just three) person group and there are people like Wayniac here, that struggle to find anyone open enough to even try our route. The "host prepares the table and scenario" approach is very much what we do, including giving a brief description of such location and overall goal prior to list construction representing "vaguely reliable intel data".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: I'd like to take the other side of this argument that competitive 40k has made my experience of the game much better.
I don't have a close group of friends to play 40k with so I rely on pick-up games at the local. Most of the guys that play there are really competitive guys with tournament experience/goals. But the community is great. My first night I showed up with my army I just unboxed from 5th edition and got destroyed. But during and after several of the guys gathered around the table and gave me all kinds of suggestions from army construction to tactical maneuvers, explained what their army did, why it did it and how to counter it.
Now months later we have a robust super competitive group of guys who hang out and talk tactics, what the current meta is. We take turns playing the eldar guys with the shining spears and reaper spam to see what we can do to beat them. We lend each other models if someone wants to try before you buy. The owner of the FLGS will make the most broken list he can dream of (7 flyrants was the last I played but 30 dark reapers got rid of that one) and torment us with it until someone beats it.
No one gets pissed. Everyone is mature and supportive. Hell I played a dude in a MAGA hat while I was wearing my Black Panthers shirt and we both had a great time (okay maybe we weren't wearing those exact outfits but it was pretty obvious we come from different sides of the political spectrum.)
I can't play as much as I did when 8th first came out but I try to stop by when I can to just "talk shop" keep up with the local, west coast and national meta. There are some really competitive painters/converters (I'm pretty sure a couple have entered golden deamons) as well around that are always willing to offer advice or critique.
TFG at the shop was the super fluffy guy who refused to change his list and threw mantrums when he lost, gloated when he rolled well and was just a jerk. He was a terrible opponent the first time I played him.
I wish 40k were more balanced so we could move on from identifying the best units (done) and more into crazy anti-meta lists and tactics instead of the current rock, paper, bazooka that it seems 40k has turned into but without the competitive side of the hobby I don't think I would enjoy it as much.
And you are a happy person, which happen to enjoy 40K in exactly the way local group enjoys 40K. The problem of "competetive attitude ruining 40K" or "casual attitude ruining 40K" is a problem of coexisting. Try to impersonate a guy like me or Chamberlain here trying to blend in with your group - that is pretty much impossible task, resulting either with frustration (probably the case of your fluffy player) or abandoning one's preferred playstyle for the sake of having actual games and community to hang out with and socialise (I've been in that position during early 3rd ed, leading to my quitting 40K for 15 years). Your group also seems to not have such condescending people like Peregrine and instead of ridicule or irritate you teach and inspire. And that is a very healthy for the group, but not all that common and definitely not "default".
Ordana wrote: How have they been 'looking away from such problem"?
GW has been entirely open with when they are making changes to the game, March and September. Plus a faq 2 weeks after a codex comes.
They aren't 'looking away' they are doing exactly what they said they would.
(this can ofc all change depending on what they do in the March update).
Yeah, they have stopped looking away last June. Which isn't even a whole year yet - so yes, they have been looking away from problems that were obvious in competitive environments for at least the other 8 years I've been involved in this hobby.
ian wrote: That world would seem to limit the point in building and painting your own army because at this point its not about the models you like and the hobby part. its about stats of what works
Alternatively, if building and painting is your highest priority, just build and paint the models you like even if you never use them in a game. Plenty of people build and paint models that have no gaming purpose whatsoever, and don't seem to have any problem with the fact that they're producing awesome display pieces.
However because the rules change its much more about the race to find the best combo rather than honing skills or the other aspects of the hobby. ( the top players are very good but have to use the best unit combos to compete )
Why are you making the ridiculous assumption that racing to find the best combo is not a matter of honing skills? Identifying winning strategies faster than everyone else so that you can stay ahead of the meta and turn the advantage into wins is a skill, and one you can work to improve.
^This is exactly the reason why I chose Tau. I chose my army because what I enjoy most is being able to fine tune my highly magnetized units and play around with lists. Sure I like the way most of my units look (Not you Vespids), but for players like me it is about being able to sit down after a stressful day and just play with ideas on Battlescribe. Meanwhile the most common thing I hear is "ugh Tau players just want to cheese wins" or "Tau takes no skill all you do is stand still and shoot." I enjoy trying to come up with a good battleplan, what's wrong with that?
Again, my main issue with competitive play in 40k is that it ignores 2/3 of the game and lord knows how many potential options because it breaks everything down to "the best", so anything which is not "the best" doesn't see play because it's "not good list building". that is a fundamental issue, and if GW won't fix it (which let's face it they won't) it's on the players to fix it among themselves. But for every group that does that, you have ones like mine usually is that are almost 100% pickup games, with no deviation and people who are afraid of just Open/Narrative play because they are too afraid that somebody might break it, to take the steps to prevent someone from breaking it (from house rules to outright shunning of someone who breaks the social contract). Nobody seems to want to do that despite that being the main approach GW advocates.
Wayniac wrote: Again, my main issue with competitive play in 40k is that it ignores 2/3 of the game
Please don't buy into GW's marketing hype of "three ways to play". What GW really offers is one way to play, with two different point systems: one of them more accurate (though not perfect), one of them that loses accuracy in exchange for nothing and therefore has no purpose. There's a second way to play, narrative-driven scenario games, which is kind of vaguely hinted at by GW but is mostly a third-party creation built on the base 40k game so it can't really be counted in playing 40k.
and lord knows how many potential options because it breaks everything down to "the best", so anything which is not "the best" doesn't see play because it's "not good list building".
Just like every other style does. "That's not fluffy". "That's too powerful for our group". Etc. The only difference is which specific units/upgrades are pushed out of the game.
I'm extremely competitive. However, unless I win completely above-board, fair and square, then I don't really see the point of winning. I don't want my wins to be tainted. I want to own my wins.
I agree at the top level there will be small diffrences but the overall theme will be the same.
If your not at the top level it dosnt really matter its simple bring 20-30 dark reapers stick them im wave serpents job done.
Its not that hard to build a good list that can have a big advantage, once you know what units are currently over performing.
This is made much harder when the hobby is more that just playing. It can mean buying lots of new units or complete armys and spending time building and painting.
If list building and wining is the main focus why not play with cut outs, it would be a much more level playing field everybody could just spend there time finding out the best combos after that it would just be about luck and skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If i play open play then i am playing 40k just because the focus isnt on wining doant mean its not really 40k
Ultimately the problem is that competitive is a much more solid goalpost than casual. Not really attempting to disparage casual, but casual is such a subjective goalpost that one person's casual is another person's competitive.
All units are attempting to fulfill a role in a game of rock-paper-scissor and when one army's list(fluff or not) is all scissors it gets frustrating no matter what for those who only build their army out of paper.
I say this as someone who has only twice been in tournaments in my 20 years of gaming.
The only fair casual form of game available is one where GW would pre-formed lists for you to follow in scenarios.
Ah yes you are the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be counted as 40k.
Actually seeing how 40k came up it's more accurate to say narrative scenario driven is CLOSER to how 40k is "supposed" to be played if there was such a thing as "true 40k"
The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.
Or have we all just gone so far away from being connected we just want our opponet to only talk whwn nessarcy for the game
ian wrote: Nurglitch does above board mean having an equal chance of wining because that dosnt really exisit in 40k
Aboveboard typically means honest or legitimate. No cheating, no "gotcha" moments after deciding to play for intent like LVO. An honest win. Whether its tactics, list building, or luck.
tneva82 wrote: Ah yes you are the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be counted as 40k.
Actually seeing how 40k came up it's more accurate to say narrative scenario driven is CLOSER to how 40k is "supposed" to be played if there was such a thing as "true 40k"
No, GW is the ultimate authority, and they don't include narrative games as a major element of 40k. It doesn't matter if they throw in an occasional FORGE THE NARRATIVE comment when 95% of the material they publish is competitive-style missions with little or no narrative element. The myth that 40k is "supposed to be" a narrative game is one that is purely invented by certain players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ian wrote: The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.
Exactly, it's about empathy for others and spending time together. This is why "non-competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "non-competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.
ian wrote: The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.
Or have we all just gone so far away from being connected we just want our opponet to only talk whwn nessarcy for the game
Well, when I talk to people playing the game we talk daily gak like the government, housing loans, family, and what movies we last saw while joking about ton of things. That's at least how people connect here locally which could be a cultural thing. I'd rather do that then spend lengthy time discussing how we should organize our armies against each other as we already have a "social contract" which is the GW ruleset and points(no matter how flawed they may be). You buy into a ruleset to avoid deliberations on how a game should be played. I mean, there is nothing stopping a roleplaying group from playing Dungeons and Dragons without touching a dice or a ruleset, but apparently people still buy these books and dice for some reason. It gives everyone a common social contract to go by - which may or may not be flawed, much like any other social contract in real life.
Does no one remember when AoS was released and everyone whinged about not having points to balance things and to play it fair? GW did exactly what many casuals wanted and they got gak for it. AoS didn't pick up until they gave us General's Handbook with point costs and Matched Play rules.
Also, there is nothing stopping you from not playing against the 30 x Dark Reaper person. I avoided Croissant armies like the plague in late 5th and was not worse for wear. You are not entitled to play with anyone just as anyone is not entitled to play with you.
If everybody is playing with competive list then i dont have a choice if i want to play the game. Thats the cost of the meta either join them or lose
empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?
Thats not the social contract the rules are there for to try and provide entertainment
I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.
Deadnight wrote:I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.
For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.
I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.
Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.
I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?
What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.
Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.
A good post!
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: (e.g. Peregrine, who seems to believe that if you're not being competitive you're wrong or deserving of ridicule).
I don't find people deserving of ridicule because they don't play competitively. I've made this clear many times in the past, people like you just keep jumping to the conclusion that anyone who defends competitive play must exclusively defend competitive play. The people I find deserving of ridicule are:
1) CAAC TFGs who scream at you about how you aren't being "casual" enough, despite their level of obsession with the game and insanely strict rules about what lists are acceptable in their personal version of it having absolutely nothing to do with the term "casual" as it is defined in any other context. And CAAC TFGs are inevitably smug s about how "casual" is the one morally acceptable way to play the game, and everyone else is TFG and ruining the hobby.
2) People who make "casual strategy" posts where they propose an idea with a claim that it is good, encounter criticism from people who understand the game better and point out that it isn't an effective strategy, and then fall back on "BUT IT IS CASUAL WHY CANT YOU CASUAL" rather than admit that they were simply wrong about it being a good strategy. IOW, people who don't care about whether or not their strategy advice is good or leads to a better understanding of the game, and post threads for the sole purpose of getting people to agree with them and feed their narcissism.
3) People who assume that if they aren't playing competitively they must be "fluffy" or "casual", even when their lists don't match the fluff well at all. A list with a bunch of random units with random upgrades is seldom a fluffy list, but because it isn't good at winning games people will insist on defending it as "fluffy" and object to any criticism of its choices.
In your case I find you immensely frustrating and wrong because you get stuck on questionable fluff ideas like "I must have exactly X tanks, no more, no less" or making which sponsons your tanks are equipped with an essential part of your fluff, and refuse to change anything about your list no matter how much it hinders your or your opponent's enjoyment of the game. I mean, you're complaining about how your tanks are not fair in a power level system because your fluff does not permit sponsons on them FFS. It's an absurd zero-compromise position to take, especially when half your posts seem to be about how your choices are not working out well for you.
But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."
And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength. And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes. All of this and more is written on my fluff bible on Google Drive. I have other sort of "OOC" rules about the regiment as well: for example, if a tank Explodes! during the game, it becomes unsalvageable and needs replacement, meaning I have to repaint it (or at least paint over the name and company markings and run it as a reserve tank for a few games until it earns a name). If it doesn't Explode, then I generally assume it is salvageable, and unless we're playing a campaign game (yes, there's a campaign in my new club and yes it allows my superheavies ), I go ahead and assume the tank was salvaged for the next game. I keep track of PUGs in my fluff as best I can, discussing with my opponent ahead of time about what the narrative for the mission might be (sometimes we just conclude to handwave it, and I discount the game from my fluff, because my opponent doesn't want to be in the narrative or its something irreconcilable).
And believe it or not I do change my list to match my opponent's opinion. That sort of strife between me and my opponent is actually what caused those posts here: I was making changes and my opponents were enjoying the game, but I wasn't. The alternative is for me to enjoy it, or them not to. The third alternative, and as it turns out, the one that works, is find a club that's neither so CAAC that 3 Baneblades is super OP, nor so WAAC that 3 Baneblades aren't tournament competitive enough and they think my lists are suboptimal. I have found a perfect, middle-of-the-road club that is perfectly happy to play against my superheavies and include them in casual narrative club events, because they recognize the narrative validity of the army. And you know what? This means that I also play my other armies (Sisters and Inquisition) at this club too, because once I've found a place I can be comfortable with a list I enjoy, then I'm more willing to mix it up and bring other lists because I don't feel forced to. And yes, the same exacting degree of fluff applies to my not-superheavies as well. Just as an example, my Sororitas Order (the Order of the Luminous Beacon) uses St. Celestine's rules and model as a "Living Saint" named Meridia, Lady of Light (yes, that's a nod to Elder Scrolls ) and the fluff for her is that she is normally Sister Meridia, Oracle of the Emperor, a normal human who transcends to Sainthood when the Order is in danger. This is reflected in gameplay and list-design buy having 6 10-girl squads in my Brigade when there is no Celestine, or 5 10-girl squads and 1 9-girl squad when there is Celestine, because she was briefly transformed by her powers.
Not that I'd expect you to read that or care; I'm sure you'd just be worried about why I'm not running 5-girl Dominion squads.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Exactly. I even made a suggestion or two in his list to at least get Plasma Scions so that he had more bite in the list and offered to help find ways to get Conscript shields but probably wouldn't have listened.
Actually, I dropped the Enginseer and added plasma to the Scions, but I didn't want Conscript Shields for a variety of reasons, including my belief that my Stormhammers didn't really need them (sometimes right, sometimes horribly wrong!), and the fact that none of my tank regiments have many infantry and I wasn't willing to start a whole new regiment in the fluff just for one tournament, among others. But I did end up dropping the techpriest enginseer for plasma on the scions, which worked out okay I think. Honestly, so much of the list hinged on the superheavies it wouldn't really have mattered either way. I ended up going a respectable 4-4, and am happy and content with that score, even though I didn't bring any conscript shields.
ian wrote: empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?
No, I said someone is selfish if they expect the competitive player to do all the work of adjusting the power level of their list because making a competitive list would require painting models that they aren't interested in. It's caring only about their painting preferences, and feeling entitled to have everyone else accommodate them.
I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.
I guess some people dont care about that
You're right. Many people don't care about this, bring weak lists that automatically lose, and refuse to get better so that the game is more entertaining.
Exactly, it's about empathy for others and spending time together. This is why "non-competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "non-competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.
And, by the same token, "competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.
You do relise that it takes a fair bit of time to build and paint units not to mention the cost. If your chasing the meta then you have to have a fair bit of money
I agree people shouldnt bring really weak list aswell but i dont think that is as much of a problem as i think people are much less likly to spam weak units
Im glad there are middle of the road clubs out there it gives me hope
I guess what bugs me about this roundabout conversation is some people always put the onus on the non-competitive player (which still amounts to "git gud" and compromise what you want out of the game to "git gud" and build a good list, based 100% on mathhammer and min/maxing rather than anything else) and while there are others (myself included sometimes) who feel the opposite, somebody has to in the end agree to compromise, or else it's the players responsibility to just say "You know, you don't want to play a super optimized list, and I really don't want to not play a super optimized list. A game between us wouldn't be fun for either of us" and not play each other.
It seems way too common that people are more than willing to waste time playing a game they won't enjoy (whether that's playing a super optimized list, or a non optimized list) rather than just realize their prospective opponent wants something different out of the game, and decide not to play instead.
Unit1126PLL wrote: But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."
And my point is that your fluff is both questionable in its accuracy and obsessively specific about trivial details. You aren't just saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter", you're saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter with a +1 composite shortbow (+1 strength bonus) and full plate armor and the following specific feats and skill choices" rejecting any advice that isn't exactly the character sheet you posted. For example, rejecting the idea of using a +2 strength bonus on the bow to get more damage, because your fluff requires that it be a +1 bonus.
And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength.
Ok. And a 40k game is not a full-scale battle. It's either a skirmish (where a full tank company wouldn't appear), or a "snapshot" of an area of a larger battlefield. A tank company would not be deployed without any support, full strength or not, so a fluff-accurate representation of a full-strength LRBT company in a 2000 point game might be five tanks (total of ~1000 points) and various supporting infantry/aircraft/etc, with the remaining five tanks in the company "off screen" in the part of the battle happening on the adjacent table. This is exactly my point about how obsessively and unreasonably strict your "fluff" requirements are: not only do you have to exactly follow the specific units that make up your company on paper, it has to fight in the exact way you have decided and all of it must appear "on screen" at once.
And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes.
Again, this is obsessively and unreasonably strict. Sponsons are built into the vehicle (for example, the original Baneblade-class rules and models had the sponsons permanently included, there was no option to omit them), and common on those tanks. But even with this obvious fluff explanation you're unwilling to compromise on even a minor detail of your fluff, everything has to be 100% perfect in every possible detail. Instead of a more reasonable compromise, that your tanks have sponsons but are always played WYSIWYG and you don't, for example, swap the HBs for HFs when fighting on a terrain-heavy table. But instead nothing at all about your choices may be changed, no matter how much it hurts you.
ian wrote: If everybody is playing with competive list then i dont have a choice if i want to play the game. Thats the cost of the meta either join them or lose
empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?
Thats not the social contract the rules are there for to try and provide entertainment
I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.
I guess some people dont care about that
Have you ever asked them to bring a softer list?
If you did and told you to 'git gud' then you have a good point, otherwise ask people.
Wayniac wrote: And, by the same token, "competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.
I don't. But, in my experience, competitive players are more likely to make a degree of compromises (playing a second-tier list instead of a top-tier list) to meet an opponent halfway, while "fluff" and "casual" players like Unit1126PLL refuse to make any changes at all and insist that even the second-tier list is not enough compromising.
Unit1126PLL wrote: But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."
And my point is that your fluff is both questionable in its accuracy and obsessively specific about trivial details. You aren't just saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter", you're saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter with a +1 composite shortbow (+1 strength bonus) and full plate armor and the following specific feats and skill choices" rejecting any advice that isn't exactly the character sheet you posted. For example, rejecting the idea of using a +2 strength bonus on the bow to get more damage, because your fluff requires that it be a +1 bonus.
Yes, you're right, it is more like that. And you know what really pissed me off about 4th Edition D&D? That you couldn't play a plate-armoured archer if you wanted to, and I wanted to. It literally kept me from playing the game. Call me unreasonable, but you don't get to say what I am passionate about. I was flexible about which bow I used and my stats, however. Which to me is just like the support units I ask about: I have the "core" idea (3 Superheavy Tanks or a plate-armoured archer), and I would like to figure out how best to optimize everything around the core idea (so being told not to wear plate armour is a bit silly and irrelevant and harms the discussion more than it helps).
Peregrine wrote:
And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength.
Ok. And a 40k game is not a full-scale battle. It's either a skirmish (where a full tank company wouldn't appear), or a "snapshot" of an area of a larger battlefield. A tank company would not be deployed without any support, full strength or not, so a fluff-accurate representation of a full-strength LRBT company in a 2000 point game might be five tanks (total of ~1000 points) and various supporting infantry/aircraft/etc, with the remaining five tanks in the company "off screen" in the part of the battle happening on the adjacent table. This is exactly my point about how obsessively and unreasonably strict your "fluff" requirements are: not only do you have to exactly follow the specific units that make up your company on paper, it has to fight in the exact way you have decided and all of it must appear "on screen" at once.
Why can't it be a full-scale battle? And why can't my tanks be in the same "frame" for the ~2 minutes or whatever of battle time that the game reflects? Surely each turn is no more than 6-12 seconds of combat, given the reload speeds and fire rates of weapons? And I do support my tanks - that's literally what I was asking about for the 400-500 point leftovers for the 2k list. I don't know where you got this idea that I don't like to take support - heck, at 2500 I'll field 900-1k points of support, and at 3000, damn near half the list is supporting units. And yes, it has to fight in the exact way I have decided... because why wouldn't it? It's my army, and I get to decide how it plays, surely?
If you want my fluff rationale, it's that the regiment prefers to fight in as tight formations as possible like bomber aircraft in World War II, to support each other with overlapping fields of fire. However-much support I get is not my Company Commander's decision; he or she is instead simply allocated support (represented by the points limit of the game) and told to make do. Surely you can understand this, yes? I know you think its unreasonable, but I play the game for the fluff, so it's not unreasonable at all.
Peregrine wrote:
And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes.
Again, this is obsessively and unreasonably strict. Sponsons are built into the vehicle (for example, the original Baneblade-class rules and models had the sponsons permanently included, there was no option to omit them), and common on those tanks. But even with this obvious fluff explanation you're unwilling to compromise on even a minor detail of your fluff, everything has to be 100% perfect in every possible detail. Instead of a more reasonable compromise, that your tanks have sponsons but are always played WYSIWYG and you don't, for example, swap the HBs for HFs when fighting on a terrain-heavy table. But instead nothing at all about your choices may be changed, no matter how much it hurts you.
All my Baneblade companies have a Forge World Baneblade as the HQ tank (representing the ancient, relic Mars-pattern, since that's what they are), and the other Baneblades do in fact have sponsons in their companies. My Hellhammers, however, do not, as they were manufactured on their Forge World with thicker side armour (used to be you could trade the Sponsons for AV14 for free, though that is no longer the case) due to the particular whims of the overseeing Archmagos. My Shadowswords, on the other hand, have no set number of sponsons (as I have not yet built them or decided how to build them) so I do have to figure that out - might go with max sponsons. The "classic" Shadowsword is no help, because it had targeters instead of lascannons, and that's not really possible in 8th. I do actually play WYSIWYG whenever possible, and will field mixed companies (so, for example, I might bring a Hellhammer with no sponsons, a "classic" Baneblade with one set, and a Stormhammer with its own unique sponson configuration, to a game).
And I don't think it's obsessively or unreasonably strict. My last D&D campaign I played a character who had literally lost everything before the game started, and I voluntarily gave up all his starting gear so he could be a beggar in rags when the group found him, having been a disgraced and exiled knight. They loved the RP potential, though the party's DPS did take a hit, I admit.
EDIT: Your constant assertion that I am unwilling to compromise is flatly incorrect and I wish you'd get the message, though perhaps you're not reading: Once the core of my list is settled on, I make changes with the remaining points. Those points are completely up in the air, and can change from game to game if necessary as the Regiment rotates through warzones and battlegroups. However many points those are is entirely dependent on the game we've agreed to play, but can easily be 3/4ths of the list in an Apocalypse game, or there can be zero wiggle room in lesser games.
nou wrote: I must admit, you seem to have won a lottery and live in a worldwide centre of "out of the rut" players. To date I considered myself lucky by having a four (now sadly just three) person group and there are people like Wayniac here, that struggle to find anyone open enough to even try our route. The "host prepares the table and scenario" approach is very much what we do, including giving a brief description of such location and overall goal prior to list construction representing "vaguely reliable intel data".
The truth is that a friend of mine built it. He spent a couple years making sure everyone had contact with one another, organized events and made sure everyone was on the same page. If anyone expressed any interest in anything geeky, he got their contact info. His theory was that if GW really didn't believe that enough of their customers were into a more casual experience, they wouldn't concentrate on it so much. So the people must be out there and we just need to find them. They were. We did.
Here's the thing-- we don't just give our contact info out to anyone. And we're not game beggers who tragically search for opponents who look for the same thing as we do. We don't rail against our plight (we don't have a plight) And we never, ever (this is so important) speak negatively about the game choices of other people in person. We aren't looking for the elite few who "get it." We're looking for the normal boring majority who don't take things seriously enough to show up to tournaments or store gaming nights.
The other thing we don't do is poach from established warhammer groups who are already enjoying their thing. If we stumble across someone who also happens to be part of some other group, that's cool I guess. We will go to events organized for semi-related interests. We will run Age of Sigmar Skirmish at the local board game club.
We make new hobbyists. Or have people who used to play get back into it. How we go about doing this is sort of complex and related to the reality of having small children, but our primary source of new players are the parents of toddlers who might be friends of friends and we show up with the self contained board game equivalent of the hobby. The extroverts often have the hardest time adjusting to their less social existence when children come along and someone always has to be there while they are sleeping.
It's the same group of people among whom Dungeons and Dragons is having a serious renaissance right now. And they're probably among the main contributors to the explosion of the board game industry.
Regular attendees of store events and organized play? They already have what they are looking for. If I wanted to find the local Wayniac who is disappointed and frustrated with the nature of his scene, he's not going to be there.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, you're right, it is more like that. And you know what really pissed me off about 4th Edition D&D? That you couldn't play a plate-armoured archer if you wanted to, and I wanted to. It literally kept me from playing the game. Call me unreasonable, but you don't get to say what I am passionate about. I was flexible about which bow I used and my stats, however. Which to me is just like the support units I ask about: I have the "core" idea (3 Superheavy Tanks or a plate-armoured archer), and I would like to figure out how best to optimize everything around the core idea (so being told not to wear plate armour is a bit silly and irrelevant and harms the discussion more than it helps).
Maybe you were more flexible in D&D, but not in 40k. In 40k you're doing the equivalent of demanding that your bow must have exactly a +1 strength bonus, and that tiny detail is absolute law that can not be changed.
Why can't it be a full-scale battle?
Because a 2000 point game does not represent a full battle, nor does a 6x4 table represent the size of battlefield where a full tank company would be found.
And why can't my tanks be in the same "frame" for the ~2 minutes or whatever of battle time that the game reflects?
Because your tanks aren't all grouping together in tight formation, a full ten-tank company would be spread out across much more than a 6x4 area. Unless this is some weird (and rarely-played) scenario like "your tanks are on the parade ground showing off for the officers when the ambush strikes" you'd only have a few tanks in the area represented by a 6x4 table, and you'd have a significant amount of supporting elements visible in that area.
As a rough guideline for what would be fluffy take your full company, add in supporting elements as appropriate (at least equal points worth, probably more), and then divide that into 2000 point groups. That comes out to way more than the 25% of your list in support that you're talking about even if all your tanks are naked LRBTs and not the more expensive kind.
And yes, it has to fight in the exact way I have decided... because why wouldn't it? It's my army, and I get to decide how it plays, surely?
And that's exactly the no-compromise position I'm talking about. Your list must be exactly what you have decided, leaving the entire obligation to make list adjustments for balancing reasons on your opponent. Why should you have the exclusive privilege of setting a specific fluff list, down to obsessive tiny details about the exact weapons carried by each model, and force me to make whatever changes are necessary so that we can have an enjoyable game? Why shouldn't I be able to have the same rigidity with my list choices, and force you to make changes to meet my power level? This is a very one-sided situation you've come up with.
However-much support I get is not my Company Commander's decision; he or she is instead simply allocated support (represented by the points limit of the game) and told to make do.
No, obviously it isn't your company commander's decision, because your company commander is a plastic (resin? metal?) toy that is not capable of making decisions. You as a player, however, get to make decisions. You have chosen to make the decision that all ten tanks must appear on the table, and supporting units can only come out of the remaining points. You have chosen to reject the idea that half your company is fighting "off camera" next to the game and bring additional supporting units. And even when this choice leads to a poor experience for your opponent you insist that this decision can not be changed.
And I don't think it's obsessively or unreasonably strict. My last D&D campaign I played a character who had literally lost everything before the game started, and I voluntarily gave up all his starting gear so he could be a beggar in rags when the group found him, having been a disgraced and exiled knight. They loved the RP potential, though the party's DPS did take a hit, I admit.
And that's fortunate for you that they did, and didn't mind having to take on a higher burden of playing optimized characters to make up for your lack of contribution and avoid losing every encounter. But you could have made the alternative choice to have the exact same story background, except joining the party slightly later, after he has found appropriate gear. But again you have to represent your fluff exactly the way you have decided, even when everyone else has to change to accommodate it.
EDIT: Your constant assertion that I am unwilling to compromise is flatly incorrect
And your assertion that I am wrong is flatly incorrect. You have, over and over again, rejected the idea of making changes to any of the countless minor details that you have declared to be the "core" of your list, expanding the definition of "core" far beyond what any other person would consider reasonable. You have a long history of making posts on the theme of "my opponents are not having fun because I play a one-dimensional list, what can I do" and then rejecting any answer that doesn't involve continuing to play the same one-dimensional list.
I can't roll my eyes any harder without them hurting.
The way I view it is my regiment is my character in D&D. That means I can make changes to his gear (as that stuff can be discarded and replaced whenever) and to me that's like the support units. The core of the character (e.g. race and class) cannot be retroactively changed, because that just doesn't make sense in the fluff. I can't go back in time and recruit a Magos who is willing to make changes on the fly, nor can I alter the construction choices some Archmagos on Gavros-IV made when he produced the Hellhammers without sponsons. Those are like feats and stats, they just are and I have to make do.
I play more than 2000 points games and on tables of varying sizes and not just 6x4. The tables, in the fluff, are my "area of operations" and they are defined oftentimes in protest from my Regimental Commander. I cannot control game-table-size OOCly (usually that's limited by the store) and only have some control of the points level (as that of course requires opponent's input). So in the narrative, my regimental commander may want a bigger AO for her companies, since they're so big, and might call for more support, since they do need support to function well...
...but if the game is a 6x4 at 2000 points, then she failed to make her points. She didn't win her arguments, and so her AO is tiny for each company, and her support is almost nil. Chalk it up to an inefficient and unreasonable Imperial bureaucracy in-character, and the limitations of store and time out of character. I'm comfortable with that.
Eldarsif wrote: Ultimately the problem is that competitive is a much more solid goalpost than casual. Not really attempting to disparage casual, but casual is such a subjective goalpost that one person's casual is another person's competitive.
Generally speaking, I play games that are built towards competitive play because I find them easier to play casually. One of my favorite things about Warmachine is that the competitive standard is so prevalent that I'm often able to take my army with me when I travel; find a local game night, and get in a game with a total stranger without issue. It's "competitive" by any reasonable description, but its also the most laid back, social gaming experience you can get because the players are naturally speaking the same language.
Unit1126PLL, I am honestly starting to question if you are having trouble separating fiction and reality. Your plastic toys did not make decisions, YOU made decisions. You as a player take responsibility for those choices, and you as a player can modify the choices you have made if they don't work out well (just like how, in D&D, you would replace a feat choice if it turned out to break the game). You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together, and your poor commander can only have her battlefield changed, not be told that she is to split her force across two smaller battlefields and not get to keep all ten tanks in tight parade-ground formation. You as a player have made the choice to discard every possible fluff modification that would make the game more enjoyable for your opponent, and insist that every single fluff decision you have made is absolute and unchangeable law. Don't blame your plastic toys for these choices.
I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.
Peregrine wrote: Unit1126PLL, I am honestly starting to question if you are having trouble separating fiction and reality. Your plastic toys did not make decisions, YOU made decisions. You as a player take responsibility for those choices, and you as a player can modify the choices you have made if they don't work out well (just like how, in D&D, you would replace a feat choice if it turned out to break the game). You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together, and your poor commander can only have her battlefield changed, not be told that she is to split her force across two smaller battlefields and not get to keep all ten tanks in tight parade-ground formation. You as a player have made the choice to discard every possible fluff modification that would make the game more enjoyable for your opponent, and insist that every single fluff decision you have made is absolute and unchangeable law. Don't blame your plastic toys for these choices.
I'm not blaming them, I'm showing you my fluff justifications. If you want OOC justifications, then I'll say "I enjoy it, and if my opponent's don't, then I'll change, but I won't enjoy it, and will eventually vent somewhere."
If you ask why I enjoy it that way, all I can do is shrug. Call me insufficiently introspective, but I don't really analyze why I enjoy things; I just accept the emotions and roll on. So essentially my OOC justification for doing it the way I do it is "I enjoy it." Doing so differently means "I don't enjoy it." I'm sorry that those are subjective valuations and don't hold up to logical analysis, but surely you can recognize there's still value in doing what you enjoy when performing your own hobby?
Peregrine wrote: You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together
This is a very good point.
As someone who loves it when the rules are evocative and sees the gaming table like an RPG where everyone is a GM, thinking about it like a film maker really speaks to me. You've got to have scenes where the whole company is there, but the ones that zoom in on particular individuals or small groups are super important if you want to have a good mental movie of your fiction.
Peregrine wrote: You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together
This is a very good point.
As someone who loves it when the rules are evocative and sees the gaming table like an RPG where everyone is a GM, thinking about it like a film maker really speaks to me. You've got to have scenes where the whole company is there, but the ones that zoom in on particular individuals or small groups are super important if you want to have a good mental movie of your fiction.
This is usually what I do for smaller point games. Obviously, my core doesn't fit at 500, 1000, 1250, or even 1500 (depending on the company I want to bring), so I usually bring one and some support. The best examples of the fluff in action are when I play with an allied Imperium player; usually I can bring one superheavy, some goons in a Trojan from the rest of the supreme command, and then fill in the points with the support units of my choice to make a 1000 point army to play alongside another 1000 point army in a team game. That way, it's one superheavy with friends and an allied commander, which I think is the pinnacle of fluff.
But team games are rarer than I'd like.
EDIT: Another 1000 point army that's super fun for me to play (but loses a lot) is my Regimental Commander and her retinue/support units riding in the regimental command vehicle. It's a fun gaggle of models, inspired by the artwork of the game, and includes her war-dog (the Forge World cyber-mastiff), though he's just a chainsword-armed command squad guardsman in this edition, and her bodyguards and whatnot. It's fun & fluffy and fits in 1000 points, though I usually have to think long and hard about why my regimental commander would show up to a battle. If it's against GSC or something I can usually get away with saying they targeted her with an ambush, but it can get weird against certain army constructions.
auticus wrote: I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.
That's not entirely the case. I play the vast majority of my games with a relatively small group of friends. Pick up games aren't super common; its just exciting to be able to play the same game when they happen. Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.
nou wrote: I must admit, you seem to have won a lottery and live in a worldwide centre of "out of the rut" players. To date I considered myself lucky by having a four (now sadly just three) person group and there are people like Wayniac here, that struggle to find anyone open enough to even try our route. The "host prepares the table and scenario" approach is very much what we do, including giving a brief description of such location and overall goal prior to list construction representing "vaguely reliable intel data".
The truth is that a friend of mine built it. He spent a couple years making sure everyone had contact with one another, organized events and made sure everyone was on the same page. If anyone expressed any interest in anything geeky, he got their contact info. His theory was that if GW really didn't believe that enough of their customers were into a more casual experience, they wouldn't concentrate on it so much. So the people must be out there and we just need to find them. They were. We did.
Here's the thing-- we don't just give our contact info out to anyone. And we're not game beggers who tragically search for opponents who look for the same thing as we do. We don't rail against our plight (we don't have a plight) And we never, ever (this is so important) speak negatively about the game choices of other people in person. We aren't looking for the elite few who "get it." We're looking for the normal boring majority who don't take things seriously enough to show up to tournaments or store gaming nights.
The other thing we don't do is poach from established warhammer groups who are already enjoying their thing. If we stumble across someone who also happens to be part of some other group, that's cool I guess. We will go to events organized for semi-related interests. We will run Age of Sigmar Skirmish at the local board game club.
We make new hobbyists. Or have people who used to play get back into it. How we go about doing this is sort of complex and related to the reality of having small children, but our primary source of new players are the parents of toddlers who might be friends of friends and we show up with the self contained board game equivalent of the hobby. The extroverts often have the hardest time adjusting to their less social existence when children come along and someone always has to be there while they are sleeping.
It's the same group of people among whom Dungeons and Dragons is having a serious renaissance right now. And they're probably among the main contributors to the explosion of the board game industry.
Regular attendees of store events and organized play? They already have what they are looking for. If I wanted to find the local Wayniac who is disappointed and frustrated with the nature of his scene, he's not going to be there.
Pretty similiar story here, the main difference being it was me who introduced few boardgamers into 40K (I was able to make introductory games with my long shelved 2nd ed Eldar collection) but it was a bit of luck to actually meet those people in the first place and seizing the opportunate moment. Having time and means to make elaborate terrain and having a place for seting it up comfortably helped with that immensely. That is another reason why such groups might attract more aged players - we simply have the space and money to be FLGS independent...
auticus wrote: I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.
Could very well be a factor.
I am lucky that the scene I am in is rather good so it isn't hard to get a game going and our FLGS has several tables and ton of terrain for us. On top of that I have my own setup at home if I want to chill out with my besties. The scene here ain't WAAC, but it can be considered slightly competitive by some of the commenters here. However, I have not found that to lessen my enjoyment and people are always willing to try out scenarios and interesting stuff. If anything I have found some of the competitive people here use a lot of interesting lists as they test out varying synergies on the field.
For the record I haven't seen much spam in the local group(except for the lulz or when Scatter Bikes ruled all), but people will not refrain from using strong units. You will see Dark Reapers, Mortarion, Guilliman, Shining Spears, and so on on the tables.
auticus wrote: I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.
That's not entirely the case. I play the vast majority of my games with a relatively small group of friends. Pick up games aren't super common; its just exciting to be able to play the same game when they happen. Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.
This has been my experience with competitive people in many ways. Unless it is some WAAC net-list user competitive people try out different things in search of hidden combos and jewels.
LunarSol wrote: Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.
This is *the* attitude to have.
The problem is when people get disappointed by how they think things *should* work rather than accepting the way they actually do. Then there's a mismatch between their chosen way to play and their own interests. When people can't accept that what they have built is weak and see games against overwhelming odds as a bad thing rather than accepting the challenge they present.
It's like the mindset is separate from the mode of play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Pretty similiar story here, the main difference being it was me who introduced few boardgamers into 40K (I was able to make introductory games with my long shelved 2nd ed Eldar collection) but it was a bit of luck to actually meet those people in the first place and seizing the opportunate moment. Having time and means to make elaborate terrain and having a place for seting it up comfortably helped with that immensely. That is another reason why such groups might attract more aged players - we simply have the space and money to be FLGS independent...
It's why I think games like Necromunda, Shadespire and Sigmar Skirmish are so important to finding new players. They let people have the space to play in a smaller area with less models and terrain.
One I think I do, which might seem crazy, is that I ask about the social situation of any parent that talks about their young children. I ask how they are finding their social lives with children of whatever age they are and talk about how we get together regularly to play board games and games like them and that if either of them is interested, they're welcome. Or maybe some of us can come by and bring a game some time.
Marmatag wrote: So if competitive 40k is ruining 40k for you
Competitive 40k is in no way ruining 40k for me.
I just prefer a different subset of the 40k experience and make sure that any potential opponent and I come to an understanding before we play.
Understood. So, this thread was a bit derailed by my own misunderstanding. The title of the thread is basically framed around competitive being bad and ruining 40k. I assumed you were coming from this position. My mistake - apologies.
I will say that when you're branching out and trying to meet new people playing 40k the easiest way to do this is with a standard ruleset that you both acknowledge and understand. I've actually made more friends playing in ITC tournaments than in casual games. I've seen worse characters in tournaments than casual games, but that's just how it goes when you run into people who have social / developmental issues, which kind of what you get with this hobby.
My personal experience is that casual games usually lead to some crossfire of "oh you brought that," or "oh you're using that stratagem," with a negative tone, because it's considered "too strong" for casual play. It's really incredibly difficult to nail this down. That's part of the reason tournaments are nice. This sentiment should not exist, and anyone who has it needs to check their ego at the door. The game isn't balanced, and you will lose games even if you're the Steven Hawking of 40k, deal with it.
Played a casual multiplayer game and someone brought 3 razorbacks. One opponent says, "Oh, razorbacks really? Three counts as SPAM." The razorback guy doesn't play competitive and had no idea what the heck was going on. He got stomped horribly anyway, because he's not a great player in the first place, just likes to play for fun. He just happens to have 3 razorbacks, and he brought them. Ultimately everyone walked away from the game kind of on edge, it was a tense and difficult experience.
auticus wrote: I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.
Possibly for those in very populous areas. Around here the faces don't change much.
I will say that when you're branching out and trying to meet new people playing 40k the easiest way to do this is with a standard ruleset that you both acknowledge and understand. I've actually made more friends playing in ITC tournaments than in casual games.
This I totally get. A common denominator of all the tournament related podcasts I listen to is that they have great experiences and make great friends.
My personal experience is that casual games usually lead to some crossfire of "oh you brought that," or "oh you're using that stratagem," with a negative tone, because it's considered "too strong" for casual play. It's really incredibly difficult to nail this down. That's part of the reason tournaments are nice. This sentiment should not exist, and anyone who has it needs to check their ego at the door.
Absolutely. The ego thing is also why I advocate intentionally playing unfair scenarios. So people can get used to the opponent doing such obviously powerful things without being negative about it. Taking half the points your opponent is taking is about cultivating a mindset. And learning how to find the fun in a variety of game circumstances. Actually it's also a useful one for competitive players too as being willing to try taking "bad" units and then losing can be part of discovering hidden gems and playing uphill battles can really tighten up ones tactical play skills. And it will help with the mental game when things go wrong at an event and you lose half your army in an early turn and have to suddenly deal with what has effectively become a "Death or Glory" or "Hold at all Costs" scenario.
Those with undefined specifications that they're expecting others to somehow know through mind reading aren't really relaxed people. They'd be poor opponents in any game. Instead of playing the actual game, they want you to limit yourself to their choices. At least the person insisting on an equal points matched play game by the book has an actually understandable standard. Which was a point you had raised earlier.
If those were the sorts of people I had to deal with then for sure I'd insist on fixed points matched play. Trying to match someone's unspoken requirements is crazy. In that situation, I would save the custom scenarios and the departure from the match play standard for gamers that I know I can trust. I find though that setting up the open and trusting vibe from the get go seems to work. That's not going to work with some random person who already has a strong opinion of what the game "should be" that you're supposed to guess.
If you need to the rules to protect you from a given opponent, it's probably best to just decline the game in general. Or make sure the game is part of a larger event like a tournament where you have some recourse to the TO or judges if you meet a truly horrible player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: Honestly, for me the thing that ruins 40k is ... and "not your dudes" reduction of options.
Is this like where if the model with a weapon load out isn't currently sold it can disappear from the next codex? Even though people might have built their own during a time when the codex included the option? Or is it something else?
We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.
Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.
Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.
My last game was Open War, and inadvertently we drew a nightmare scenario for me. Marines start in the middle of the board, surrounded by Tyranids, couldn't see beyond 12", and I couldn't maneuver much because he can "burn" my objective counters and automatically win.
Effin great game though! One of the most memorable in recent times for me.
Chamberlain wrote: Is this like where if the model with a weapon load out isn't currently sold it can disappear from the next codex? Even though people might have built their own during a time when the codex included the option? Or is it something else?
We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.
Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.
Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.
It's not just the removal of options, but the overall message it sends, alongside new options being made more "statically-posed"/restrictive in their loadout implementation (For example, there realistically is no balance reason that a Primaris Captain can only take a Power Sword rather than any other specific option; it's just due to the model in question). For me, 40k is half a competitive game/gentleman's duel (two people enter with an army, one emerges the victor), and half a "build your force/tell your story" game. For the first aspect I have to ask "why am I playing 40k instead of Starcraft" and for the second aspect I have to ask "why am I collecting Citadel plastics instead of LEGO" (or doing some other creative endeavor, like amateur blacksmith/lapidary craftsmanship).
There was a Facebook thread awhile ago that asked why the Eldar Codex did not have the option for the Autarch to have a Banshee Mask or a Reaper Launcher, and the answer was "we didn't want new players to have to kitbash/convert in order to gain access to options. That was not cool on our part." It sets off the part of my brain that thinks of Harrison Bergeron and leveling the playing field by removing the incentive to try going outside the box.
For my part I'm happy to no longer need to scratch-build, buy a second box, upgrade sprue or buy third party bits in order to have the weapon load-out I need.
The boxes should just come with all the options. Especially for characters this is very easy to do.
Chamberlain wrote: We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.
Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.
Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.
I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?
Chamberlain wrote: We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.
Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.
Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.
I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?
You're confusing "open minded and varied" with "fluff-driven". Sometimes it is the fluff that dictates a list or scenario, sometimes it's a particular flavour of a game. And sometimes such flavour is unachievable "by the rules". For example, for a long, long time, there was no official way to field an all-wraith construct army. You might defend a fluff-based notion, that wraith constructs need living Eldar units to operate (present in the fluff since 2nd ed), but a lot of people fancy pure construct army aesthetics, where a single Spirit Seer simply pain the eyes and there is no other reason needed really to allow Wraithseers or Wraitlords to lead such armies.
Also, "bypassing a restriction to make stronger list" shows basic misunderstanding how the concept of relative list building works in groups like Chamberlain's or mine - you can pretty much play any power level and have a great "relaxed experience" with it, as long as the rest of the scenario and opposing army are prepared accordingly. You can even fit strong alpha-strike lists in this mindset as long as scenario or terrain are desinged to hinder that ability enough to actually let the game last more that two turns and have meaningfull goals for both sides.
It may shock you a bit, but I pretty much never play a single list more than one session (2-4 games usually) and my collection is driven by variety of possible interesting/thematic builds, not by pure strenght considerations. You can have an engaging and demanding encounter prepared for weak Storm Guardian centric build or for strong Ynnari build and both of them will require equal amount of in-game thinking skill if you just prepare a game properly.
Jidmah wrote: For my part I'm happy to no longer need to scratch-build, buy a second box, upgrade sprue or buy third party bits in order to have the weapon load-out I need.
The boxes should just come with all the options. Especially for characters this is very easy to do.
Me too, even though I have to admit scratch building stuff can be a lot of fun, and I'd absolutely hate collecting armies with no customization.
But I'd rather rely on kitbashing and having more options available than having only a few options on the table because the box came with those bitz and we must decide what to glue only chosing from those few bitz.
I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?
My personal approach to list building is to do what seems cool in terms of models. Fiction would be part of that.
I see the 40k background as a sandbox to play in ràther than holy writ. I think the restrictions on primaris not fitting in land raiders while custodes can to be ridiculous. Similarly I find the idea that chapters wouldn't give primaris marines flamers or heavy bolters to be a bit unbelievable as well.
Also, a primaris with a missile launcher sort of sucks compared to more efficient form of heavy weapon delivery. A primaris dev squad might actually be worse than both regular dev squads or hellblaster squads. So I might actually be making things weaker.
Even if this is slightly stronger the power of the list is going to be nothing compared to a list built with the goal of being as strong as possible.
You're confusing "open minded and varied" with "fluff-driven".
Primaris had a "this is what marines should have always been like!" impression on me. So I just sort of ran with that feeling and combined it with my enjoyment of the original tactical, assault, devastator breakdown. It certainly wasn't a result of adherence to fluff.
Trying to win is only natural right? Even in casual gaming club, if you only bring a fluffy army and lose and loose and loose again, you're gonna be pissed. You're gonna tweak up your list and try to win. Others will fellow. An arms race will build up.
No my real problem about all things GW is that armies are never balanced. Points costs pop out of i don't know what (i assume its to make 1000pts-2000pts round list easier), but you get often XXX pts stuff that is far inferior to another ennemy same XXX pts cost. Even intra-factions, there are always auto-include and auto-crap that only rotate between editions.
I understand balancing 300+ different models is tough, but when you look at videogames, patch after patch after patch the companies are balancing their stuff. I feel like GW is not even trying, that's not thier goal.
And of course IF you want to play competitive, Chaos, GW prefered baby, will always be at least okay. Orks or other legacy fantasy factions - not always.
Da W wrote: Trying to win is only natural right? Even in casual gaming club, if you only bring a fluffy army and lose and loose and loose again, you're gonna be pissed. You're gonna tweak up your list and try to win. Others will fellow. An arms race will build up.
No my real problem about all things GW is that armies are never balanced. Points costs pop out of i don't know what (i assume its to make 1000pts-2000pts round list easier), but you get often XXX pts stuff that is far inferior to another ennemy same XXX pts cost. Even intra-factions, there are always auto-include and auto-crap that only rotate between editions.
I understand balancing 300+ different models is tough, but when you look at videogames, patch after patch after patch the companies are balancing their stuff. I feel like GW is not even trying, that's not thier goal.
And of course IF you want to play competitive, Chaos, GW prefered baby, will always be at least okay. Orks or other legacy fantasy factions - not always.
You can certainly say that before 8th GW didn't care.
They seem to be taking a very different approach now tho and they are actually making changes to try and achieve a better balance.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now based on their actions since the Launch of 8th. We will see how it holds up in the future.
Blackie wrote: Me too, even though I have to admit scratch building stuff can be a lot of fun, and I'd absolutely hate collecting armies with no customization.
This is not what is happening though.
I recently started death guard, which is made up of all those dreaded mono-pose models, easy to build kits and vehicles without and weapon choices.
Guess what? The models still look awesome (better than most multi-pose kits), and between ETB box, starter sets, plague brethren, the two characters and the regular plague marine box, there are 22 unique bodies just for plague marines. I doubt I have seen that many different loyalist marines in my life. The ETB terminators plus the normal box are 8 unique terminator bodies and there are 16 unique pox walker models.
You can probably make at least twice as many unique models with easy conversions like head and arm swaps.
The blight hauler has taken some flakk for being a model without any customization. But in reality, all my trukks loot the same as well, and almost all trukks I have ever seen in real life or on photos like like my trukks.
So does it really matter if the trukk has an option for rokkits or not?
s about how "casual" is the one morally acceptable way to play the game, and everyone else is 
