Winning with the same list repeatedly on the contrary could be the sign that you have mastered playing that list, have developed a mature battleplan/playbook for it, and feel comfortable taking it against a wide variety of forces.
What would be hollow would be an assured win against an army despite what forces they bring, or armies having gakky mirror matches. Eldar vs Eldar in 5th was a hilarious example of army-design fail in that regard.
-Most of their ranged weapons were S6. Most everything S8 or up was hilariously overcosted (and BS 3).
-Their tanks were AV 12.
-It was almost impossible to glance a vehicle to death.
Thus, aside from your two (three tops) units of Fire Dragons that you could piece-trade with your opponent's tanks, the best way for Eldar to kill Eldar was to Ram each other.
MagicJuggler wrote: Winning with the same list repeatedly on the contrary could be the sign that you have mastered playing that list, have developed a mature battleplan/playbook for it, and feel comfortable taking it against a wide variety of forces.
What would be hollow would be an assured win against an army despite what forces they bring, or armies having gakky mirror matches. Eldar vs Eldar in 5th was a hilarious example of army-design fail in that regard.
-Most of their ranged weapons were S6. Most everything S8 or up was hilariously overcosted (and BS 3).
-Their tanks were AV 12.
-It was almost impossible to glance a vehicle to death.
Thus, aside from your two (three tops) units of Fire Dragons that you could piece-trade with your opponent's tanks, the best way for Eldar to kill Eldar was to Ram each other.
That would require it to be some kind of list with the unit depth to make it function as some kind of take all comers device, rather than a skew list you copied off the internet, ebayed the models for, and spray-primed three colors in the hopes that you end up encountering a higher fraction of auto-win matchups than auto-loss matchups in the tournament you're taking it to play for the first time.
Andykp wrote: The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.
Then you've missed the point.
No, I really haven't. If I play a game of Tennis, do I deliberately use a racket with no strings because using strings is for tryhards who want to win?
If I play a game of Chess, do I just move my king out into the open because using your queen is for tryhards.
Spoiler:
Well... Chess / Tic Tac Toe / Tennis are not exactly the same as 40k.
I take suboptimal units for lots of reasons.
- I don't have the points for the optimal units and don't want my list clocking in at 100 points under the limit.
- I want to experiment with new list ideas and sometimes it takes a series of games to work out what I should be doing.
- Not everyone at my FLGS is a competitive player and I don't exactly want to flatten everyone I play.
- I brought the wrong carrying case and need to put something on the table.
- I find reasons to question everyone else's opinions and decide to throw caution to the wind, because experience is the great teacher.
- Sometimes my pillow gets lumpy and I yearn for more fluff in my day.
MagicJuggler wrote: Winning with the same list repeatedly on the contrary could be the sign that you have mastered playing that list, have developed a mature battleplan/playbook for it, and feel comfortable taking it against a wide variety of forces.
What would be hollow would be an assured win against an army despite what forces they bring, or armies having gakky mirror matches. Eldar vs Eldar in 5th was a hilarious example of army-design fail in that regard.
-Most of their ranged weapons were S6. Most everything S8 or up was hilariously overcosted (and BS 3).
-Their tanks were AV 12.
-It was almost impossible to glance a vehicle to death.
Thus, aside from your two (three tops) units of Fire Dragons that you could piece-trade with your opponent's tanks, the best way for Eldar to kill Eldar was to Ram each other.
That would require it to be some kind of list with the unit depth to make it function as some kind of take all comers device, rather than a skew list you copied off the internet, ebayed the models for, and spray-primed three colors in the hopes that you end up encountering a higher fraction of auto-win matchups than auto-loss matchups in the tournament you're taking it to play for the first time.
And that's where the devil is in the details: Rule of Three or not, an army needs coherent design and purpose behind every option, or else you end up with "the codex that works" and the "rest of the codex that doesn't." When dealing with issues like "the army's main anti-tank is concentrated in one slot," this instantly overrules such trivial discussions like the relative merits (or more accurately, lack of them) of Banshees, Scorpions, and Harlequins.
the_scotsman wrote: Doesn't that allow you to prove your towering intellectual superiority over the subhuman plebian scrubs across the table from you in a variety of different ways, thus enhancing the natural thrill of the winning experience?
I think their towering intellectual superiority would prefer us subhuman plebeian scrubs weren't allowed to play.
Ever.
Just to stroke their ego further.
ValentineGames wrote: While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
So, we're in agreement. Players who bring weak lists should stop expecting everyone else to match their level, stop insulting anyone who brings a stronger list, and improve their lists (and skill) to the point that they can win against stronger players/lists?
How can you defend at the same time that the game sucks and most people only play because it is what his or her group plays, and they like the fluff and the models (Yourself included) and then go and say that people should just bring the most OP stuff and git gud to win, ignoring any other reason to build their armies that isn't strictly based in how powerfull they are?
And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage. Theres a reason why in most games (And videogames) people don't even like to watch the finals, or the high ranking matches, because they become a crapfest of spamming X special attack, using the same characters/strategies all the time, etc... and that happens in everything, from warhammer 40k, to Infinity, to Streeth Figther, to For Honor, to League of Legends, to Starcraft, etc... and most people just prefer to watch matches of competitive players that auto limit themselves to a style of play that is based on skill and using normal tactics/heroes/lists/etc...
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Alternately, grey areas mean the rules weren't properly playtested. The Shooting Shuttle drop in Starcraft was an unintended interaction that was ultimately considered "legal" until Blizzard patched it. Ditto transporting a War Convocation in allied Drop Pods until that was also FAQed.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Alternately, grey areas mean the rules weren't properly playtested. The Shooting Shuttle drop in Starcraft was an unintended interaction that was ultimately considered "legal" until Blizzard patched it. Ditto transporting a War Convocation in allied Drop Pods until that was also FAQed.
Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "cheat", I was talking about your example, MagicJuggler. Thats what being competitive is all about, find the exploits, use them to your advantage until they are fixed. And thats a more glaring issue the higher you go in the rankings.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage. Theres a reason why in most games (And videogames) people don't even like to watch the finals, or the high ranking matches, because they become a crapfest of spamming X special attack, using the same characters/strategies all the time, etc... and that happens in everything, from warhammer 40k, to Infinity, to Streeth Figther, to For Honor, to League of Legends, to Starcraft, etc... and most people just prefer to watch matches of competitive players that auto limit themselves to a style of play that is based on skill and using normal tactics/heroes/lists/etc...
This is a very sweeping critique of video games that are not obviously that similar.
For me at least the general issue of whether something is fun to watch is the skill involved and whether that is interactive.
Street Fighter or Quake for instance are usually not very interactive. The skill set is very limited - so the winner tends to be the person who is fractionally faster than their opponent. This is a skill - but its not really a great one to watch. (Then again people go mad for the 100 meters at say the Olympics, and arguably that's similar).
I like watching StarCraft - because micro and macro are skills. You can't "cheat" the game to win. You have to be better. Now you might think a 5 minute all in is cheese - but its a viable strategy, and one your opponent can guard against. Everything that happens in the game is a choice, you can't look back on a tournament, with games, and say "X would have won if it wasn't for the dice gods."
By contrast I find something like hearthstone to be tedious. I don't care how pro you are - you are playing the same cards, with the same locked in abilities, in the same way as anyone else. The trick is to count cards, play the odds and then "get lucky" with draws or rng effects. This isn't as easy as it sounds - but its not really rocket science. This is why I find say MTG fun to play - but the idea of taking it extremely seriously is a bit ridiculous. This isn't to say there isn't skill - you can play to lose - but I don't think the gap between the great and merely good is sufficient. Luck & list building are the main determinants in how any given hand turns out. (Someone who plays this obsessively may now explain how I am wrong, but I am not convinced.)
40k is kind of in the middle. Players like to believe its a skill based game - that they are winning matches due to making a meaningful choices in game rather than being luckier at dice. I am not totally sure this is the case - although again you can play to lose so by definition you can play well. Games determined at the list building stage however remove any illusion of skill and this is why spam or skewed lists are bad.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Alternately, grey areas mean the rules weren't properly playtested. The Shooting Shuttle drop in Starcraft was an unintended interaction that was ultimately considered "legal" until Blizzard patched it. Ditto transporting a War Convocation in allied Drop Pods until that was also FAQed.
Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "cheat", I was talking about your example, MagicJuggler. Thats what being competitive is all about, find the exploits, use them to your advantage until they are fixed. And thats a more glaring issue the higher you go in the rankings.
Ideally, it could just mean planning several moves ahead of your opponent, but then that's idealism talking.
Anyway, back on-topic, Rule of three=bandaid. Alternatives require more coherent army design.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Alternately, grey areas mean the rules weren't properly playtested. The Shooting Shuttle drop in Starcraft was an unintended interaction that was ultimately considered "legal" until Blizzard patched it. Ditto transporting a War Convocation in allied Drop Pods until that was also FAQed.
Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "cheat", I was talking about your example, MagicJuggler. Thats what being competitive is all about, find the exploits, use them to your advantage until they are fixed. And thats a more glaring issue the higher you go in the rankings.
Ideally, it could just mean planning several moves ahead of your opponent, but then that's idealism talking.
Anyway, back on-topic, Rule of three=bandaid. Alternatives require more coherent army design.
Actually, this is a very interesting point with relation to the Rule of Three.
Exploit is a weird word to use as a noun, at least with relation to 40k. I can exploit legal options within the rules to my advantage, but I can't really find an exploit to abuse the rules the way I could with a server - which would mean to get it to operate in an unintended manner.
Game designers put a certain amount of work into coming up with a ruleset that satisfies all parties. They don't consider every possible combination of events, and it's clear they make some guesses about what will lead to a fun and enjoyable game. But I don't get the sense they intend the rules to work a certain way. To some extent they do, but there's a limit to what they can foresee prior to letting the rules loose to hundreds of thousands of people. It's more like they say, here's a bunch of rules, do what you will with them and we will try to fix the most egregious errors we come across.
This invites a lot of scrutiny over how the rules actually work and different combinations that lead to the best outcomes. Everyone wants to find some advantage running their army a certain way, and there is no single list that leads to victory 100% of the time. While not everything has a hard counter, dice rolls are still random.
I was pointing out that the Rule of Three inordinately affects Xenos armies in that Imperial and Chaos armies have a lot of redundant options in the Forgeworld Indexes. There's very little difference between a CSM Predator and a Hellforged Predator, so you can get away with taking 3 of each. It's debatable whether this matters unless Predators are considered something that would give you an overwhelming advantage on the tabletop (I personally think 6 laspreds is very tough against most armies, but I wouldn't call it an overwhelming advantage.)
Flyrants / Dark Reapers - these units are very efficient in terms of price and performance on the tabletop. Other than named HQs, I'm not aware of anything in the Imperial warchest that comes close, and there's other Xenos units I could point at to say there's a problem.
I get the sense there's a tug of war when it comes to Xenos Codexes. Game designers want to make them distinct from IoM / Chaos armies, but they run into limits based on available models / product release cycles / actual market interest. So the way they make them distinct is by fiddling with the mechanics of the game - some Xenos shoot farther, some Xenos are choppier, some Xenos are more psychic, etc. Army lists tend to reflect these choices.
i think the Rule of Three is really just there as a limit to the fiddling by games designers. They recognize how they differentiate Xenos armies, they recognize they don't always know how it will affect the game, and they don't want their lack of insight to dominate competition. It's a failsafe for game design practices moreso than a limitation on players. And it would be wrong to say competitive players are breaking the game or using rules other than how they were intended. If there's not a lot of intent on the game designers part, and the way they manage risk is failsafes, it would be more accurate to say competitive players are playing it exactly as intended (i.e. the rest of us have a lot left to figure out.)
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
Alternately, grey areas mean the rules weren't properly playtested. The Shooting Shuttle drop in Starcraft was an unintended interaction that was ultimately considered "legal" until Blizzard patched it. Ditto transporting a War Convocation in allied Drop Pods until that was also FAQed.
Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "cheat", I was talking about your example, MagicJuggler. Thats what being competitive is all about, find the exploits, use them to your advantage until they are fixed. And thats a more glaring issue the higher you go in the rankings.
Ideally, it could just mean planning several moves ahead of your opponent, but then that's idealism talking.
Anyway, back on-topic, Rule of three=bandaid. Alternatives require more coherent army design.
Actually, this is a very interesting point with relation to the Rule of Three.
Exploit is a weird word to use as a noun, at least with relation to 40k. I can exploit legal options within the rules to my advantage, but I can't really find an exploit to abuse the rules the way I could with a server - which would mean to get it to operate in an unintended manner.
Game designers put a certain amount of work into coming up with a ruleset that satisfies all parties. They don't consider every possible combination of events, and it's clear they make some guesses about what will lead to a fun and enjoyable game. But I don't get the sense they intend the rules to work a certain way. To some extent they do, but there's a limit to what they can foresee prior to letting the rules loose to hundreds of thousands of people. It's more like they say, here's a bunch of rules, do what you will with them and we will try to fix the most egregious errors we come across.
This invites a lot of scrutiny over how the rules actually work and different combinations that lead to the best outcomes. Everyone wants to find some advantage running their army a certain way, and there is no single list that leads to victory 100% of the time. While not everything has a hard counter, dice rolls are still random.
I was pointing out that the Rule of Three inordinately affects Xenos armies in that Imperial and Chaos armies have a lot of redundant options in the Forgeworld Indexes. There's very little difference between a CSM Predator and a Hellforged Predator, so you can get away with taking 3 of each. It's debatable whether this matters unless Predators are considered something that would give you an overwhelming advantage on the tabletop (I personally think 6 laspreds is very tough against most armies, but I wouldn't call it an overwhelming advantage.)
Flyrants / Dark Reapers - these units are very efficient in terms of price and performance on the tabletop. Other than named HQs, I'm not aware of anything in the Imperial warchest that comes close, and there's other Xenos units I could point at to say there's a problem.
I get the sense there's a tug of war when it comes to Xenos Codexes. Game designers want to make them distinct from IoM / Chaos armies, but they run into limits based on available models / product release cycles / actual market interest. So the way they make them distinct is by fiddling with the mechanics of the game - some Xenos shoot farther, some Xenos are choppier, some Xenos are more psychic, etc. Army lists tend to reflect these choices.
i think the Rule of Three is really just there as a limit to the fiddling by games designers. They recognize how they differentiate Xenos armies, they recognize they don't always know how it will affect the game, and they don't want their lack of insight to dominate competition. It's a failsafe for game design practices moreso than a limitation on players. And it would be wrong to say competitive players are breaking the game or using rules other than how they were intended. If there's not a lot of intent on the game designers part, and the way they manage risk is failsafes, it would be more accurate to say competitive players are playing it exactly as intended (i.e. the rest of us have a lot left to figure out.)
But how much of this "xenos vs imperium" stuff is you just seeing certain chaos/imperial options more often and getting used to them vs them being actually that drastically different?
The rules for, for example, Necrons, Tyranids, and Orks are arguably far less outlandish than the rules for Death Guard, Daemons, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights or Adeptus Mechanicus. The Eldar factions have some pretty wacky stuff, but Daemons are far more complex to deal with than, say, Harlequins, with their army split in four, a huge number of different units and characters, different loci and banners and summoning.
The only xenos codexes I'd say contain really truly unique mechanics that are really tough to understand and deal with are Tau, Eldar, and Drukhari.
-Necrons have res protocols, and quantum shielding. Those are pretty much their two actually unique mechanics. Their weapons are on the whole quite basic, their stats are consistent through the codex, their army traits are easily understood.
-Orks have mob rule. That's the only thing that's actually truly unique. Other factions have equivalents to "ere we go" and if it takes you over 2 seconds to grasp it....well, then 40k might not be for you.
-Nids have synapse, which is such a massive non-factor in 8th I hesitate to call it a mechanic.
-GSC have cult ambush, which is one table you have to explain. Besides that they use very basic stat-swap weapons for the most part, and share stuff with familiar imperial weaponry.
heck, just look at the unique stuff that Guard has in relation to other factions. Each army trait has two different effects, you've got tanks that fire twice, commissars that can execute infantrymen, orders (with unique orders for each regiment), several different units that use the same models (vets, Special weapon teams, command squads, infantry squads, conscripts....)
You're just used to seeing the imperials more commonly.
Andykp wrote: Games workshop is trying to make a game that is good for everyone who plays it not just u.
Making a well-designed and well-balanced game benefits everyone.
If they had really restrictive army selection rules like in 5th then it wouldn’t be as good a game for me.
Why not? It forced you to take fluffy armies instead of spamming the most efficient thing and/or making absurd soup lists. And it coincidentally made it easier to balance the game, making it more likely that a fluff player would have a fun game against a random opponent instead of requiring unwritten "you can't spam that too much" rules and shunning anyone who has fun in a way that you don't approve of.
And of course even in 5th edition if you had a really cool army idea that didn't fit the FOC you could always ask your opponent to allow it. And if it was a genuinely interesting and fluff-driven list most people would probably allow it outside of a tournament. The problem is that most people who talk about their "fluff" lists that they need to remove the FOC to accommodate don't actually have a very compelling fluff idea and nobody really wants to see it. The only way to get to play their "fluff" armies is to change the army construction rules to "take whatever you want" and be able to fall back on "THIS IS A 100% LEGAL LIST YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT" when people point out that no, it isn't a very fluffy or interesting idea.
I’m not saying you’re having fun the wrong way, I’m saying you are not having fun at all.
That's a rather arrogant thing to say, accusing people of lying about having fun. What makes you think you know better than everyone else about what they enjoy?
As I said the game is balanced
No it isn't. In fact you admit that it isn't every time you mention having to refuse to play against someone who spams too much overpowered stuff or complain about tournament players making optimized tournament lists. You can't have it both ways, if those things are happening then it's because the game isn't balanced.
I know this because I play it and we have no balance issues because our group has internal balance.
"We voluntarily agree not to exploit any of the unbalanced things" and "the game is balanced" are not at all the same thing.
It’s like tax avoidance, it’s legal buts it doesn’t make it right. Google and amazon are still d@cks for doing it.
Nice moral high ground there. I could say the same thing about you, playing competitive and optimized lists is the right way to play the game and your "fluff" games are abuse of the rules. It's legal to play with your "fluff" lists but that doesn't make it right.
Once again, this only creates fluffy armies in YOUR mind.
the_scotsman wrote: But how much of this "xenos vs imperium" stuff is you just seeing certain chaos/imperial options more often and getting used to them vs them being actually that drastically different?
The rules for, for example, Necrons, Tyranids, and Orks are arguably far less outlandish than the rules for Death Guard, Daemons, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights or Adeptus Mechanicus. The Eldar factions have some pretty wacky stuff, but Daemons are far more complex to deal with than, say, Harlequins, with their army split in four, a huge number of different units and characters, different loci and banners and summoning.
The only xenos codexes I'd say contain really truly unique mechanics that are really tough to understand and deal with are Tau, Eldar, and Drukhari.
-Necrons have res protocols, and quantum shielding. Those are pretty much their two actually unique mechanics. Their weapons are on the whole quite basic, their stats are consistent through the codex, their army traits are easily understood.
-Orks have mob rule. That's the only thing that's actually truly unique. Other factions have equivalents to "ere we go" and if it takes you over 2 seconds to grasp it....well, then 40k might not be for you.
-Nids have synapse, which is such a massive non-factor in 8th I hesitate to call it a mechanic.
-GSC have cult ambush, which is one table you have to explain. Besides that they use very basic stat-swap weapons for the most part, and share stuff with familiar imperial weaponry.
heck, just look at the unique stuff that Guard has in relation to other factions. Each army trait has two different effects, you've got tanks that fire twice, commissars that can execute infantrymen, orders (with unique orders for each regiment), several different units that use the same models (vets, Special weapon teams, command squads, infantry squads, conscripts....)
You're just used to seeing the imperials more commonly.
That's possible.
Other than PBCs, HQs and (maybe) IG Mortars, what other Imperial / Chaos units do you see as the ones this rule was designed to affect?
I’m basing the fact that certain people on here aren’t having fun on the fact they are on here complaining about rules and how bad the game is constantly. It doesn’t sound like you are having fun. Hence my point. So I can take 7 tyrants, should u? No. These all conquering tournament lists bare no relation to the universe the game is set in. Yes you can play that way, should u? Let’s make the game strict and so tight that tournament players will have nothing to complain about and all things are equal, but it will alienate all the players who want games that are set in the universe we all love and feel like the stories they write. 5e was boring. 3rd, 4th and 5th all lacked character and the armies were bland. Yes us had regimental doctrines and all that but it was still a fundamentally dull rule set, especially compared to the flavour fest that was second edition. 6th and 7th were a mess of detachments trying to add flavour but all just confusing everything. Encouraging power gaming and optimising and winning!
8th has addressed some of that. Is it perfect,no. But it is trying to please everyone. So many rules that are for organised play which are optional. But the basics work brilliantly for me and people like me. Peregrine, you are saying I shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy the way I play. I should have to play mono faction non spammy lists. GW isn’t trying upset anyone. It’s trying to sell games and models and doing a bloody good job of it.
I stil, believe the only way to fix organised play and keep people like me and everyone in between happy is separate rule sets. Tight balanced simpler and quicker tournament edition and the current style bloated fun open edition with lots of options and flavour. Just make a second book. £30 for tournament players. All rules in one place, very army, every unit. Simplified stats like in epic 40000, no weapon options, just unit x does this damage in Melee or in ranged. Easy. Same models and units available for both styles. No need to buy two armies and no need to to Ruin the game in the quest for “balance”. It doesn’t benefit everyone if it stops the fun.
Andykp wrote: The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.
Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.
Then you've missed the point.
No, I really haven't. If I play a game of Tennis, do I deliberately use a racket with no strings because using strings is for tryhards who want to win?
If I play a game of Chess, do I just move my king out into the open because using your queen is for tryhards.
Spoiler:
I don’t set up a game of 40k desperate to win. It’s a social experience for me not a competitive one. I enjoy games I win as much as I enjoy ones I lose. What really makes me enjoy them is the story they tell. Win or lose it’s not important. People seem to find it hard to believe that I don’t mind who wins but I really don’t. I used to play compete every sports and do like the challenge of that but that’s not what 40k is to me. I used to have a dark angel army and could never win a game with them to the point it became funny how bad I do. 7th edition codex came in and I didn’t win anymore but the army played how I imagined dark angels to play. I felt better. So I was happy with the codex. Still lost.
Any hobby where people spend a lot of time and make a lot of choices based on their personal preferences and the story they invent for "their guys" is going to run into a lot of people who treat the experience as anything other than purely adversarial.
There's a reason you don't see every RPG treated as a strictly competitive "one vs many" game with "tournament tier GM players" and net-sheeted characters with all the players whinging on about how as a dedicated Call of Cthulhu Egyptologist main, Sportsmen and Soldier classes are completely OP.
Galas wrote: How can you defend at the same time that the game sucks and most people only play because it is what his or her group plays, and they like the fluff and the models (Yourself included) and then go and say that people should just bring the most OP stuff and git gud to win, ignoring any other reason to build their armies that isn't strictly based in how powerfull they are?
No, you're missing the point here. I am not telling people they should play in any particular way, I'm simply objecting to the idea that "fluff" lists (usually not very fluffy, but bad at winning) are the morally superior way to play and anyone who plays competitively is a bad person. That's nonsense. Both options are valid, do whatever you have fun with.
and most people just prefer to watch matches of competitive players that auto limit themselves to a style of play that is based on skill and using normal tactics/heroes/lists/etc...
You're assuming that playing with weaker stuff is "normal" and using the strongest options (against the other player doing the same) requires no skill. Both of these assumptions are wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I don’t set up a game of 40k desperate to win. It’s a social experience for me not a competitive one. I enjoy games I win as much as I enjoy ones I lose. What really makes me enjoy them is the story they tell. Win or lose it’s not important. People seem to find it hard to believe that I don’t mind who wins but I really don’t. I used to play compete every sports and do like the challenge of that but that’s not what 40k is to me. I used to have a dark angel army and could never win a game with them to the point it became funny how bad I do. 7th edition codex came in and I didn’t win anymore but the army played how I imagined dark angels to play. I felt better. So I was happy with the codex. Still lost.
You claim to not care about who wins, but yet you spend so much time complaining about competitive lists/players, how awful they are, and how you refuse to play against them. If you genuinely don't care if you win then why does it matter if your opponent has a better list? Play the game, have fun losing, and tell a story about your defeat. The truth here is that you do care about winning, you just try to take some weird moral high ground by pretending that you don't and judging everyone who is honest about trying to win.
Galas wrote: How can you defend at the same time that the game sucks and most people only play because it is what his or her group plays, and they like the fluff and the models (Yourself included) and then go and say that people should just bring the most OP stuff and git gud to win, ignoring any other reason to build their armies that isn't strictly based in how powerfull they are?
No, you're missing the point here. I am not telling people they should play in any particular way, I'm simply objecting to the idea that "fluff" lists (usually not very fluffy, but bad at winning) are the morally superior way to play and anyone who plays competitively is a bad person. That's nonsense. Both options are valid, do whatever you have fun with.
and most people just prefer to watch matches of competitive players that auto limit themselves to a style of play that is based on skill and using normal tactics/heroes/lists/etc...
You're assuming that playing with weaker stuff is "normal" and using the strongest options (against the other player doing the same) requires no skill. Both of these assumptions are wrong.
Theres a difference between a option being stronger than other one (Theres a reason why 78% players in Meele tournaments use Fox), and then using a "cheese" move thats only there until nerfed or fixed, based in some hole in the rules/programing, that it isn't strictly a bug but is nearly it, like Diddy Kong upper kick in Smash Bros or Nobusy Grab Break in For Honor, over, and over, and over, and over. Thats the kind of mechanic I say you see abused in many tournaments, and yeah, normally they have a counter tactic that the very pro-players know how to do, but then those matches end up being one guy trying to spam the same move again and again and the other one trying to counter it in that 0,3 sec window where he can do it.
Basically, the warhammer equivalent of that would be Rule Lawyering, not using a strong list. Thats expected. And if you are gonna say to me that the top players in the top tables don't do rules lawyering agaisnt their opponents... I'll disagree.
About your first point, I agree, theres nothing wrong with playing competitively. The problem arises when people with a different approach to the game play without talking beforehand about what kind of experience they want to have. It is not superior to have a "competitive" match than a "casual" one, but it would be better for both to decide what are they gonna play.
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage.
Cheating and using grey areas to someone's advantage are two different things. One means you don't play by the rules, one means you really know the rules.
I have not met a competitive player who relied on strange rule interpretations to succeed.
It is in spain, just ask anyone who went to interplanetario and what happens there.
You're assuming that playing with weaker stuff is "normal" and using the strongest options (against the other player doing the same) requires no skill. Both of these assumptions are wrong.
Playing with weaker stuff is, in fact, normal. Most people who play 40k have a collection of about 2000-2500 points and most of the time, that collection is built slowly, over the course of several years, because most people A) don't have 500 dollars to drop all at one time on a new army and B) don't have 800 hours of time to invest in building and painting it all at once.
I don't think it's that much of a crazy idea, and I'll be happy to put a poll up if you dispute this, but I'm going to say I assume that when most people buy miniatures, they buy them 1-2 kits at a time and build/paint 1-2 kits at a time, instead of ebaying a whole army and build/paint it over a single 4 day period of continuous sleep-deprived madness.
Even if you work off the assumption that every single player is a good little gamer and makes each weekly or bi-weekly purchase with the express purpose of creating a 100% power-gamed tournament list, by the time you finish that army it will not be optimal.
Week 1: Okay 8th ed has dropped and I have my tournament list. Time to rock baby! Purchase a Stormraven and a tactical squad
Week 2: Second stormraven, second tactical squad.
Week 3: Guilliman, scout squad.
Week 4: gak flyers got nerfed and can't hold objectives anymore. Uh... two razorbacks, lets shift our tactical squads in there.
Week 5: two forgeworld assault cannon upgrades, that's my hobby budget for the week and boy oh boy to I have painting to catch up on.
Week 6: Damn, guard codex has dropped and those spammed basilisks do crazy things to kill my marines. I gotta soup up, get me some of that turn 1 charge action! Celestine and a couple Primaris Psykers for a nice smite-spamming Imperium detachment.
Week 7: Two predators and a lieutenant, I've decided I'm gonna add a Killshot into my marine guilliguns list.
Week 8: Two more predators. Doesn't make sense to take just three, if I get second turn I'm screwed!
Week 9: Eldar drops, those dark reapers are demolishing my stormravens in every tournament I attend now. Nuts! That's 500 points I have to replace.
I haven't even gotten to Chapter Approved, the current deep strike rules, beta rule disallowing Imperium detachments, Rule of 3 (which is going to screw our poor little competitive gamer with his 4 predators), or any eventual marine buffs that might happen in the coming months.
This is completely disregarding the huge, huge numbers of players that
-are new, and have not learned what is good yet
-are primarily interested in modeling, and buy only what they think looks good
-are old veterans, and have access to a collection that may have been competitive in a previous edition but isn't now
all of the above is why it is considered normal to play with suboptimal list choices.40k isn't a video game where you can just swap characters when one gets nerfed. There is a 40$+ investment and a 10+ hour time investment for each box you buy.
the_scotsman, you just described why I cannot keep most of my friends in 40k.
GW's schizophrenia and lack of vision make people that want just to slowly build a decent force frustrated and disenfranchised.
You've pretty described my experience with 8th so far, apart from starting with 4kish points of BT that barely see the table at all, neophites as ravenguard scouts are pretty much the only thing that I can use and a couple devastators, bolt pistol+chainsword crusaders (nope), assault marines (nope), land raider crusaders (nope), rhinos (at least I could add the forgeworld dual A.C.s before they got nerfed), assault termies (nope), regular termies (nope), emperor's champ (nope), chaplins (lol)...
Also the vanity purchases (I gotta have at least some primarius, and I already have land raiders so I might as well get a repulsor...)
Celestine and assassins got nerfed, well they were fun to paint. I guess some Custode bikers will fill that void (oh snap, everyone is running 12 of them, guess they'll get nerfed next, but the models are cool and fun to paint as well). Guard CP battery is a must have for any imperial army (I still haven't bought this one yet but I really should)
After all that meta chasing I have another 2-3k of models and still can't put out an army that can get a fun game against a semi-competitive DE, Eldar, Tau, IG or Nid army...
Kaiyanwang wrote: the_scotsman, you just described why I cannot keep most of my friends in 40k.
GW's schizophrenia and lack of vision make people that want just to slowly build a decent force frustrated and disenfranchised.
Have you tried building a varied list that contains a large number of different choices instead of spamming what is at this millisecond the competitive best option around?
That usually nets you a list that lands somewhere around midtier, as long as you don't actively seek out units that are terrible or make squads with muddled roles that don't make sense.
Kaiyanwang wrote: the_scotsman, you just described why I cannot keep most of my friends in 40k.
GW's schizophrenia and lack of vision make people that want just to slowly build a decent force frustrated and disenfranchised.
Have you tried building a varied list that contains a large number of different choices instead of spamming what is at this millisecond the competitive best option around?
That usually nets you a list that lands somewhere around midtier, as long as you don't actively seek out units that are terrible or make squads with muddled roles that don't make sense.
I generally do not build spam lists. I could have in case the opposite problem, in case.
And I was talking about other people initially interested in the hobby. You described a sudden nerf, a new codex changing everything and people get frustrated because the few time dedicated was made useless.
You've pretty described my experience with 8th so far, apart from starting with 4kish points of BT that barely see the table at all, neophites as ravenguard scouts are pretty much the only thing that I can use and a couple devastators, bolt pistol+chainsword crusaders (nope), assault marines (nope), land raider crusaders (nope), rhinos (at least I could add the forgeworld dual A.C.s before they got nerfed), assault termies (nope), regular termies (nope), emperor's champ (nope), chaplins (lol)...
Also the vanity purchases (I gotta have at least some primarius, and I already have land raiders so I might as well get a repulsor...)
Celestine and assassins got nerfed, well they were fun to paint. I guess some Custode bikers will fill that void (oh snap, everyone is running 12 of them, guess they'll get nerfed next, but the models are cool and fun to paint as well). Guard CP battery is a must have for any imperial army (I still haven't bought this one yet but I really should)
After all that meta chasing I have another 2-3k of models and still can't put out an army that can get a fun game against a semi-competitive DE, Eldar, Tau, IG or Nid army...
Then play less competitive games.
Look, for all of this, I'm not advocating for any kind of 'moral superiority' that peregrine is playing. No moral superiority here - just practical superiority. My number one rule that I hammer in again and again and again is never buy a model just to get the rules.
If you don't have some other reason to put it on the table besides "I want the rules that this model provides my army" it will nearly one hundred percent of the time be useless to you in a years time.
If your black templars are weak (and black templars certainly are weak, I am in no way arguing that) then there's a couple of courses of action you can take.
Option 1 (the one I'd take, personally) is find the best way to run them the way you want to, and work to learn them better. When they get buffed, you'll be better at playing them. If you forced me at gunpoint to play Black Templars, I'd run Crusader squads and characters with melee dreadnoughts out of Stormravens backed up by deep striking units to take advantage of the reroll, make sure I've got the suicide attack banner in the unit and pile 'em in baby. Is it going to be tournament quality? feth no. Would it be the least bad way to run black templars the way theyre supposed to feel? I'd bet that for sure.
Option 2 (and there's no reason you can't take multiple here) is don't play against semi-competitive lists of the currently strong factions. Ask your opponents to tone your list down because you are choosing to play less competitive units, as they're the army you like.
Option 3 is take some rules that do work for your marines and use those as a counts-as temporarily. Black Templars are in a terrible spot. Try them as blood angels? Maybe space wolves when we see what they can do? My dark eldar were corsairs any time I took a competitive match in 7th. I find most players, particularly tournament players, tend to understand that and are fine with it.
To keep in on subject, I like the rule of 3. I feel it does address the issue of skew and spamming units that GW is incapable of costing correctly.
My real problem is GW putting out such an imbalanced piece of gak codex of vanilla space marines vs those on the other end of the power spectrum (Eldar of all flavors, nids, guard, certain tau builds). I math-hammer the hell out of my options, work on the best synergies and at best I can offer my opponent a competitive game if they gimp their army.
That's not fun for them or I and I think GW needs to take responsibility for putting out armies with such an imbalance of power (disentegrator cannon @ 15 points vs grav cannon @ 28 points....) instead of putting the blame on players who dare to take them.
Playing less competitive games, for my personal situation, means not playing games. I came back to 40k based on the marketing that this was going to be the most playtested version ever and naively believed that it would allow two strangers to build lists and go at it and at least have a reasonably balanced game (I mean so much of the game is tossing dice, there is so much chance involved that armies that are reasonably close should have some drama involved due to the outcomes being random). It really shows how out of balance the game is when even my dice are hot and my opponents are terrible the outcome is still never really in doubt...
I don't expect to win the LVO but it would be nice to be able to play against the semi-competitive lists at my FLGS on game night or attend the monthly tourney without feeling like I'm a point pinata for whoever gets lucky enough to play me.
I went from winning a couple tourneys at the beginning of 8th (index and then when SM were the only codex) to placing well (a win here or there) and then having games that I just could not win (reapers and shining spears) to now being happy to not get tabled (DE and eldar soup do it now, Tau given the right list/general stomp, Tsons before the deepstrike nerf were a problem). This all with my chasing the meta, buying the "best" available marine units, knowing my enemies lists, having a fair amount of tactical acumen, knowing the missions and being a relatively "smart" gamer (you know, "get gud").
For now I'm working on painting up the models that I like to paint. Doing a ton of basing (which I hate so I have plenty of work ahead of me) and trying my hand at some conversions while I wait for some sort of balancing from GW since the last two attempts made my personal experience worse. I enjoy these aspects of the hobby (as terrible as I am at them, gaining/improving a skill is always a fun personal challenge) and hopefully by BAO 2019 I'll have an army that I can show up with and not get laughed out of the building...
Galas wrote: And by the way, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It does not matter how balanced a game is, competitive players, specially the high end competitive ones, will always try to cheat and use all grey areas to their advantage. Theres a reason why in most games (And videogames) people don't even like to watch the finals, or the high ranking matches, because they become a crapfest of spamming X special attack, using the same characters/strategies all the time, etc... and that happens in everything, from warhammer 40k, to Infinity, to Streeth Figther, to For Honor, to League of Legends, to Starcraft, etc... and most people just prefer to watch matches of competitive players that auto limit themselves to a style of play that is based on skill and using normal tactics/heroes/lists/etc...
I follow a bunch of competitive games including some of the ones you listed, and literally not once have I ever seen the phenomena you describe. Finals get more views than any other match, by literally multiples of the proceeding games. This sounds like a "you" problem.
Tyel wrote: For me at least the general issue of whether something is fun to watch is the skill involved and whether that is interactive.
Street Fighter or Quake for instance are usually not very interactive. The skill set is very limited - so the winner tends to be the person who is fractionally faster than their opponent. This is a skill - but its not really a great one to watch. (Then again people go mad for the 100 meters at say the Olympics, and arguably that's similar).
I like watching StarCraft - because micro and macro are skills. You can't "cheat" the game to win. You have to be better. Now you might think a 5 minute all in is cheese - but its a viable strategy, and one your opponent can guard against. Everything that happens in the game is a choice, you can't look back on a tournament, with games, and say "X would have won if it wasn't for the dice gods."
You clearly haven't played fighting games competitively, this couldn't be a less accurate description of Street Fighter, or fighters in general. Literally everything you do is a direct interaction with your opponent. There is so much room for freedom and decisions. And reactions are not the deciding point of the game at all, with most top players having very similar levels of reactions, hell most competitive players in general do, that's something that is mostly just a human limit. Sometimes you see some big game changing "reactions", most of these are half reads anyway and they are far from common. I've played StarCraft since WoL and even that is less interactive than fighters. Both take a similar skillset however. If it's not for you it's not for you, but you probably shouldn't just completely write off a game like this as "usually being decided by whoever has fractionally faster reaction times than their opponent", if you have literally no experience or understanding of the genre. Just hard facts.
The point of the game is to have fun, the objective of the game is to win. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Funnily enough, back when i was playing i preferred to play the power gamers, because they were less likely to cheat or 'accidentally' get fundamental rules wrong. My impression of 'casual's isn't too flattering in that respect.
Meanwhile, when everyone's using the correct rules and playing to the objective of the game, it starts becoming noticable that certain units and armies aren't at the power level. This is not the fault of players who are all on the same page in what they're looking for.
bananathug wrote: To keep in on subject, I like the rule of 3. I feel it does address the issue of skew and spamming units that GW is incapable of costing correctly.
My real problem is GW putting out such an imbalanced piece of gak codex of vanilla space marines vs those on the other end of the power spectrum (Eldar of all flavors, nids, guard, certain tau builds). I math-hammer the hell out of my options, work on the best synergies and at best I can offer my opponent a competitive game if they gimp their army.
Spoiler:
That's not fun for them or I and I think GW needs to take responsibility for putting out armies with such an imbalance of power (disentegrator cannon @ 15 points vs grav cannon @ 28 points....) instead of putting the blame on players who dare to take them.
Playing less competitive games, for my personal situation, means not playing games. I came back to 40k based on the marketing that this was going to be the most playtested version ever and naively believed that it would allow two strangers to build lists and go at it and at least have a reasonably balanced game (I mean so much of the game is tossing dice, there is so much chance involved that armies that are reasonably close should have some drama involved due to the outcomes being random). It really shows how out of balance the game is when even my dice are hot and my opponents are terrible the outcome is still never really in doubt...
I don't expect to win the LVO but it would be nice to be able to play against the semi-competitive lists at my FLGS on game night or attend the monthly tourney without feeling like I'm a point pinata for whoever gets lucky enough to play me.
I went from winning a couple tourneys at the beginning of 8th (index and then when SM were the only codex) to placing well (a win here or there) and then having games that I just could not win (reapers and shining spears) to now being happy to not get tabled (DE and eldar soup do it now, Tau given the right list/general stomp, Tsons before the deepstrike nerf were a problem). This all with my chasing the meta, buying the "best" available marine units, knowing my enemies lists, having a fair amount of tactical acumen, knowing the missions and being a relatively "smart" gamer (you know, "get gud").
For now I'm working on painting up the models that I like to paint. Doing a ton of basing (which I hate so I have plenty of work ahead of me) and trying my hand at some conversions while I wait for some sort of balancing from GW since the last two attempts made my personal experience worse. I enjoy these aspects of the hobby (as terrible as I am at them, gaining/improving a skill is always a fun personal challenge) and hopefully by BAO 2019 I'll have an army that I can show up with and not get laughed out of the building...
You have basically described being a vanilla marine codex player in 8th edition perfectly. They've got worse and worse as each codex has dropped. Though the final insult was the second emergency nerf to Guilliman after he had already become uncompetitive.
I'm luck enough to have other armies to switch to but when I moved from marines to Tau it's like going from insane difficulty back to normal mode. Lits I was struggling against even with FW and what felt like overy competitive lists for a quick pick up game were slogs and far tighter than they felt they should have been.
Same opponent same army vrs my tau and tabled him turn 3 without going full cheese monkey either. Just a codex that builds a list that actually synergies together instead of against its self.
I can't believe that people still try to suggest playing marines to new players. Nothing will put them off more than having to basically be given gladius style handicap points to actually put up a challage to most codex's.
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
You can have like 12 demon princes in theory because of the way their data slates are unique. A thousand sons DP is a different entry then a Nurgle DP for example.
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
I think you'll find it a few more than 6 I think it's 10 maybe more as special charictors are different datasheets aswell for ultimate trolling. I'm not that familiar with all the choas codex to remeber the special charictors.
An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I wonder how much would change if they changed the rule of 3 to affect unit <Keyword> instead of dataslates. Like each Daemon Prince has the <Daemon Prince> keyword, iirc.
Insectum7 wrote: I wonder how much would change if they changed the rule of 3 to affect unit <Keyword> instead of dataslates. Like each Daemon Prince has the <Daemon Prince> keyword, iirc.
Just imagine if they did that to the offending units in the first place.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
The thing is, Peregrine is right in theory. Everyone benefits from a better designed rule set and balance, whether casual or competitive. The problem is that he then transitions this logic into meaning that he is objectively correct about his extremely subjective opinions on what would improve the game. I’ve never once ever seen him reconsider for a second even the most shaky of arguments he’s put forth concerning any topic, or ever seen any amount of overpowering logic talk him out of anything, so it’s pointless to bother. Just let him go on his rants, there’s not a lot of credibility there regardless.
All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic. This concept will be covered in much more detail later.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of his own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.” Superficially, their argument does at least look valid, since often their games will be more “wet and wild” than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn’t nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent’s mind to such a degree that you can counter his every move, even his every counter.
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is a sequence of moves that is unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take “skill,” according to the scrub. The “dragon punch” or “uppercut” in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a “skill move.”
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic. This concept will be covered in much more detail later.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of his own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.” Superficially, their argument does at least look valid, since often their games will be more “wet and wild” than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn’t nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent’s mind to such a degree that you can counter his every move, even his every counter.
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is a sequence of moves that is unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take “skill,” according to the scrub. The “dragon punch” or “uppercut” in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a “skill move.”
Great post. I agree with it, but I think that a lot of the time in 40k there are frequently issues with game balance that are not present in most other games due to it's complexity. Obviously GW has an idea of how they want the game to be played, and their changes ago to make the game reflect that.
I don't blame tournement players for one second for playing the most broken stuff, like taking 7 Hive Tyrants. But, I also want GW to keep tuning things to improve the game to be the way they think it should be. I think the rule of three is a good example of that.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic. This concept will be covered in much more detail later.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of his own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.” Superficially, their argument does at least look valid, since often their games will be more “wet and wild” than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn’t nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent’s mind to such a degree that you can counter his every move, even his every counter.
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is a sequence of moves that is unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take “skill,” according to the scrub. The “dragon punch” or “uppercut” in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a “skill move.”
Great post. I agree with it, but I think that a lot of the time in 40k there are frequently issues with game balance that are not present in most other games due to it's complexity. Obviously GW has an idea of how they want the game to be played, and their changes ago to make the game reflect that.
I don't blame tournement players for one second for playing the most broken stuff, like taking 7 Hive Tyrants. But, I also want GW to keep tuning things to improve the game to be the way they think it should be. I think the rule of three is a good example of that.
errr you haven't played many other games then. 40k right now is more balanced than a lot of them. These games often have to make big game design shake ups too when going forward.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic. This concept will be covered in much more detail later.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of his own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.” Superficially, their argument does at least look valid, since often their games will be more “wet and wild” than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn’t nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent’s mind to such a degree that you can counter his every move, even his every counter.
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is a sequence of moves that is unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take “skill,” according to the scrub. The “dragon punch” or “uppercut” in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a “skill move.”
Oh man...
I'm a scrub!
Nah, not really, I play some games to win, but in others I'm just relaxed, and I just don't play agaisnt... "good players", like, playing quickmatch instead of the competitive mode, I have no problem with people that play as competitive as possible (As long as they don't have a toxic attitude outside of the game, but you can have a toxic attitude even playing "casual"). I'll say that even if this guy has a point... he couldn't be more biased in his analisis. He is really no better than a scrub, as he defines them, hes just the opposite, someone that climbs to that high horse to define whats the proper and whats the wrong way of playing the game When in reality any gamer developer thats worths two cents will recognise both demographics, some try to catter to one (Like Dark Souls or Candy Crush), buth many others will try to reach both of them, because that makes more money, with harder and easier modes for their games. Or in a multiplayer game, casual modes and competitive modes.
For example, I make lists based in what models I have and what I want to run, but then I try to use them and make them as sharp as possible and as competitive as possible. Thats why I played in a GT two weekends ago... I was cumberstombed, by Eldar, by Baneblades and by Custodes+Celestine (The fething mission of character scoring more and more points... kill a Celestine inside a building when you don't have meele troops and you can't shoot her! s-sorry...). At no point in that two-days tournament did I think bad of anybody for using very competitive and hard lists. Thats the point of a tournament! But I know some people that can't change their mentality. In my monthly tournaments at my FLGS I play more relaxed lists. Because the other players are scrubs? Not really. But we have small kids, players that don't have more models to make stronger lists, players that just aren't that good at the game... etc... for me, that have many models and can do weaker lists, to demand for them to "catch up" with me would be a dick move, and for things like that many new players are scared away. That kind of mentality is what I oppose, the "git gud" when outside of a competitive tournament.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things.
A very interesting quote. It has led me to what I think really sums up ‘non-scrubs’: Peter Griffin playing Double Dribble. If you haven’t seen it, YouTube it, it’s only 90 seconds long.
If you sympathise with Peter Griffin, you’re not a scrub. If you align to David Sirlin’s point of view, I would say you are Peter Griffin.
In a tournament, it is sweet and right to be Peter Griffin. In that arena, we are all Peter Griffin, and the game is a challenge of who can slam the most corner 3s. In any game where the mutually agreed social contract is for competitiveness, it’s also cool. But if you’re doing as Peter is doing and spamming corner 3s outside of a competitive environment, then you are every bit as morally defensible as he is. Worse, if you blame Cleveland for not spamming corner 3s in that friendly environment, then you’re kind of beyond the help of mortal men.
I think David Sirlin actually hit on it perfectly: scrubs place stock in honour. To those who do put stock in honour, doing so needs no explanation. To those who don’t, I am immediately reminded of Bronn from Game of Thrones after winning a duel and being accused ‘You don’t fight with honour!’, to which he glances at the corpse and simply says ‘No. He did.’
As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
SHUPPET wrote: Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite.
Exactly this. My usual list is a reasonably fluffy Black Templars army, which as a theme is just about the least competitive Codex army short of something crazy like melee-T’au. I take it to tournaments and don’t expect to ever win one, but every game I win is a badge of honour because I’ve had to fight for it tooth and nail and my victory is down to my own skill, guile and luck rather than just having an OP Codex.
My 30k Custodes, on the other hand, are above 7th Ed Eldar cheese tier. I find it very difficult to draw satisfaction from winning a game with them unless I set myself some arbitrary objective like slay the Warlord in a challenge. Games I do win feel hollow because I won not through tactics and guile but just because my army was stronger.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things.
A very interesting quote. It has led me to what I think really sums up ‘non-scrubs’: Peter Griffin playing Double Dribble. If you haven’t seen it, YouTube it, it’s only 90 seconds long.
If you sympathise with Peter Griffin, you’re not a scrub. If you align to David Sirlin’s point of view, I would say you are Peter Griffin.
In a tournament, it is sweet and right to be Peter Griffin. In that arena, we are all Peter Griffin, and the game is a challenge of who can slam the most corner 3s. In any game where the mutually agreed social contract is for competitiveness, it’s also cool. But if you’re doing as Peter is doing and spamming corner 3s outside of a competitive environment, then you are every bit as morally defensible as he is. Worse, if you blame Cleveland for not spamming corner 3s in that friendly environment, then you’re kind of beyond the help of mortal men.
I think David Sirlin actually hit on it perfectly: scrubs place stock in honour. To those who do put stock in honour, doing so needs no explanation. To those who don’t, I am immediately reminded of Bronn from Game of Thrones after winning a duel and being accused ‘You don’t fight with honour!’, to which he glances at the corpse and simply says ‘No. He did.’
Um what honor? You're playing a game with a clear objective, like any MTG or Monopoly game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.
Um what honor? You're playing a game with a clear objective, like any MTG or Monopoly game.
Honour akin to facing an enemy in a duel rather than just shanking him in the kidneys when his back is turned, or coming across an enemy who only has a knife, lowering your rifle and drawing your own knife. I’m not sure I can explain honour; as I said, for those who value it, it needs no explanation, whereas those who do not simply go the Bronn of the Blackwater route.
Um what honor? You're playing a game with a clear objective, like any MTG or Monopoly game.
Honour akin to facing an enemy in a duel rather than just shanking him in the kidneys when his back is turned, or coming across an enemy who only has a knife, lowering your rifle and drawing your own knife. I’m not sure I can explain honour; as I said, for those who value it, it needs no explanation, whereas those who do not simply go the Bronn of the Blackwater route.
I don't want to go the route of "it's a game", but when you're putting stock in honor in a game...that is silly. Just play the game do what you can to win.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
*wall of text*
I don't really understand how this translates to w40k, street fighter is nothing like w40k. It costs less, you can freely change from a bad character that is "bad" to a "good" one with only investment being the time to learn it. If you have bad army for w40k, you can't just switch to something different. You have to save up money for months, maybe even years for a really good army, and that one may get nerfed by the time you get the money. Also, although am not sure about that, I don't think the gap between good street fighters and bad ones, is the same as good and bad armies in w40k. The bad stuff in w40k us really bad, like requiring the opponent to buy a second bad army just to play them. There is also one more thing that is different between street fighter and w40k. If the person your playing is a master level gamer, he may switch out to a weaker character if your getting your butt handed to you for the 20th time. That does not happen with w40k, everyone has their 2000-2500armies, few rare people have 2-3 armies, but all of them are optimised and the only difference between playing a tournament and non tournament army, is that the tournament ones have to be painted. The game play expiriance is going to be the same. And it maybe wouldn't have been that bad if w40k was cheap, but spending 200-300$ and not getting to actually play with your models is really bad design.
I don't want to go the route of "it's a game", but when you're putting stock in honor in a game...that is silly. Just play the game do what you can to win.
I don’t want to go the route of “it’s a game”, but when you’re putting stock in winning in a game of toy soldiers... that is silly.
Different world views, mate.
Take another gaming example - if I’m playing Counterstrike and there’s only me and one other guy left who’s run out of ammo, I’ll pull my knife out and go skin the bastard rather than just sniping him from across the map.
SHUPPET wrote: As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.
Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.
The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
Spoiler:
David Sirlin wrote:The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic. This concept will be covered in much more detail later.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of his own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.” Superficially, their argument does at least look valid, since often their games will be more “wet and wild” than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn’t nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent’s mind to such a degree that you can counter his every move, even his every counter.
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is a sequence of moves that is unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take “skill,” according to the scrub. The “dragon punch” or “uppercut” in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a “skill move.”
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
you can have more than 6 , chaos space marines, death guard, thousand sons, 9 at least, so i wonder if Gw will fix that or not
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
you can have more than 6 , chaos space marines, death guard, thousand sons, 9 at least, so i wonder if Gw will fix that or not
Don't forget the "Daemon Prince of Chaos" from the Chaos Daemons codex. Though if you want to keep detachment traits you'll be limited to 3 detachments in organised play, and 9 princes overall.
blackmage wrote: about all this talking about rule of 3... do you think they will fix rule of 3 for Dp's too or they intentionally left play more than 3 of them?
You mean, by taking a Chaos Space Marines detachment with 3 and by taking a Chaos Daemons detachment with 3, to have 6 Daemon Princes total?
you can have more than 6 , chaos space marines, death guard, thousand sons, 9 at least, so i wonder if Gw will fix that or not
Not this edition I would say. The best way to handle it would be to give every unit a new type of keyword, a Unit Keyword. Then the rule would be that you can only take up to 3 units with the same Unit Keyword. Give all types of Daemon Prince the DAEMON PRINCE Unit Keyword, and voilà.
The issue is that it's not just Daemon Princes that allow this kind of thing, there's tons of examples! Which I why I don't think it will happen this edition.
GW has been pretty quick on shutting down things that were unintended. So I could see them doing a massive commander-style errata for the next CA or FAQ.
Then again, the problem does not seem like a big one, so they could also chose to just ignore it. Could go either way, really.
The scrub attitude in 40k is absolutely rampant in 40k. Any kind of game that involves both balance by a team of developers and random dice is going to attract people who will blame anything but their own mistakes on a loss.
What I disagree with is the attitude that there is no reason to want to play a less competitive game besides scrubbiness.
A game of Street fighter, or StarCraft, or LoL doesn't take several hours to play, each game piece doesn't cost 30$ and 2 hours to paint. The most competitive matches of 40k involve many more extreme skew lists with which the game is essentially decided turn 1 or before the game. If you can make a list that wins every time it gets first turn, and wins 25% of the time it gets second turn, you have a highly competitive list and it probably requires zero tactical ability to play as or against.
Less competitive lists tend to deal less damage, meaning they lead to a longer game night, with both players interacting and getting to use a much wider range of their model collections.
There is no scrub attitude there. There is no reason any of that requires you to complain and call things "cheap" if you try to set a game like this up and a player turns up with a super skew list anyway.
Where people like peregrine get mad though is this part: while I will not refuse that game, or complain while I play it, I will not play that player again. I get to play one game a week, if it's a half hour or an hour and the game is decided the second we set up the pieces....I'm just going to play someone I know will give me a solid 3-4 hour game we can laugh about at the pub afterwards.
There is nothing there relating to winning and losing, and I know I'm going to get Peregrine or Slayer or whoever else wondering how DARE I, how DARE I discriminate against poor oppressed gamers who just want to win! But I don't give a gak. And honestly neither should anyone else. Time is money. If someone makes my game time for the week crappy, whether by cheating, or whining the whole game, or plopping down a totally binary "roll for turn 1 then pack up" list, they'll only get to waste my time once.
the_scotsman wrote: The scrub attitude in 40k is absolutely rampant in 40k. Any kind of game that involves both balance by a team of developers and random dice is going to attract people who will blame anything but their own mistakes on a loss.
What I disagree with is the attitude that there is no reason to want to play a less competitive game besides scrubbiness.
A game of Street fighter, or StarCraft, or LoL doesn't take several hours to play, each game piece doesn't cost 30$ and 2 hours to paint. The most competitive matches of 40k involve many more extreme skew lists with which the game is essentially decided turn 1 or before the game. If you can make a list that wins every time it gets first turn, and wins 25% of the time it gets second turn, you have a highly competitive list and it probably requires zero tactical ability to play as or against.
Less competitive lists tend to deal less damage, meaning they lead to a longer game night, with both players interacting and getting to use a much wider range of their model collections.
There is no scrub attitude there. There is no reason any of that requires you to complain and call things "cheap" if you try to set a game like this up and a player turns up with a super skew list anyway.
Where people like peregrine get mad though is this part: while I will not refuse that game, or complain while I play it, I will not play that player again. I get to play one game a week, if it's a half hour or an hour and the game is decided the second we set up the pieces....I'm just going to play someone I know will give me a solid 3-4 hour game we can laugh about at the pub afterwards.
There is nothing there relating to winning and losing, and I know I'm going to get Peregrine or Slayer or whoever else wondering how DARE I, how DARE I discriminate against poor oppressed gamers who just want to win! But I don't give a gak. And honestly neither should anyone else. Time is money. If someone makes my game time for the week crappy, whether by cheating, or whining the whole game, or plopping down a totally binary "roll for turn 1 then pack up" list, they'll only get to waste my time once.
Agree wholeheartedly. I have a short list of players I won't play against anymore. I'm in the same boat. At best, I get 2-4 games per month. I want to have fun playing the game. I've lost some of the most fun games I've ever played. I generally don't have fun playing against min/maxed lists that remove a lot of the tactical and strategic game play from the game.
the_scotsman wrote: The scrub attitude in 40k is absolutely rampant in 40k. Any kind of game that involves both balance by a team of developers and random dice is going to attract people who will blame anything but their own mistakes on a loss.
What I disagree with is the attitude that there is no reason to want to play a less competitive game besides scrubbiness.
A game of Street fighter, or StarCraft, or LoL doesn't take several hours to play, each game piece doesn't cost 30$ and 2 hours to paint. The most competitive matches of 40k involve many more extreme skew lists with which the game is essentially decided turn 1 or before the game. If you can make a list that wins every time it gets first turn, and wins 25% of the time it gets second turn, you have a highly competitive list and it probably requires zero tactical ability to play as or against.
Less competitive lists tend to deal less damage, meaning they lead to a longer game night, with both players interacting and getting to use a much wider range of their model collections.
There is no scrub attitude there. There is no reason any of that requires you to complain and call things "cheap" if you try to set a game like this up and a player turns up with a super skew list anyway.
Where people like peregrine get mad though is this part: while I will not refuse that game, or complain while I play it, I will not play that player again. I get to play one game a week, if it's a half hour or an hour and the game is decided the second we set up the pieces....I'm just going to play someone I know will give me a solid 3-4 hour game we can laugh about at the pub afterwards.
There is nothing there relating to winning and losing, and I know I'm going to get Peregrine or Slayer or whoever else wondering how DARE I, how DARE I discriminate against poor oppressed gamers who just want to win! But I don't give a gak. And honestly neither should anyone else. Time is money. If someone makes my game time for the week crappy, whether by cheating, or whining the whole game, or plopping down a totally binary "roll for turn 1 then pack up" list, they'll only get to waste my time once.
Agree wholeheartedly. I have a short list of players I won't play against anymore. I'm in the same boat. At best, I get 2-4 games per month. I want to have fun playing the game. I've lost some of the most fun games I've ever played. I generally don't have fun playing against min/maxed lists that remove a lot of the tactical and strategic game play from the game.
It doesn't even have to be particularly min-maxed. a list with just one or two units in it, whether or not it's competitive, is going to only be interesting to play once or twice. Ditto for any list that basically decides the game on a couple of rolls.
There's no requirement that "a competitive player must dumb down their list" or "a fluffy player who wants to play a theme list spamming just one thing' needs to change their list, they're just not likely to play against me more than once. If other players make that call as well, they're likely to have trouble finding opponents.
the_scotsman wrote: The scrub attitude in 40k is absolutely rampant in 40k. Any kind of game that involves both balance by a team of developers and random dice is going to attract people who will blame anything but their own mistakes on a loss.
What I disagree with is the attitude that there is no reason to want to play a less competitive game besides scrubbiness.
A game of Street fighter, or StarCraft, or LoL doesn't take several hours to play, each game piece doesn't cost 30$ and 2 hours to paint. The most competitive matches of 40k involve many more extreme skew lists with which the game is essentially decided turn 1 or before the game. If you can make a list that wins every time it gets first turn, and wins 25% of the time it gets second turn, you have a highly competitive list and it probably requires zero tactical ability to play as or against.
Less competitive lists tend to deal less damage, meaning they lead to a longer game night, with both players interacting and getting to use a much wider range of their model collections.
There is no scrub attitude there. There is no reason any of that requires you to complain and call things "cheap" if you try to set a game like this up and a player turns up with a super skew list anyway.
Where people like peregrine get mad though is this part: while I will not refuse that game, or complain while I play it, I will not play that player again. I get to play one game a week, if it's a half hour or an hour and the game is decided the second we set up the pieces....I'm just going to play someone I know will give me a solid 3-4 hour game we can laugh about at the pub afterwards.
There is nothing there relating to winning and losing, and I know I'm going to get Peregrine or Slayer or whoever else wondering how DARE I, how DARE I discriminate against poor oppressed gamers who just want to win! But I don't give a gak. And honestly neither should anyone else. Time is money. If someone makes my game time for the week crappy, whether by cheating, or whining the whole game, or plopping down a totally binary "roll for turn 1 then pack up" list, they'll only get to waste my time once.
I'm a competitive player who plays to win, and yet I fully agree with everything you said. And you aren't forced to take games against anyone, and why should you be? Hell, why do they even want those games? I'd have a much better time playing and replaying the one guy who takes the game seriously, than stomping casual lists.
The one thing I disagree with is the part I bolded. And while it holds true for competitive players vs casual players, it is not the case in competitive level games, simply because you're playing against other equally as strong lists, and this is where games are not decided by turn 1, and it gets very strategical, and very in depth. I don't recommend it for everyone but I love it.
It doesn't even have to be particularly min-maxed. a list with just one or two units in it, whether or not it's competitive, is going to only be interesting to play once or twice. Ditto for any list that basically decides the game on a couple of rolls.
There's no requirement that "a competitive player must dumb down their list" or "a fluffy player who wants to play a theme list spamming just one thing' needs to change their list, they're just not likely to play against me more than once. If other players make that call as well, they're likely to have trouble finding opponents.
If this is what you were referring to, then I retract my last post, because you are right. Which is why the rule of 3 is so good. Things like Flyrant spam, there is zero strategy behind both building the list and playing it, you are just maxing out on a list of the strongest model in your dex that borderline plays itself. Truly competitive players who actually understand this game agree, Chapter Tactics mentions it a few times, I see the same thing stated by some of the best players - you might get results but you'll never get good at playing the game by taking one of these lists that maxes out on a single versatile unit with a niche profile attached to a very nice cost ratio, known to dominate tables at high level. I actually think that's where a lot of this salt comes from. With this option removed, players who considered themselves "good" and "competitive" players find they can no longer compete without such a crutch, but this level of self awareness isn't possible so they chalk it up to a bunch of other excuses, and blame GW for ruining their game with the removal of Rule of 3.
the_scotsman wrote: The scrub attitude in 40k is absolutely rampant in 40k. Any kind of game that involves both balance by a team of developers and random dice is going to attract people who will blame anything but their own mistakes on a loss.
What I disagree with is the attitude that there is no reason to want to play a less competitive game besides scrubbiness.
A game of Street fighter, or StarCraft, or LoL doesn't take several hours to play, each game piece doesn't cost 30$ and 2 hours to paint. The most competitive matches of 40k involve many more extreme skew lists with which the game is essentially decided turn 1 or before the game. If you can make a list that wins every time it gets first turn, and wins 25% of the time it gets second turn, you have a highly competitive list and it probably requires zero tactical ability to play as or against.
Less competitive lists tend to deal less damage, meaning they lead to a longer game night, with both players interacting and getting to use a much wider range of their model collections.
There is no scrub attitude there. There is no reason any of that requires you to complain and call things "cheap" if you try to set a game like this up and a player turns up with a super skew list anyway.
Where people like peregrine get mad though is this part: while I will not refuse that game, or complain while I play it, I will not play that player again. I get to play one game a week, if it's a half hour or an hour and the game is decided the second we set up the pieces....I'm just going to play someone I know will give me a solid 3-4 hour game we can laugh about at the pub afterwards.
There is nothing there relating to winning and losing, and I know I'm going to get Peregrine or Slayer or whoever else wondering how DARE I, how DARE I discriminate against poor oppressed gamers who just want to win! But I don't give a gak. And honestly neither should anyone else. Time is money. If someone makes my game time for the week crappy, whether by cheating, or whining the whole game, or plopping down a totally binary "roll for turn 1 then pack up" list, they'll only get to waste my time once.
I'm a competitive player who plays to win, and yet I fully agree with everything you said. And you aren't forced to take games against anyone, and why should you be? Hell, why do they even want those games? I'd have a much better time playing and replaying the one guy who takes the game seriously, than stomping casual lists.
The one thing I disagree with is the part I bolded. And while it holds true for competitive players vs casual players, it is not the case in competitive level games, simply because you're playing against other equally as strong lists, and this is where games are not decided by turn 1, and it gets very strategical, and very in depth. I don't recommend it for everyone but I love it.
It doesn't even have to be particularly min-maxed. a list with just one or two units in it, whether or not it's competitive, is going to only be interesting to play once or twice. Ditto for any list that basically decides the game on a couple of rolls.
There's no requirement that "a competitive player must dumb down their list" or "a fluffy player who wants to play a theme list spamming just one thing' needs to change their list, they're just not likely to play against me more than once. If other players make that call as well, they're likely to have trouble finding opponents.
If this is what you were referring to, then I retract my last post, because you are right. Which is why the rule of 3 is so good. Things like Flyrant spam, there is zero strategy behind both building the list and playing it, you are just maxing out on a list of the strongest model in your dex that borderline plays itself. Truly competitive players who actually understand this game agree, Chapter Tactics mentions it a few times, I see the same thing stated by some of the best players - you might get results but you'll never get good at playing the game by taking one of these lists that maxes out on a single versatile unit with a niche profile attached to a very nice cost ratio, known to dominate tables at high level. I actually think that's where a lot of this salt comes from. With this option removed, players who considered themselves "good" and "competitive" players find they can no longer compete without such a crutch, but this level of self awareness isn't possible so they chalk it up to a bunch of other excuses, and blame GW for ruining their game with the removal of Rule of 3.
I play in tournaments pretty regularly as well. when I say "involve many more extreme skew lists" what I'm basically referring to is the fact that a large percentage of the attendees to any tournament are "mid table warriors" who like you describe, blindly spam units they know to be competitive and hope to run into more "I almost always win" matchups than "I almost always lose" matchups.
When you see these oddball results like "Hey, a guy just won a tournament playing with 12 hellhounds?" what I see there is someone who might normally be a mid-table warrior getting lucky with his matchups (with a list like that, I'd say his lucky matchup is probably -to hit lists like Eldar and Drukhari venomspam, and he happened to run into 3 or 4 of those armies).
Because the actual top-tier tournament players tend to just play basement matches with each other as any game they play outside a GT is likely to be pretty much a practice game and they don't want to risk wasting their time by setting up with a random, and because they make up a small fraction of the general tournament scene, if you're playing against a self-described tournament player, they're highly likely to be a mid-table warrior. You're going to be getting that 12-hellhound list, or a shadowsword, four basilisks, and 120 infantry.You're not going to be seeing any kind of astounding tactical display.
MagicJuggler wrote: All this talk about what competitive play actually is, what is "fair" and what actually is supposed to be "fun" really is bringing out the need to quote David Sirlin, just because you could swap out the Street Fighter for 40k and not too much changes.
*wall of text*
I don't really understand how this translates to w40k, street fighter is nothing like w40k. It costs less, you can freely change from a bad character that is "bad" to a "good" one with only investment being the time to learn it. If you have bad army for w40k, you can't just switch to something different. You have to save up money for months, maybe even years for a really good army, and that one may get nerfed by the time you get the money. Also, although am not sure about that, I don't think the gap between good street fighters and bad ones, is the same as good and bad armies in w40k. The bad stuff in w40k us really bad, like requiring the opponent to buy a second bad army just to play them. There is also one more thing that is different between street fighter and w40k. If the person your playing is a master level gamer, he may switch out to a weaker character if your getting your butt handed to you for the 20th time. That does not happen with w40k, everyone has their 2000-2500armies, few rare people have 2-3 armies, but all of them are optimised and the only difference between playing a tournament and non tournament army, is that the tournament ones have to be painted. The game play expiriance is going to be the same. And it maybe wouldn't have been that bad if w40k was cheap, but spending 200-300$ and not getting to actually play with your models is really bad design.
This post is very true. I have many models that I love how they look and how they play, like terminators, but they aren't compettiive to make the cut for tournaments. So what If I try to use them in less competitive enviroments, because I refuse to have them sit in a cabinet for 5 years because they aren't "good enough" competitively? I paid and painted those models and I want to use them. Does that make me a scrub?
Then theres the fact that nobody has the same level of hability. Speaking about fighting games, as somebody that has been playing videogames for decades, whenever I go to a party with friends and we end up playing videogames... I normally facestomp everybody of them. Just because I play better. At that point I have 3 options:
-Keep destroying every single one of them, even if thats a relaxed enviroment in a party, with the hope that those scrubs will get gud
-Stop playing alltogether because people does not have fun playing with me
-Use less powerfull characters and don't use the stronger combos that I know my opponents just don't know how to stop.
And thats talking about a videogame where people has 0 investment in time and money and you can change characters as you wish. Apply that to Warhammer, where many people just doesn't has the option to change their list becuase they literally have no more models, and thats why I absolutely oppose to this "git gud" mentality. If you want to be competitive, OK, in competitive tournaments or games pre-arranged as competitive beforehand, thats absolutely okey, go as competitive as you want.
But as the_scotsman noted, thats not the problem for Peregrine or Slayer. They know nobody (Or nearly nobody) oppose with the idea of ultra-competitive players being competitive in tournaments, thats expected and acepted. Their grievance comes down from the fact that people in casual nights or afternoons in FLGS just don't like to play agaisnt that kind of list (In general, theres many FLGS with a very competitive community that enjoy always playing like that, and thats absolutely fine) normally, and of course that means everybody is just names and other offensive things and should get better because its morally represible to expect for the competitive player to toned down his list of his style of play.
But thats not what is expected, what is expected is for the outlier to adapt to his enviroment, or it will have a misserable experience. If you are a nooby casual into a ultra competitive community, normally people will go easy on you wile you are building your army, but they will expect and help you to make strong lists, because normally, competitive players don't enjoy just destroying noobs. The opposite happens too, if you are a competitive player that enters a relaxed community that play with what models they like, with house rules, etc... you will be expected to respect that enviroment. Is with this second situation where Peregrine and Slayer-Fan become angry and start shouting their tantrums about how thats absolutely unfair.
Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
It's probably mostly unintentional. I think GW tries to, but whether it's incompetence, playtesting the wrong way, the left-hand not communicating with the right, or shifting gears in planned development between codex runs. Could be something else.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
They simply don't understand the game well enough to make the powerlevel of factions and units consistent.
See the new ForgeShrine model for a good example of this - it has a buff to shooting which is actually worse than not using it.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
Don't assume malicious intent when ignorance is a perfectly good explanation.
Certainly, GW has made balance decisions in the past to drive people towards new models. This has happened, particularly commonly when they release a new model that competes for role with an existing kit, the existing kit tends to get the shaft.
But I'd bet that's the vast minority of cases. Take the current imbalance in 8th: Almost all the poorly performing codexes at the moment were the books we know to have been written and sent to the printers before the indexes in 8th were even released.
"Why is the grav-cannon 28pts while a disintegrator is 15" another poster asked earlier in the thread. The reason for that is because the Codex: Space Marines rules for the grav cannon were written when the Disintegrator (an obviously comparable weapon) was THIRTY points. The disintegrator only dropped to 15 when data came back from people playing 8th and GW said "oh, crap, that's super overpriced, we should drop it down."
Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Admech, Deathguard, and Grey Knights were all written before there was any actual play data from 8th. And if you look at competitive play objectively, for all the complaints from Marine players, the codexes released after that (Eldar, Guard, Drukhari, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Custodes, Thousand Sons, etc) all seem to have relatively good balance against one another overall. The worst factions released after the first five were...factions that share significant rules with those first five. Space Marine base costs are out of whack and a bunch of their stratagems are terrible? Well guess what, Dark Angels, who share many of those point costs and stratagems, are highly likely to be among the worst factions after the first five.
Across different factions, 40k is more diverse now than it ever has been in a competitive setting. Complain all you like about marines, the game has never seen this many factions coming up in top lists. An across-the-board buff to space marines and chaos marines as a whole would create pretty much unprecedented faction parity, and I hope that it's the first order of business as soon as all the codexes are finished.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
It's mostly that they were not playing the same game as their customers and are pretty much on the level of someone that started WH40k some time in 8th.
Sprinkle in some actual malice from previous management that forced rule designers to over-tune certain models to make them sell better.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
Don't assume malicious intent when ignorance is a perfectly good explanation.
Certainly, GW has made balance decisions in the past to drive people towards new models. This has happened, particularly commonly when they release a new model that competes for role with an existing kit, the existing kit tends to get the shaft.
But I'd bet that's the vast minority of cases. Take the current imbalance in 8th: Almost all the poorly performing codexes at the moment were the books we know to have been written and sent to the printers before the indexes in 8th were even released.
"Why is the grav-cannon 28pts while a disintegrator is 15" another poster asked earlier in the thread. The reason for that is because the Codex: Space Marines rules for the grav cannon were written when the Disintegrator (an obviously comparable weapon) was THIRTY points. The disintegrator only dropped to 15 when data came back from people playing 8th and GW said "oh, crap, that's super overpriced, we should drop it down."
Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Admech, Deathguard, and Grey Knights were all written before there was any actual play data from 8th. And if you look at competitive play objectively, for all the complaints from Marine players, the codexes released after that (Eldar, Guard, Drukhari, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Custodes, Thousand Sons, etc) all seem to have relatively good balance against one another overall. The worst factions released after the first five were...factions that share significant rules with those first five. Space Marine base costs are out of whack and a bunch of their stratagems are terrible? Well guess what, Dark Angels, who share many of those point costs and stratagems, are highly likely to be among the worst factions after the first five.
Across different factions, 40k is more diverse now than it ever has been in a competitive setting. Complain all you like about marines, the game has never seen this many factions coming up in top lists. An across-the-board buff to space marines and chaos marines as a whole would create pretty much unprecedented faction parity, and I hope that it's the first order of business as soon as all the codexes are finished.
Is Death Guard really that bad? In my perception it's a pretty solid army, and I'm not even souping in anything.
Death Guard are in a good ish spot, but they loose hard to certain factions. They are probably also still being propped up by some of their most powerful stuff, while what should be a core unit in the deathguard codex are rarely seen.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
It's mostly that they were not playing the same game as their customers and are pretty much on the level of someone that started WH40k some time in 8th.
Sprinkle in some actual malice from previous management that forced rule designers to over-tune certain models to make them sell better.
Karol wrote: Could someone explain to me why GW makes some factions very good and fun to play, and others just plain bad? Am assuming they do want to sell no matter what it is. Only explanation I can think of is, IMO, stupid that they make bad factions so people buy in to them get burned, buy some more trying to fix them, get ally that are good, then get even more ally and finaly playing a good list, meaning each person that starts with a bad list and doesn't auto quit buys 2 lists, unlike someone who got lucky and started with a good list from the start. But it seems too stupid to be true.
Don't assume malicious intent when ignorance is a perfectly good explanation.
Certainly, GW has made balance decisions in the past to drive people towards new models. This has happened, particularly commonly when they release a new model that competes for role with an existing kit, the existing kit tends to get the shaft.
But I'd bet that's the vast minority of cases. Take the current imbalance in 8th: Almost all the poorly performing codexes at the moment were the books we know to have been written and sent to the printers before the indexes in 8th were even released.
"Why is the grav-cannon 28pts while a disintegrator is 15" another poster asked earlier in the thread. The reason for that is because the Codex: Space Marines rules for the grav cannon were written when the Disintegrator (an obviously comparable weapon) was THIRTY points. The disintegrator only dropped to 15 when data came back from people playing 8th and GW said "oh, crap, that's super overpriced, we should drop it down."
Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Admech, Deathguard, and Grey Knights were all written before there was any actual play data from 8th. And if you look at competitive play objectively, for all the complaints from Marine players, the codexes released after that (Eldar, Guard, Drukhari, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Custodes, Thousand Sons, etc) all seem to have relatively good balance against one another overall. The worst factions released after the first five were...factions that share significant rules with those first five. Space Marine base costs are out of whack and a bunch of their stratagems are terrible? Well guess what, Dark Angels, who share many of those point costs and stratagems, are highly likely to be among the worst factions after the first five.
Across different factions, 40k is more diverse now than it ever has been in a competitive setting. Complain all you like about marines, the game has never seen this many factions coming up in top lists. An across-the-board buff to space marines and chaos marines as a whole would create pretty much unprecedented faction parity, and I hope that it's the first order of business as soon as all the codexes are finished.
Is Death Guard really that bad? In my perception it's a pretty solid army, and I'm not even souping in anything.
In terms of tournament appearances and rankings Death Guard is hitting the mark fairly low.
The amount of complaining you're going to hear about any given faction being bad is a complex equation that typically follows the form
((How the faction feels to play*people's favorite units being competitively viable^Number of people who play the faction)*5 if the faction in question is Tau, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle or Eldar) + (.00000000001*actual competitive performance of the faction)
Ice_can wrote: Death Guard are in a good ish spot, but they loose hard to certain factions. They are probably also still being propped up by some of their most powerful stuff, while what should be a core unit in the deathguard codex are rarely seen.
DG I feel are in a great spot, but like others alluded to... its because of the great (some might say "OP") models that work with the Demons faction, which for nurgle has some of the best troops in the game (PB's/Nurglings).
As a pure faction, though, DG are extremely weak. Plague Marines are meh, Blightlords are terribly expensive and have low kill potential, things like Deathshroud are awful for the cost.... which is why all you see anymore is demon princes and the demon engines. DG has some of the best Chaos Vehicles around.
I don't know if scrub behaviour is that common in 40k. The idea isn't that people are sore losers - but that they justify playing the game in a highly limited way.
So something like this:
Forum user 1: Flyers are pretty good. I like them.
Scrub: Flyers are cheap and overpowered. I recently went to a tournament and lost 5 games to them.
Forum User 1: I don't think they are that good.
Scrub: No. Flyers are cheap. Its dishonourable to use them. Only bad players use flyers.
Forum User 2: Have you thought about taking more anti-air options in your list?
Scrub: No. Flyers are dishonourable. Playing against dishonourable people is bad. I shouldn't have to change my behaviour/learn anything new to play dishonourable people. Full stop. The end. Tactical Marine Gunlines Forever!
I'd guess the main example in current 40k is whether you soup or not - and whether you consider soup "dishonourable" even if its the obvious answer to a problem. (I think saying "Army book X sucks, just buy a whole new army" is going a bit far - but if you want to win a reasonably attended GT its probably the answer.)
I don't think however its scrub behaviour to observe that rock/paper/scissor matchups are not fun.
Across different factions, 40k is more diverse now than it ever has been in a competitive setting. Complain all you like about marines, the game has never seen this many factions coming up in top lists. An across-the-board buff to space marines and chaos marines as a whole would create pretty much unprecedented faction parity, and I hope that it's the first order of business as soon as all the codexes are finished.
As I’m going to continue beating this drum until either my hands bleed or GW listens, might as well bring it up here. Remove the Primaris/non-Primaris distinction, give every Space Marine Infantry model the Primaris +1 Attack, +1 Wound, -1 AP to Bolters/Bolt Pistols/Chainswords/Combat Blades, a small points increase and remove the restrictions on Primaris using transports. Slight tweaks to things like Berserkers to stop them being crazy OP.
Then I would genuinely say we would be in a golden era of balance.
I don't want to go the route of "it's a game", but when you're putting stock in honor in a game...that is silly. Just play the game do what you can to win.
I don’t want to go the route of “it’s a game”, but when you’re putting stock in winning in a game of toy soldiers... that is silly.
Different world views, mate.
Take another gaming example - if I’m playing Counterstrike and there’s only me and one other guy left who’s run out of ammo, I’ll pull my knife out and go skin the bastard rather than just sniping him from across the map.
Which is a silly self-imposed rule for literally no reason at all. Just end the match sniping them and get the next game going. That's stupid.
SHUPPET wrote: As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.
Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.
The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao
If you REALLY that high profile you would know that people actually think the opposite of you.
Also saying you mod a discord literally means nothing.
So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
Or perhaps one of the largest problems with 40k is that there isn't a single way to play even within matched play. If the game were, I don't know, balanced, maybe we could avoid these arguments entirely. Instead of "40k is great if you play it the way I do" or "playing with the intent to win is wrongbadfun, I play to tell stories with my minis, and I am vehemently unwilling to consider that anything that happens during the game is part of the story."
Oh, David Sirlin. He's a smart man, and he's right in so many ways in his articles, but in terms of actually winning over the non-believers, he only preaches to the choir. To everyone that stands to benefit from understanding what he's trying to say, the articles are so condescending that it simply causes entrenchment.
I so wish there was a resource as well thought through and written that took the ideas of "scrub logic" and actually helped people understand the inward appraisal needed for self improvement. His articles are written in a way that weaponizes "scrub logic" against others, but the real value in his work is understanding the way we bind ourselves in self defeating ways.
There is 100% value in Sirlin's articles if you use them to reflect on yourself and use them as a ladder to better yourself. I think what they ultimately lack is a perspective beyond the goal of winning a world championship. There are definitely goals in gaming beyond winning, but all too often we let "scrub logic" get in the way of reaching even the most casual of play goals. Seeking to understand what we can actually control and using that knowledge to find the best route to achieve our goals, regardless of how "competitive" they are, is ultimately what these articles should help us with.
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
Or perhaps one of the largest problems with 40k is that there isn't a single way to play even within matched play. If the game were, I don't know, balanced, maybe we could avoid these arguments entirely. Instead of "40k is great if you play it the way I do" or "playing with the intent to win is wrongbadfun, I play to tell stories with my minis, and I am vehemently unwilling to consider that anything that happens during the game is part of the story."
Not really because even if the game is perfectly balanced people with different mindsets will have an horrible experience if they play together, thats why most (If not all) competitive videogames have casual/quickmatch mode and competitive mode.
With this I'm not saying that Warhammer couldn't be more balanced. It could, and that would benefit everybody. But that wouldn't magically solve all the problems that happens when a casual/relaxed player goes agaisnt a competitive one.
I take no horse in this race because I play both competitively and in more relaxed enviroments. I just aknowledge the fact that you can't have a good experience when one person with one of those two attidues faces other with the opposite one. No matter how balanced the game is.
And no, a more relaxed player is not a scrub, just like a competitive player is not a WAAC. Both are legitimate ways to play the game.
And this is talking in the context of a videogame where changing from a weak option to a strong one can be made normally without any consequence in a couple of minutes. Warhammer is very different, with hundreds of € and tenths of hours invested in your army because you like how it looks, and to then find it sucks. If that player tries to do is best with what he/her has, but don't want to buy the "OP" stuff because he does not like it, maybe aesthetically, maybe how it plays, does that make him a scrub? In the context of the arcitle of David Sirling, it would.
They simply don't understand the game well enough to make the powerlevel of factions and units consistent.
But it can't be so. If you look something like eldar or IG, you can clearly see that there was in depth thoughts when they designed it. I would even say that when they made all the eldar books, they were thinking about them being stand alone armies, mixed in Inari or used as ally detachments. If GW was bad at making books, then all of their would be bad. Why can they make something like a fun tier 2 codex like deathwatch, or nice codex like custodes, but when they write something else it feels as if they did a copy pasta of the index.
. If that player tries to do is best with what he/her has, but don't want to buy the "OP" stuff because he does not like it, maybe aesthetically, maybe how it plays, does that make him a scrub? In the context of the arcitle of David Sirling, it would.
What if the army doesn't have any "OP" stuff? Out of the people I play against, only one person plays in tournaments. Most started a few months ago, so it is not like they have a huge edge over me as skill goes. Yet when I play my friends Inari or Chaos I am not just getting tabled. I don't get to do stuff. I try to take objectives, my units gets killed with shoting in one turn. I try to do melee, my units have no buffs to charge out of deep strike. the closest games I had was against a dude whose army was made out of starter sets with primaris, till he switched to deathwatch and got a baneblade, not it is just as unfun to play vs him as other people.
They simply don't understand the game well enough to make the powerlevel of factions and units consistent.
But it can't be so. If you look something like eldar or IG, you can clearly see that there was in depth thoughts when they designed it. I would even say that when they made all the eldar books, they were thinking about them being stand alone armies, mixed in Inari or used as ally detachments. If GW was bad at making books, then all of their would be bad. Why can they make something like a fun tier 2 codex like deathwatch, or nice codex like custodes, but when they write something else it feels as if they did a copy pasta of the index.
. If that player tries to do is best with what he/her has, but don't want to buy the "OP" stuff because he does not like it, maybe aesthetically, maybe how it plays, does that make him a scrub? In the context of the arcitle of David Sirling, it would.
What if the army doesn't have any "OP" stuff? Out of the people I play against, only one person plays in tournaments. Most started a few months ago, so it is not like they have a huge edge over me as skill goes. Yet when I play my friends Inari or Chaos I am not just getting tabled. I don't get to do stuff. I try to take objectives, my units gets killed with shoting in one turn. I try to do melee, my units have no buffs to charge out of deep strike. the closest games I had was against a dude whose army was made out of starter sets with primaris, till he switched to deathwatch and got a baneblade, not it is just as unfun to play vs him as other people.
If you are having bad games due to balancing you need to communicate with the people you are playing with. You need to talk about what kind of games you want to have. If they are more competitive (or their armies are) you need to work towards a resolution. Having a crappy army sucks, but if you want to play you need to take steps. Try talk with the others and asking if they can tone down their lists or even think of employing a points handicap to give you a fighting chance. Point handi-caps are very muddy as it can be VERY hard to agree on what is appropriate and it only works with friends, but the option is there. I did that a fair bit back in 7th when I played my marines versus my friend's Chaos. He played me with a 200 point advantage and we had much better games because of it.
They simply don't understand the game well enough to make the powerlevel of factions and units consistent.
But it can't be so. If you look something like eldar or IG, you can clearly see that there was in depth thoughts when they designed it. I would even say that when they made all the eldar books, they were thinking about them being stand alone armies, mixed in Inari or used as ally detachments. If GW was bad at making books, then all of their would be bad. Why can they make something like a fun tier 2 codex like deathwatch, or nice codex like custodes, but when they write something else it feels as if they did a copy pasta of the index.
. If that player tries to do is best with what he/her has, but don't want to buy the "OP" stuff because he does not like it, maybe aesthetically, maybe how it plays, does that make him a scrub? In the context of the arcitle of David Sirling, it would.
What if the army doesn't have any "OP" stuff? Out of the people I play against, only one person plays in tournaments. Most started a few months ago, so it is not like they have a huge edge over me as skill goes. Yet when I play my friends Inari or Chaos I am not just getting tabled. I don't get to do stuff. I try to take objectives, my units gets killed with shoting in one turn. I try to do melee, my units have no buffs to charge out of deep strike. the closest games I had was against a dude whose army was made out of starter sets with primaris, till he switched to deathwatch and got a baneblade, not it is just as unfun to play vs him as other people.
As I've said: A lot of the codexes that feel like copy/pastes of the index are in fact mostly copy/pastes from the index. Games Workshop had precisely the same amount of playtest data to look at when they designed the marine Index as when they designed the marine Codex: Whatever they'd done in the house.
If you look objectively at, for example, the Eldar codex, and the difference between what they got and what Marines got, there's no question that the Eldar stuff included a lot more high-quality stuff. but when it comes to Depth...eh? I don't actually think there's evidence that there was more "care and thought" involved - just that they had some data that certain units were priced too conservatively in the index and could use a bump.
three out of the five craftworld attributes are the same as marine chapter tactics (with the small addition of 2 units getting to move and fire a couple different heavy weapon options in the case of Saim-Hann) and the stratagems are all similar in idea to marine stratagems: A particular unit does some kind of special thing. If you take a particular combination of units, they do a special thing. A unit gets a boost in close combat. The signature unit of <subfaction> or unit type does something special.
The difference is that for some stratagems they'd learned how to make the stratagem a little more difficult for your opponent to evade (auspex scan and forewarned) and for several others, the units named in the stratagem aren't crap. The farseer/Warlock stratagem for example would be a lot less good if, like Librarians, taking multiples of them was stupid because they're crazy overcosted. The Linked Fire stratagem would be a lot less good if like Whirlwinds and Land Speeders Fire Prisms were terrible.
None of the traits, stratagems or relics showed any more depth or care taken than the ones out of the marine book. What Eldar did get was big fat points rebalances, and a few units got special rules swapped around or tweaked. That's the big difference: The balance pass. Vindicators would be a damn sight better if they got a "fire twice if they move half" rule. Land Speeders would be decent if their price got slashed by half. And as a consequence the stratagems surrounding them would seem a lot less lame in comparison.
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
No, you're missing the point a bit.
Competitive players use every tool available in the game to help them win because winning is the point.
Scrubs limit themselves by some internal rules that hinder them winning and tell themselves that those limits they made up makes them somehow better than the person without those limits that's beating them.
That does not mean that playing fluffy campaigns is wrong, it means that going to a tournament and complaining about people taking lists that are cheesy/OP/unfluffy/etc. is wrong.
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
No, you're missing the point a bit.
Competitive players use every tool available in the game to help them win because winning is the point.
Scrubs limit themselves by some internal rules that hinder them winning and tell themselves that those limits they made up makes them somehow better than the person without those limits that's beating them.
That does not mean that playing fluffy campaigns is wrong, it means that going to a tournament and complaining about people taking lists that are cheesy/OP/unfluffy/etc. is wrong.
Which makes perfect black and white sense in certain games. But in 40k that gets muddled, by the big limit that exists on every player in the form of time and money. By this definition, anyone who doesn't have the income to keep up with the competitive meta is a scrub because they let that get in the way of winning (the only objective of the game.) Also, anyone who doesn't just spray-prime their models to a 3 color minimum is a scrub, because they let that aesthetic thing get in the way of winning.
Is a grey tide that you ebay every month seriously the thing we want to aspire to in this hobby?
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
No, you're missing the point a bit.
Competitive players use every tool available in the game to help them win because winning is the point.
Scrubs limit themselves by some internal rules that hinder them winning and tell themselves that those limits they made up makes them somehow better than the person without those limits that's beating them.
That does not mean that playing fluffy campaigns is wrong, it means that going to a tournament and complaining about people taking lists that are cheesy/OP/unfluffy/etc. is wrong.
Which makes perfect black and white sense in certain games. But in 40k that gets muddled, by the big limit that exists on every player in the form of time and money. By this definition, anyone who doesn't have the income to keep up with the competitive meta is a scrub because they let that get in the way of winning (the only objective of the game.) Also, anyone who doesn't just spray-prime their models to a 3 color minimum is a scrub, because they let that aesthetic thing get in the way of winning.
Is a grey tide that you ebay every month seriously the thing we want to aspire to in this hobby?
No, that is not what it is saying at all. If you aren't taking your best because you haven't been able to buy or paint them yet that doesn't make you a scrub.
If you come away from a loss thinking "I really need to get those two units built and painted, not having them hurt me but I probably could have played better around their absence." then your head is in the right place.
On that subject, most player at national level are building or substantially expanding an army a couple of times of a year. That is just part of keeping up at that level.
If you refuse to take your best because of rules you've made up (like no soup or never taking three of something or every squad must have different equipment) and then telling yourself that you are better than the people beating you because you follow those rules and they don't then that makes you a scrub.
Just look at the people we get posting on here who go to a tournament, get soundly beaten and then instead of asking what they should do differently instead cry "These mean tournament players with their cheesy lists! I could totally beat all of them but I am too pure to take a cheesy list like that."
Or I'm sure you know some players who take a weak list with no plan and when they lose instead of looking at themselves blame the dice or their codex or your army, etc. Scrubs.
Galas wrote: So "high end competitive players" believe the true way to play the game its how they play it, and anybody that doesn't play like them is either a noob that don't know how to play or a scrub that plays the game the "wrong way"... hmmm...
Yeah, same dog, different collar.
No, you're missing the point a bit.
Competitive players use every tool available in the game to help them win because winning is the point.
Scrubs limit themselves by some internal rules that hinder them winning and tell themselves that those limits they made up makes them somehow better than the person without those limits that's beating them.
That does not mean that playing fluffy campaigns is wrong, it means that going to a tournament and complaining about people taking lists that are cheesy/OP/unfluffy/etc. is wrong.
Which makes perfect black and white sense in certain games. But in 40k that gets muddled, by the big limit that exists on every player in the form of time and money. By this definition, anyone who doesn't have the income to keep up with the competitive meta is a scrub because they let that get in the way of winning (the only objective of the game.) Also, anyone who doesn't just spray-prime their models to a 3 color minimum is a scrub, because they let that aesthetic thing get in the way of winning.
Is a grey tide that you ebay every month seriously the thing we want to aspire to in this hobby?
No, that is not what it is saying at all. If you aren't taking your best because you haven't been able to buy or paint them yet that doesn't make you a scrub.
If you refuse to take your best because of rules you've made up (like no soup or never taking three of something or every squad must have different equipment) and then telling yourself that you are better than the people beating you because you follow those rules and they don't then that makes you a scrub.
Just look at the people we get posting on here who go to a tournament, get soundly beaten and then instead of asking what they should do differently instead cry "These mean tournament players with their cheesy lists! I could totally beat all of the but I too pure to take a cheesy list like that."
Or I'm sure you know some players who take a weak list with no plan and when they lose instead of looking at themselves blame the dice or their codex or your army, etc. Scrubs.
Yep. Scrubs definitely exist and are a consistent annoyance in 40k. You'll notice I said that in my first post in this thread. But when you make statements like
"Scrubs limit themselves by some internal rules that hinder them winning and tell themselves that those limits they made up makes them somehow better than the person without those limits that's beating them. "
or, in a more longwinded format, like the linked post to the Street Fighter Dev put it (his thesis statement is a similar "anyone who doesn't use all tools available to them to win games is a scrub").
If you apply that logic, you don't just EVENTUALLY get to "anyone who doesn't swap armies every couple of months is a scrub, with all the monetary and time commitments that come along with that", you get to that INSTANTLY. A couple of armies in a game that has over a dozen armies are always better than the rest at any given time, and all those armies bare minimum cost 500$US to get 2000 points of. Very, very often, it's more (guard meta anyone?)
You must accept some kind of limit external to wanting to win the game unless you have the time and money to ebayswap your armies very frequently.
Compared to that level of scrubbiness? Straight up just playing the wrong army? That guy refusing to take all plasma guns on his marines and instead having one flamer squad one grav squad one plasma squad is small potatoes.
Not being able to get those new models because you can't get them doesn't make you a scrub. You know that your current army is holding you back, your aren't blaming the dice or the game or the other player.
Refusing to get the better army because you must stick to your one and only faction and that makes you better than filthy band-wagoners and its all their fault that you lose makes you a scrub.
It's not about if you have the best army, it's about what's going on in your head.
Even the guy that takes his fluffy army and loses every game isn't necessarily a scrub if he understands that his self imposed limit is what's making him lose. If he comes away telling himself that its all unfair and he only lost because everyone else had cheese and spam then he's a scrub.
Scott-S6 wrote: Not being able to get those new models because you can't get them doesn't make you a scrub. You know that your current army is holding you back, your aren't blaming the dice or the game or the other player.
Refusing to get the better army because you must stick to your one and only faction and that makes you better than filthy band-wagoners and its all their fault that you lose makes you a scrub.
It's not about if you have the best army, it's about what's going on in your head.
How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?
If I don't want to buy a new army and I believe my army being bad is keeping me from winning, I am not a scrub.
However, in the second instance, if I don't want to buy a new army and I believe my army being bad is keeping me from winning, I am a scrub.
Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.
Some of the people who take that attitude, you are labeling scrubs. Others, you are labeling not. Is it a question of it just being a financial concern? What if you could afford to buy a new army that would give you a better chance of winning for a few months, but choose not to for some other reason, like being attached to your collection? Where is the line where you become a scrub?
What if the army doesn't have any "OP" stuff? Out of the people I play against, only one person plays in tournaments. Most started a few months ago, so it is not like they have a huge edge over me as skill goes. Yet when I play my friends Inari or Chaos I am not just getting tabled. I don't get to do stuff. I try to take objectives, my units gets killed with shoting in one turn. I try to do melee, my units have no buffs to charge out of deep strike. the closest games I had was against a dude whose army was made out of starter sets with primaris, till he switched to deathwatch and got a baneblade, not it is just as unfun to play vs him as other people.
If you are having bad games due to balancing you need to communicate with the people you are playing with. You need to talk about what kind of games you want to have. If they are more competitive (or their armies are) you need to work towards a resolution. Having a crappy army sucks, but if you want to play you need to take steps. Try talk with the others and asking if they can tone down their lists or even think of employing a points handicap to give you a fighting chance. Point handi-caps are very muddy as it can be VERY hard to agree on what is appropriate and it only works with friends, but the option is there. I did that a fair bit back in 7th when I played my marines versus my friend's Chaos. He played me with a 200 point advantage and we had much better games because of it.
Ok, I swear am not trying to insult you, but how is this suppose to work. People here have 1 army, 2000pts, few have a bit more points. A very specific group of people have 2-3 armies, but all of those are tournament players, and they don't want to play people with non tournament armies. And as handicaps go, how am I suppose to make it work? Tell someone to play with 200pts less? they will just tell me to stuff it and play someone who has a 2000pts army. And those are my friends from school, people that I don't know, don't want to play as soon as they hear what army I am playing, because and this is their words"it is a waste of time to play vs my army" and tables are not free in my store.
And as points handicaps and chaos got, I have a very bad xp with chaos. I played I game vs chaos when I knew I would lose, decided I would take the holy relic objective. Lost almost all my models trying to get to it. My last 3 dudes took it by killing his last unit on it, and he just smiled and resummoned them for free and informed me he has enough CP to do it 2 more time. So I don't think points handicaps work vs chaos.
How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?
Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.
Because what they think is the exactly the difference. Being a scrub is mindset.
If you know your army is holding you back and you just can't afford to replace it / don't want to replace it / whatever, are you a scrub?
It depends.
If your response to being in that situation is: I know that my army is a problem but I can't/won't replace it so maybe I should practice more or come up with a better plan. Not a scrub.
If your response is: look at all of these try hards with cheesy armies. I would totally be winning if they never updated their army like me which is proper and right. Scrub.
The scrub won't improve because it's always someone else's fault and he totally should be winning but he's too good to do what's required to win. We see this every edition change. Allies are a thing now? I'm too good to use allies. Super heavies? Forgeworld? Etc. The other guy will improve even if his army limits how well he can do.
I think you over estimate the scrub's self awareness. They don't want to admit that it's their fault they don't win. It's always the dice or the codex or other people's unfair armies or anything at all which isn't them.
If they acknowledge that their chosen faction is weak then they'll will come up with some justification about how sticking with it no matter what makes them better somehow.
Your quote posts are all messed up xD. I read the first of your post outside of the quote box and was thinking "Man, this sounds familiar! All good though haha.
Oh you were not insulting at all no worries. I totally get what you are saying and it really does suck to be in a rough situation where your army is crap and you have very few options. I was giving advice on what worked for me and my group and if your group is unwilling to work with you then yeah you either need to pray for salvation or buy a new army. It sucks, it really does suck, but that's how it is.
three out of the five craftworld attributes are the same as marine chapter tactics (with the small addition of 2 units getting to move and fire a couple different heavy weapon options in the case of Saim-Hann) and the stratagems are all similar in idea to marine stratagems: A particular unit does some kind of special thing. If you take a particular combination of units, they do a special thing. A unit gets a boost in close combat. The signature unit of <subfaction> or unit type does something special.
The difference is that for some stratagems they'd learned how to make the stratagem a little more difficult for your opponent to evade (auspex scan and forewarned) and for several others, the units named in the stratagem aren't crap. The farseer/Warlock stratagem for example would be a lot less good if, like Librarians, taking multiples of them was stupid because they're crazy overcosted. The Linked Fire stratagem would be a lot less good if like Whirlwinds and Land Speeders Fire Prisms were terrible.
None of the traits, stratagems or relics showed any more depth or care taken than the ones out of the marine book. What Eldar did get was big fat points rebalances, and a few units got special rules swapped around or tweaked. That's the big difference: The balance pass. Vindicators would be a damn sight better if they got a "fire twice if they move half" rule. Land Speeders would be decent if their price got slashed by half. And as a consequence the stratagems surrounding them would seem a lot less lame in comparison.
I am looking at this from my army perspective. GK have specilised brotherhoods and no rules for them, unlike chapters or eldar craftworlds. When I see what a shining spear or cusodes on a bike does, and how much he cost and how much a unit of 10 GK terminators or 5 paladins cost, I don't understand how the same group of people could have written then rules for both. I look at GK hvy weapons and they downright suck, while costing more then loyalist stuff. Sure the CP stuff is important, but I think it is only important when you have the CP to cast stuff, and GK don't have those, have stratagems worth casting, and GK have one for when their Hero dies aka when your losing, and you have to have to units worth casting those stuff on. A reaper costs less then a paladin, but he can shot twice, can get buffed with psychic powers and gets even better with stratagems, I can burn 2 CP to make my stormbolters a bit better for a turn. So if eldar design was done without any depth, and going in to army synergies or combos, then I don't know what the rule set for GK can be called.The Kalahari of army design probablly.
How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?
Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.
Because what they think is the exactly the difference. Being a scrub is mindset.
If you know your army is holding you back and you just can't afford to replace it / don't want to replace it / whatever, are you a scrub?
It depends.
If your response to being in that situation is: I know that my army is a problem but I can't/won't replace it so maybe I should practice more or come up with a better plan. Not a scrub.
If your response is: look at all of these try hards with cheesy armies. I would totally be winning if they never updated their army like me which is proper and right. Scrub.
By David Stirlin post, both of those would be scrubs. The second one in mindset and the first one in actions, because hes chosing to not take the best course of action to improve his chances of winning.
Thats the problem I was talking about. We all know theres sore losers that blame everything else by their loses, but that SF Developer was dividing ALL the community in two groups: Good players, Scrubs.
And warhammer40k, a game with much more for it than the game itself, can't be measured with that stick, because your army is not just a gaming tool with a given power in a competitive tier, is a ton of money, emotional investment, and time investment.
And I believe is an absolutely legitimate criticism to make that your army sucks, and you lose for that (You can both acknowledge that you are inexperienced and you have room to imrpove, and the fact that your army sucks). Its a Grey Knight player a scrub because he wants to play Grey Knights and be able to compete agaisnt Dark Eldar? Doesn't he paid the same money for his rules/codex than the Dark Eldar player? Why is he responsible for GW writting bad rules to his faction? As The_Scotsman sais, if you end up in the "If you chose to not use the best option, you are a scrub", then everybody that isn't playing the best armies is a scrub.
At least, based in what David Stirlin wrote and many people agreed with.
So, this is essentially where Sirlin breaks down for people and its basically because his definition of scrub logic only holds true if your single goal is to win. In reality, people play games for a number of reasons and often with a number of competing goals in mind. Personally, I find Sirlin's arguments far more compelling when I consider scrub logic to be restrictions I place on myself (often in the form of incompatible goals) that prevent me from accomplishing much of anything.
It's important to recognize and take ownership of your goals. If the only goal that matters to you is winning, then yeah, you'll probably need to have a pretty huge collection to be able to rapidly jump to the new hotness. That's essentially true of any competitive game out there, regardless of how "balanced" people consider it. I play.... pretty much everything, and they all have to lists that top (more commonly B-tier) players chase.
Most people have goals that seem simple, but have a lot of specific complications. They probably want to win an unreasonable percentage of games with a specific faction or even a specific group of models You have to evaluate these things and decide how realistic they are and what goals you really want to focus on. For example, sometimes I want to win with Grey Knights. It's a tall order, but with the right expectations it works out fine. I accept that my win percentage might be less than it is with a more tuned army; I also accept that my Grey Knights might need to be less than a full army. I'll probably run less than 1000 points of them for deep strike purposes. The point is, I understand my actual goal and have reasonable expectations of what that means. I'm not demanding to win all my games with pure Grey Knights and getting mad at the game when that doesn't align with my opponent's goals. I adapt where I can to accomplish as many of my goals as possible, and in doing so, win or lose, I find something to enjoy in the experience.
Ultimately, you need to be responsible for your own happiness and take ownership to accomplish it. That may require changing decisions, changing models, or just changing expectations. The scrub is, essentially, those that demand that the world change to achieve happiness for them.
three out of the five craftworld attributes are the same as marine chapter tactics (with the small addition of 2 units getting to move and fire a couple different heavy weapon options in the case of Saim-Hann) and the stratagems are all similar in idea to marine stratagems: A particular unit does some kind of special thing. If you take a particular combination of units, they do a special thing. A unit gets a boost in close combat. The signature unit of <subfaction> or unit type does something special.
The difference is that for some stratagems they'd learned how to make the stratagem a little more difficult for your opponent to evade (auspex scan and forewarned) and for several others, the units named in the stratagem aren't crap. The farseer/Warlock stratagem for example would be a lot less good if, like Librarians, taking multiples of them was stupid because they're crazy overcosted. The Linked Fire stratagem would be a lot less good if like Whirlwinds and Land Speeders Fire Prisms were terrible.
None of the traits, stratagems or relics showed any more depth or care taken than the ones out of the marine book. What Eldar did get was big fat points rebalances, and a few units got special rules swapped around or tweaked. That's the big difference: The balance pass. Vindicators would be a damn sight better if they got a "fire twice if they move half" rule. Land Speeders would be decent if their price got slashed by half. And as a consequence the stratagems surrounding them would seem a lot less lame in comparison.
I am looking at this from my army perspective. GK have specilised brotherhoods and no rules for them, unlike chapters or eldar craftworlds. When I see what a shining spear or cusodes on a bike does, and how much he cost and how much a unit of 10 GK terminators or 5 paladins cost, I don't understand how the same group of people could have written then rules for both. I look at GK hvy weapons and they downright suck, while costing more then loyalist stuff. Sure the CP stuff is important, but I think it is only important when you have the CP to cast stuff, and GK don't have those, have stratagems worth casting, and GK have one for when their Hero dies aka when your losing, and you have to have to units worth casting those stuff on. A reaper costs less then a paladin, but he can shot twice, can get buffed with psychic powers and gets even better with stratagems, I can burn 2 CP to make my stormbolters a bit better for a turn. So if eldar design was done without any depth, and going in to army synergies or combos, then I don't know what the rule set for GK can be called.The Kalahari of army design probablly.
One more time!
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
this is the nature of the beast. This is why your codex stinks, I'm sorry. I do hope that the first order of business is making it not stink as soon as the last three codexes, due out within the next couple of months, are done. Don't act like it's some great mystery why they stink though.
Just remember though that models being underpowered and overpowered tend to compound. Looking over some of the stuff the Grey Knights have, for example...
Nemesis Lord warlord trait. +1 damage on all weapons. Oh look, it's the warlord trait you take on Blood Angel Smashcaptains, an extremely common tournament meta unit. Oh look, you can also give him Hammerhand so he also adds 1 to wound rolls, and he's got the very same Sadly, the units that can take it are terrible, which makes this trait, good in the context of another army, terrible. Same deal with First to the Fray - in the context of decent units, this could be amazing. Psybolt Ammunition if Land Raider Crusaders were fairly priced? Heed the Prognosticars is essentially Warp Surge with no 3++ cap that lasts the entire turn instead of 1 phase for the same cost - if GK characters were half-decently costed, that would be awesome.
Grey Knights is not impossibly far gone from the competitive meta. The units are just so ludicrously and universally overcosted that even the stuff that could be good is unsalvageable. Heck, Martel has raged about the fact that 3/5 ladies in a BSS have access to a Storm Bolter - how about we put one of those puppies on everygoddangbody? it's a good gun - too bad it's carried by a waaaaaaay overcosted body. But fix the cost of the body, now you're getting somewhere.
Also, FTR, GK have a chapter tactic. Like every other mono-subfaction army (death guard, blood angels, dark angels, soon to be space wolves) it's fixed, but it is there - +1 to cast and no smite limit. In a world where GK get errata'd so their characters actually get bigboy smite and they operate like the Thousand Sons, suddenly you're a step closer to having an actual viable army because that's actually pretty solid as a trait.
SHUPPET wrote: As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.
Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.
The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao
If you REALLY that high profile you would know that people actually think the opposite of you.
Also saying you mod a discord literally means nothing.
Well, I can verify everything I just said, so check me on it if you want to. Its not even that I'm "high profile", that was literally never the point of my post - saying I mod two fighting game discords for some of the biggest fighting games on the planet, means I almost definitely follow fighting games in some capacity does it not, and that was the only thing in question here. Let's be real you tried to check someone you know nothing about, you got it wrong, and now you're backpedalling.
Some people would agree with him, others would disagree. He's just a guy, with an opinion. Citing it like its the gospel and being like "if you were really part of the FGC you'd agree with him!" is just you showing how little it is you actually understand what you're talking about. I've seen this quote come up like twice in fgc circles over my decade and a half of playing competitive fighters and both times it was met with some mixed opinions, and I gave a rational explanation to why many disagree. I can probably even link to an example of exactly this happening. This quote I see circulated much more commonly outside the FGC by people on gaming blogs and whatever else and just like what happened here. Now I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but before you dig that whole deeper, maybe you should just defer to the person with actual experience and knowledge here instead of arguing against them with your surface level impression of what it means to be in the fgc.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.
Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.
The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.
A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.
In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.
But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.
Its not even about tournaments. This is a pure pvp game. Two players, one winner. It doesn't matter how polite or fluff driven you are, this is the game they sell. And then poor sods like karol buy into it and find that's its so imbalanced that they lost the game before they even started deploying their models. Thanks for the $500 dollars, better luck next edition. Remember to keep buying while you wait and see how things turn out.
SHUPPET wrote: As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.
No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.
If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.
Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.
The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao
If you REALLY that high profile you would know that people actually think the opposite of you.
Also saying you mod a discord literally means nothing.
Well, I can verify everything I just said, so check me on it if you want to. Its not even that I'm "high profile", that was literally never the point of my post - saying I mod two fighting game discords for some of the biggest fighting games on the planet, means I almost definitely follow fighting games in some capacity does it not, and that was the only thing in question here. Let's be real you tried to check someone you know nothing about, you got it wrong, and now you're backpedalling.
Some people would agree with him, others would disagree. He's just a guy, with an opinion. Citing it like its the gospel and being like "if you were really part of the FGC you'd agree with him!" is just you showing how little it is you actually understand what you're talking about. I've seen this quote come up like twice in fgc circles over my decade and a half of playing competitive fighters and both times it was met with some mixed opinions, and I gave a rational explanation to why many disagree. I can probably even link to an example of exactly this happening. This quote I see circulated much more commonly outside the FGC by people on gaming blogs and whatever else and just like what happened here. Now I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but before you dig that whole deeper, maybe you should just defer to the person with actual experience and knowledge here instead of arguing against them with your surface level impression of what it means to be in the fgc.
Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.
Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.
I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.
yeah, but.... there is a difference in power levels. I much prefer sub zero, but scorpion is better, hands down. You can either freeze someone and then move towards him and hope to hit him before he unfreezes, or you can freeze someone and drag him next to you so you can immediately start punching the feth out of him. One character is clearly superior to the other. And i like subzero, but the differences are obvious.
Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.
I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.
So off topic: is Injustice worth playing at all?
I'm also only part of a Pokemon Go! and 40k humor discords and nothing else.
Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.
I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.
So off topic: is Injustice worth playing at all?
I'm also only part of a Pokemon Go! and 40k humor discords and nothing else.
Some people really like it. Best I can describe is it's basically a simpler version of MK with less depth and a heavier focus on projectiles than up close tricks and aggression. I invested a few hundred hours in it based off my love for MK kept trying to love it, but it just never clicked for me and I dropped it. Best fighter on the market competitively atm is GuiltyGear imo if you want a deeper experience, but execution and combos can take a bit of getting used to.
But you're right we're well off topic. Anyone interested in talking it can feel free to PM me, I'm open to discuss this kinda thing with anyone at any time.
Torga_DW wrote: Its not even about tournaments. This is a pure pvp game. Two players, one winner. It doesn't matter how polite or fluff driven you are, this is the game they sell. And then poor sods like karol buy into it and find that's its so imbalanced that they lost the game before they even started deploying their models. Thanks for the $500 dollars, better luck next edition. Remember to keep buying while you wait and see how things turn out.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.
Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.
The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.
A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.
In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.
But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.
I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.
I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.
Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.
The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.
A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.
In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.
But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.
I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.
I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.
The rule book has narrative and open play rules in it, that I believe might be what you are looking for. Have you tried playing that way with friends? Are those systems lacking something that you feel would improve them? Do you see another way for strangers to play each other easily and without any complex conversation in a way that is scalable to large events other than having a tight set of matched play rules?
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
First off, when you hit "quote" to reply to someone, do all your typing below all the text. Otherwise, what you type appears in the quote box and it makes it really hard to read what you said.
second, while the indexes were ready before any codex, you have to send books to proofreading and the printers before you release them. We know from GW confirming this that the first five codex books were all written BEFORE the indexes were released to the public. This means that even though to you, you had the index, and then a couple months later you had the GK book, to GW there wasn't that 2 months. They had to write the index, then IMMEDIATELY decide "what do we add with the codex."
To me, the biggest mistake with GW handling Grey Knights was choosing to release them so early, but even that I can understand. They probably knew that GK would feel like crap to play with half a psychic power list, but releasing them so early, they had no idea how several things they'd done to the game were going to affect balance. Doubling the wounds on Terminators, AND releasing a whole army with access to mortal wounds (a brand new mechanic) both at the same time led them to be massively overly cautious with the initial GK statlines, and because they didn't have any time to see how GK would perform in the wide world before they put out their codex, that over cautiousness went straight from their index to the codex.
There were obviously a number of lessons learned between GK and the other psyker-focused Marines, Thousand Sons, though they still have not figured out marine pricing. They realized they need to have many more than 6 powers available for a psyker-focused faction to feel good in 8th. They realized that the characters of a faction should have regular psychic damage output even if they give the mooks wimpy-smite.
If you look at the GK stratagems, relics, warlord traits etc they don't actually look that bad. Stratagems especially, GK have some that could be pretty solid if the army itself were good. It's really the psychic issue (characters having wimpysmite, and also only access to 6 powers) and the hideous over-costing of each and every unit and piece of wargear that hold them back. That could be fixed in a chapter approved pretty easily, especially if it were released alongside a Marine Codex 2.0 that fixes a lot of the shared units/stratagems and improves the Librarius discipline. Give GK access to a librarius discipline with more than 2 useful spells in it, give their characters full smite, and for gods sake fix the point costs of their units and suddenly, they're an army again.
kombatwombat wrote: Hasn’t he written his own response within the quote box?
I agree with his point I just cackle at the irony of his specific cock-up.
Actually, weirdly enough I think mine might be a bug. Because I have all my text after a "[\spoiler]" (obviously with the slash going the right way) but everything within the spoiler box is a quote, so I think something got fluffed up there? It seems to have just put my text in some kind of a square box.
It seems to be doing what I wanted to do though, i.e. hide all the quotes behind a spoiler so its not a wall of text, but its just showing it a bit oddly.
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
I have noticed that sometimes when you hit "Quote" it boops you to the end of the text and you can start typing immediately, while other times it boops you right in the middle for no reason and if you start typing, you're typing inside the quote.
I think this inconsistency has made me check every post time and again.
ON TOPIC STUFF:
My opinions are perhaps known, but while winning might be the objective of the game, fun is the objective of the activity, and for some people, winning and fun are divested.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.
Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.
The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.
A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.
In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.
But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.
I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.
I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.
The rule book has narrative and open play rules in it, that I believe might be what you are looking for. Have you tried playing that way with friends? Are those systems lacking something that you feel would improve them? Do you see another way for strangers to play each other easily and without any complex conversation in a way that is scalable to large events other than having a tight set of matched play rules?
Genuinely curious.
Matched play is fine I don’t use it. I use narrative and open play, that’s my point. When using those the game works fine as long as you all aren’t silly about it. As for how strangers play each other use matched play, the problem is that people seem to think you have to make the game entirely match play like to have a good game and this isn’t true at all. If people start imposing match play rules through out or make sweeping changes to make the game play better at tournaments at the detriment of casual players that’s where the mistakes lie. Match play is not the be all and end all. For some of us 40k works fine. Hence angin why I think a fully different tournament edition could be made that suits tournament play and leaves the rest of us to enjoy the open game. I suggest this as it appears so many people are unhappy with how 40k plays at tournements, how abusable it is. No need to ruin the fun because some people can’t play nice.
Yeah people don't want to play stuff other then matched play, because the armies they have are bought with what majority of what other people play. Lets say I convince someone to drop the rule of 3 by playing open play or narrative. I don't know how those 2 work, but am assuming they are now free to pick they army, so they will get the best stuff only now without the 0-3 limitation.
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
First off, when you hit "quote" to reply to someone, do all your typing below all the text. Otherwise, what you type appears in the quote box and it makes it really hard to read what you said.
second, while the indexes were ready before any codex, you have to send books to proofreading and the printers before you release them. We know from GW confirming this that the first five codex books were all written BEFORE the indexes were released to the public. This means that even though to you, you had the index, and then a couple months later you had the GK book, to GW there wasn't that 2 months. They had to write the index, then IMMEDIATELY decide "what do we add with the codex."
To me, the biggest mistake with GW handling Grey Knights was choosing to release them so early, but even that I can understand. They probably knew that GK would feel like crap to play with half a psychic power list, but releasing them so early, they had no idea how several things they'd done to the game were going to affect balance. Doubling the wounds on Terminators, AND releasing a whole army with access to mortal wounds (a brand new mechanic) both at the same time led them to be massively overly cautious with the initial GK statlines, and because they didn't have any time to see how GK would perform in the wide world before they put out their codex, that over cautiousness went straight from their index to the codex.
There were obviously a number of lessons learned between GK and the other psyker-focused Marines, Thousand Sons, though they still have not figured out marine pricing. They realized they need to have many more than 6 powers available for a psyker-focused faction to feel good in 8th. They realized that the characters of a faction should have regular psychic damage output even if they give the mooks wimpy-smite.
If you look at the GK stratagems, relics, warlord traits etc they don't actually look that bad. Stratagems especially, GK have some that could be pretty solid if the army itself were good. It's really the psychic issue (characters having wimpysmite, and also only access to 6 powers) and the hideous over-costing of each and every unit and piece of wargear that hold them back. That could be fixed in a chapter approved pretty easily, especially if it were released alongside a Marine Codex 2.0 that fixes a lot of the shared units/stratagems and improves the Librarius discipline. Give GK access to a librarius discipline with more than 2 useful spells in it, give their characters full smite, and for gods sake fix the point costs of their units and suddenly, they're an army again.
Ok, but if they update the GK codex at the re-work run of lets say the next edition, what is going to change really? Let say they give GK new psychic powers, but decide that psychic powers were to strong in 8th, and GK get a nerfed psychic power book, but this time with extra stuff. Then 2-3 codex roll up, GW decided that 9th ed should be all about tanks, and GK codex doesn't have any of those. So they will be bad once again, and then what wait another year that they fix it? People told me on this forum that GK were bad whole 7th ed, if they end up bad in 8th, what is the chance that they get the rules right next time? And I doubt they will let people return their GK armies for something that works.
Also I still am not getting why when an index and a codex was done matters. They couldn't have done the codex without having the edition rules, because they wouldn't be able to test them at all. And even lets say it was a rush job and they droped the ball hard, why then instead of making people buy and index, which I didn't buy, and then an identical and bad codex, why didn't they just put the rules online after they realised the index is bad, and they don't know how to make a good codex, but they have a release date they have to fill with something. This way people at least would know that something is wrong with the army. I also don't get the keeping a close watch on GK psychic powers thing, from what I have been told the early 8th ed was ruled by armies that spamed real smite for cheap, and eldar had it more or less till the last points nerf to all of their casters. So they kept watch on GK, which they knew were bad, and which they knew had a bad index and a bad codex, but they were ok with a powerful codex like eldar to have normal smite spam and superior psychic powers? They would have to be borderline incompetent to do that, and I don't think a big company like GW can be that
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
First off, when you hit "quote" to reply to someone, do all your typing below all the text. Otherwise, what you type appears in the quote box and it makes it really hard to read what you said.
second, while the indexes were ready before any codex, you have to send books to proofreading and the printers before you release them. We know from GW confirming this that the first five codex books were all written BEFORE the indexes were released to the public. This means that even though to you, you had the index, and then a couple months later you had the GK book, to GW there wasn't that 2 months. They had to write the index, then IMMEDIATELY decide "what do we add with the codex."
To me, the biggest mistake with GW handling Grey Knights was choosing to release them so early, but even that I can understand. They probably knew that GK would feel like crap to play with half a psychic power list, but releasing them so early, they had no idea how several things they'd done to the game were going to affect balance. Doubling the wounds on Terminators, AND releasing a whole army with access to mortal wounds (a brand new mechanic) both at the same time led them to be massively overly cautious with the initial GK statlines, and because they didn't have any time to see how GK would perform in the wide world before they put out their codex, that over cautiousness went straight from their index to the codex.
There were obviously a number of lessons learned between GK and the other psyker-focused Marines, Thousand Sons, though they still have not figured out marine pricing. They realized they need to have many more than 6 powers available for a psyker-focused faction to feel good in 8th. They realized that the characters of a faction should have regular psychic damage output even if they give the mooks wimpy-smite.
If you look at the GK stratagems, relics, warlord traits etc they don't actually look that bad. Stratagems especially, GK have some that could be pretty solid if the army itself were good. It's really the psychic issue (characters having wimpysmite, and also only access to 6 powers) and the hideous over-costing of each and every unit and piece of wargear that hold them back. That could be fixed in a chapter approved pretty easily, especially if it were released alongside a Marine Codex 2.0 that fixes a lot of the shared units/stratagems and improves the Librarius discipline. Give GK access to a librarius discipline with more than 2 useful spells in it, give their characters full smite, and for gods sake fix the point costs of their units and suddenly, they're an army again.
Ok, but if they update the GK codex at the re-work run of lets say the next edition, what is going to change really? Let say they give GK new psychic powers, but decide that psychic powers were to strong in 8th, and GK get a nerfed psychic power book, but this time with extra stuff. Then 2-3 codex roll up, GW decided that 9th ed should be all about tanks, and GK codex doesn't have any of those. So they will be bad once again, and then what wait another year that they fix it? People told me on this forum that GK were bad whole 7th ed, if they end up bad in 8th, what is the chance that they get the rules right next time? And I doubt they will let people return their GK armies for something that works.
Also I still am not getting why when an index and a codex was done matters. They couldn't have done the codex without having the edition rules, because they wouldn't be able to test them at all. And even lets say it was a rush job and they droped the ball hard, why then instead of making people buy and index, which I didn't buy, and then an identical and bad codex, why didn't they just put the rules online after they realised the index is bad, and they don't know how to make a good codex, but they have a release date they have to fill with something. This way people at least would know that something is wrong with the army. I also don't get the keeping a close watch on GK psychic powers thing, from what I have been told the early 8th ed was ruled by armies that spamed real smite for cheap, and eldar had it more or less till the last points nerf to all of their casters. So they kept watch on GK, which they knew were bad, and which they knew had a bad index and a bad codex, but they were ok with a powerful codex like eldar to have normal smite spam and superior psychic powers? They would have to be borderline incompetent to do that, and I don't think a big company like GW can be that
I think you may have me mistaken for a GW rules team. I'm just a person who does not tend to see intent and conspiracies when they are not evident.
The timing of when something was released matters immensely, because as anyone who's ever playtested a video game release will gladly tell you, no matter how much in-house playtesting you do, you cannot replicate the thousands of people testing your game out on release.
And again, you're doing the VERY SAME thing: Comparing CODEX: Eldar, which was released after they had data from tournaments, the playerbase, etc, and not INDEX: Eldar. In the index, you saw the very same over-cautious pricing of psychic powers and mortal wounds, because again, mortal wounds were a brand new concept for 40k and were obviously very powerful. The full-smite Spiritseers everyone complained about spamming smites post codex were priced at 66 points in the index, and were generally considered to be pretty terrible...they dropped, in the codex, by 21 points. Nearly a third of their cost.
The Eldar INDEX was released with the same playtest data as the GK CODEX, and the Eldar index was pretty much terrible outside of Dark Reapers which saw play in Ynnari lists at the time. IIRC the ynnari lists we saw during the flyer-spam era were mostly Harlequins with fusion blasters for troops, Yvraine and maybe a naked Autarch for HQs, and Dark Reapers in the back receiving the shoot twice power.
So when you ask "how could they, how COULD they release a codex they KNEW would be terrible just to penalize poor old grey knight players and then release an Eldar codex that's not terrible" - you're assigning intent based on no evidence of intent. They realized post-index that they overshot on pricing for Mortal Wound access and multi-wound models, and the Eldar codex, as well as every other codex released based on that play data, received buffs based on those findings.
If marine players have to wait all the way until next edition to see buffs I will personally eat my shoe. You guys are the whales of GWs business model and the combined tears of the current marine playerbase are such that I'm amazed GW hasn't had to deal with flooding in their mail room.The point of Chapter Approved as stated by GW is to fix exactly these kinds of issues.
I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
This isnt the first time that a army has been severely underpowered, and it will certainly not be the last. Im guessing youre a new player, but plenty of xenos armies have gone YEARS without a playable codex (I think DE went something like 9 years at one point).
I agree with you that GK and other weaker armies need to be buffed, and this edition it seems more likely than ever with their CA and FAQS cadence. That being said, there is always going to be a codex that is weak for a long time (orks have gotten the short end of the stick on multiple occasions, including in 6th when we were the first codex to come out not dis-similar to the situation that you and other SM players are complaining about right now).
As for your point about Custodes and DW getting decent codexes but no index: they learned how players from all armies played, what works and doesnt in with the mechanics of the new edition and applied it to those codexes. Its a fairly common thing to do in any kind of development.
What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
It's mostly luck, I think.
Custodes happen to have invul saves and more than 2 wounds, which let's them actually be durable since it ignores the AP system and not die to 1 shot from most guns. They still only have about 2 good units, though.
Deathwatch are a perfect example of GW having a general idea how their game works now with the newer books, as their abilities and strategems are decent. You can see how they were more than just a direct port from the index like SM and GK were. They are still very glass cannony, have about 3 good units, and tons of useless units, but the ammo and deepstrike strat go a long way to help them when you throw in FW dreads.
LunarSol wrote: It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
You are Games Workshop's game balance team. The head honchos say to you "okay Karol, write us up the Indexes please."
You write the indexes. You're throwing in a lot of big changes from 7th edition - folding vehicles into big multi-wound monstrous creatures, adding a damage stat to various weapons, adding multiple wounds to a bunch of elite infantry, and completely overhauling the psychic power system with a new mechanic that completely bypasses even Invulnerable saves. Understandably, you're a little cautious about some of these mechanics, and when you play your test games, you probably price stuff that ouputs those mortal wounds pretty conservatively, to make sure that they're not wiping out whole space marine armies in a couple of turns.
Now, you've got your indexes, you did your in-house playtests, you send them to corporate. Corporate says "thanks! Now, please write us the first few codexes, so we can have them ready to print in the first months 8th ed is out."
What do you change? You have no more playtesting than you had before. You have no feedback from players trying your rules out. Nobody has run big tournaments so you don't know what your competitive players think is the best thing in the game. This is what I mean by "no data."
When you're talking about Deathwatch, or Custodes, or ANY codex outside of Space Marines, GK, DG, CSM, and Admech, they had that data. They saw what was doing well in tournaments, they heard back from players what they didn't like, and they were able to make adjustments to the index to release the codex based on that. Expecting them to put their hands over their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" just so everyone's codex can be as hit-and-miss as the first handful is asinine. When they had feedback, they listened to feedback. That's great. They didn't have a crystal ball. I can fault GW for a lot of things, but playing it safe when it came to dumping an all-psychic army into an edition of the game where you just introduced mortal wounds? Yeah, I'd rather have that than just have them slap mortal wounds on every single unit and go "have fun kids, we'll balance this gak laterrrrr!"
I get that marine players tend to think of themselves as this overwhelming majority that makes so many sales for GW so GW should pay the most attention to them. And if you play Space Marines you probably have a point. But buddy, you play Grey Knights. The number of Grey Knight players is not larger than the number of (to use an example of a major faction still sitting around waiting for a codex release) ork players. Or Eldar players. Or Tau players. GW is not going to slam on the brakes and go back and fix your gak before they get all the other codex books out, you might have a tiny (if selfish) point if you were a Marine player, but if you're a GK player you get the feth in line.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Yes, 7 Hive Tyrants was bad at tournaments.
RIP thematic Space Marine tank companies.
Imagine if they had just limited Hive Tyrants to one per Detachment. Max three detachments in a matched play army.. Oh wait...
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
You are Games Workshop's game balance team. The head honchos say to you "okay Karol, write us up the Indexes please."
You write the indexes. You're throwing in a lot of big changes from 7th edition - folding vehicles into big multi-wound monstrous creatures, adding a damage stat to various weapons, adding multiple wounds to a bunch of elite infantry, and completely overhauling the psychic power system with a new mechanic that completely bypasses even Invulnerable saves. Understandably, you're a little cautious about some of these mechanics, and when you play your test games, you probably price stuff that ouputs those mortal wounds pretty conservatively, to make sure that they're not wiping out whole space marine armies in a couple of turns.
Now, you've got your indexes, you did your in-house playtests, you send them to corporate. Corporate says "thanks! Now, please write us the first few codexes, so we can have them ready to print in the first months 8th ed is out."
What do you change? You have no more playtesting than you had before. You have no feedback from players trying your rules out. Nobody has run big tournaments so you don't know what your competitive players think is the best thing in the game. This is what I mean by "no data."
When you're talking about Deathwatch, or Custodes, or ANY codex outside of Space Marines, GK, DG, CSM, and Admech, they had that data. They saw what was doing well in tournaments, they heard back from players what they didn't like, and they were able to make adjustments to the index to release the codex based on that. Expecting them to put their hands over their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" just so everyone's codex can be as hit-and-miss as the first handful is asinine. When they had feedback, they listened to feedback. That's great. They didn't have a crystal ball. I can fault GW for a lot of things, but playing it safe when it came to dumping an all-psychic army into an edition of the game where you just introduced mortal wounds? Yeah, I'd rather have that than just have them slap mortal wounds on every single unit and go "have fun kids, we'll balance this gak laterrrrr!"
I get that marine players tend to think of themselves as this overwhelming majority that makes so many sales for GW so GW should pay the most attention to them. And if you play Space Marines you probably have a point. But buddy, you play Grey Knights. The number of Grey Knight players is not larger than the number of (to use an example of a major faction still sitting around waiting for a codex release) ork players. Or Eldar players. Or Tau players. GW is not going to slam on the brakes and go back and fix your gak before they get all the other codex books out, you might have a tiny (if selfish) point if you were a Marine player, but if you're a GK player you get the feth in line.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Yes, 7 Hive Tyrants was bad at tournaments.
RIP thematic Space Marine tank companies.
Imagine if they had just limited Hive Tyrants to one per Detachment. Max three detachments in a matched play army.. Oh wait...
Ask Tau which version of that nerf they would prefer...
Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
LunarSol wrote: It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Disagree. The biggest problem with 8th is the base. It's far too shallow to support what GW wants to do with the game. GW wants units to all be unique and work differently, even if only marginally, but the core rules don't give them more than the stat line and roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save- so we end up with bespoke rules tacked onto everything, and inevitably, because there isn't any design space for units to fulfill similar roles in different ways, or heaven forbid, have strengths and weaknesses, we end up with this binary system of units being too good, or not good enough.
40k desperately needs a true rewrite. Alternating activation. A meaningful morale system. A statline with more consequence, so GW could tweak stats more often to differentiate units, etc. There are over 20 armies in the game right now with many more units- they can't all be different under the current system and be balanced.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces
BINGO we have a winner! Armies with 1-of-everything not only perform terrible, but they also look terrible on the table as well! How is THAT any fun?
Predators themselves might be okay, but enough other units cause issues and it seems objectively easier to balance things in general with the rule of three around. Once again I contend that if the rule of three had been around at the beginning of the edition, no one would have batted an eye.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
Right, which goes all the way back to the original question: Why do casual players not want balance? Because balance damages the game's diverse options.
And yeah, you could stay isolated with you and your 4 friends and play whatever you want, but that's disingenuous. It's the age of the internet. I find games locally at 3 different FLGSs, a club house, and at least one friend's house. If I design a 2k army, I have to follow the Matched Play rules - because the only alternative is designing a 2k army that works in one setting, then redesigning it for another, then redesigning it for another.
There should be a reasonable expectation that a game can be played casually without having to worry about altering your list to follow the rules.
jcd386 wrote:
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
I'll repeat what I said above: There should be a reasonable expectation that a "pick-up-game" is a casual setting, while still being able to play themed lists. To sweepingly declare every PUG as a "competitive game" is a problem.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
Right, which goes all the way back to the original question: Why do casual players not want balance? Because balance damages the game's diverse options.
And yeah, you could stay isolated with you and your 4 friends and play whatever you want, but that's disingenuous. It's the age of the internet. I find games locally at 3 different FLGSs, a club house, and at least one friend's house. If I design a 2k army, I have to follow the Matched Play rules - because the only alternative is designing a 2k army that works in one setting, then redesigning it for another, then redesigning it for another.
There should be a reasonable expectation that a game can be played casually without having to worry about altering your list to follow the rules.
jcd386 wrote:
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
I'll repeat what I said above: There should be a reasonable expectation that a "pick-up-game" is a casual setting, while still being able to play themed lists. To sweepingly declare every PUG as a "competitive game" is a problem.
I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces
BINGO we have a winner! Armies with 1-of-everything not only perform terrible, but they also look terrible on the table as well! How is THAT any fun?
Predators themselves might be okay, but enough other units cause issues and it seems objectively easier to balance things in general with the rule of three around. Once again I contend that if the rule of three had been around at the beginning of the edition, no one would have batted an eye.
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
Then I guess where we differ is that I think that in pick up games and tournements it's more important that the gaming experience be as good as possible no matter what legal army the other player chooses. So sometimes restrictions and or balance have to trump theme.
That being said, I think GW should also do everything they can to make make as many theme armies possible and playable, as it only means a more varied experience and more money for them. I still don't see a lot of good reasons to have more than 3 of the same unit, though.
This is why I think the “rule” of 3 is fine, I don’t play match play and need/want these restrictions. So don’t use them. But if these types of restrictions were to become the actual rules for all in the quest for this mythical balance then that would ruin in the game for me. It would be like me demanding that every unit and character in a players army was named and had a history and background written before the battle, including story for the battle and how they came to be there and what their motivations were, army origins and interactions between characters and factions. That to me is more important than balance. (Not that anyone has given me a proper definition of the term in relation to 40k).
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
That was me. And it was a serious question. That you took my question as an attack is rather telling.
What precisely are the changes that some players are concerned about? So far the only answer is "it restricts my personal, subjective homebrew theme". If balance isn't important to these kinds of players, open play is a thing. Other players being able to play balanced games against others that find the challenge of battling an opponent enjoyable is not going to hurt you.
You are Games Workshop's game balance team. The head honchos say to you "okay Karol, write us up the Indexes please."
You write the indexes. You're throwing in a lot of big changes from 7th edition - folding vehicles into big multi-wound monstrous creatures, adding a damage stat to various weapons, adding multiple wounds to a bunch of elite infantry, and completely overhauling the psychic power system with a new mechanic that completely bypasses even Invulnerable saves. Understandably, you're a little cautious about some of these mechanics, and when you play your test games, you probably price stuff that ouputs those mortal wounds pretty conservatively, to make sure that they're not wiping out whole space marine armies in a couple of turns.
Now, you've got your indexes, you did your in-house playtests, you send them to corporate. Corporate says "thanks! Now, please write us the first few codexes, so we can have them ready to print in the first months 8th ed is out."
What do you change? You have no more playtesting than you had before. You have no feedback from players trying your rules out. Nobody has run big tournaments so you don't know what your competitive players think is the best thing in the game. This is what I mean by "no data."
When you're talking about Deathwatch, or Custodes, or ANY codex outside of Space Marines, GK, DG, CSM, and Admech, they had that data. They saw what was doing well in tournaments, they heard back from players what they didn't like, and they were able to make adjustments to the index to release the codex based on that. Expecting them to put their hands over their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" just so everyone's codex can be as hit-and-miss as the first handful is asinine. When they had feedback, they listened to feedback. That's great. They didn't have a crystal ball. I can fault GW for a lot of things, but playing it safe when it came to dumping an all-psychic army into an edition of the game where you just introduced mortal wounds? Yeah, I'd rather have that than just have them slap mortal wounds on every single unit and go "have fun kids, we'll balance this gak laterrrrr!"
I get that marine players tend to think of themselves as this overwhelming majority that makes so many sales for GW so GW should pay the most attention to them. And if you play Space Marines you probably have a point. But buddy, you play Grey Knights. The number of Grey Knight players is not larger than the number of (to use an example of a major faction still sitting around waiting for a codex release) ork players. Or Eldar players. Or Tau players. GW is not going to slam on the brakes and go back and fix your gak before they get all the other codex books out, you might have a tiny (if selfish) point if you were a Marine player, but if you're a GK player you get the feth in line.
First of all, I didn't insult you so don't tell me to feth anything. But m aybe it is my english, but you say they had no data on GK, so they gave them bad index and bad codex. That they wanted to be safe, so kept the rules for the index weak. At the same time the same mechanics, like smite spam, was handed out to eldar or tzeench demons like candy with no limitations. They weren't playing it safe with those armies.
They had 0 tests done with custodes and deathwatch, but they made good books with them. You say they made them good, because they based it on data from people playing other factions. Ok, then why weren't they able to use the same data to make GK better. Plus this wasn't the first edition of w40k, so if they are able to draw data from other armies, why didn't they use the data from previous edition. From what I was told, so I could be wrong here, GK were bad in editions before, but had more options. More special rules etc. One would have to be mad to expect a bad army in a new edition to lose, options and somehow become better.
I am a total noob. I never played any wargames before, other then some PC ones. And I felt that something was wrong with GK after 3 games, and I knew it when my friend showed me how much his units cost. I am a noob, I knew that after seeing his codex for 5 min. There is no way designers with 20 years of expiriance were unable to notice that.
First of all, I didn't insult you so don't tell me to feth anything. But m aybe it is my english, but you say they had no data on GK, so they gave them bad index and bad codex. That they wanted to be safe, so kept the rules for the index weak. At the same time the same mechanics, like smite spam, was handed out to eldar or tzeench demons like candy with no limitations. They weren't playing it safe with those armies.
They had 0 tests done with custodes and deathwatch, but they made good books with them. You say they made them good, because they based it on data from people playing other factions. Ok, then why weren't they able to use the same data to make GK better. Plus this wasn't the first edition of w40k, so if they are able to draw data from other armies, why didn't they use the data from previous edition. From what I was told, so I could be wrong here, GK were bad in editions before, but had more options. More special rules etc. One would have to be mad to expect a bad army in a new edition to lose, options and somehow become better.
I am a total noob. I never played any wargames before, other then some PC ones. And I felt that something was wrong with GK after 3 games, and I knew it when my friend showed me how much his units cost. I am a noob, I knew that after seeing his codex for 5 min. There is no way designers with 20 years of expiriance were unable to notice that.
As far as I’m aware, Eldar and Tzeentch Daemons’ ability to smite spam in their Index incarnation was not really any stronger than GK’s ability to smite spam as an Index. So I don’t see it as GW deliberately nerfing GK at the Index stage relative to Eldar/Tzeentch Daemons. True, they weren’t playing it safe with the Eldar and Tzeentch Daemon Codexes, but that’s exactly what we’re saying - when they wrote the Eldar Codex, they had feedback and data so they didn’t feel the need to play it so safe.
Yes they used data and feedback from other factions to make the Custodes and Deathwatch Codexes strong, because they had six months’ worth of player feedback data to base them on. At the time of writing the GK Codex, they had absolutely zero of this data, so how could they have used the data to make the GK Codex better if it didn’t exist when they wrote the book?
The paradigm shift to 8th Edition was so massive that data from previous editions is at best useless, and at worst harmful. Look at Sisters of Battle’s 6+ Invulnerable Save. In 7th Ed it had a use against what used to be AP3 weapons like Battle Cannons. They ported it directly over to 8th Ed, but because of how Save modifiers work in this edition, that 6+ Invul is only useful against weapons with AP-4 or better - and is anybody seriously pointing enough meltaguns at 9pt models that the 6++ will ever be successfully made? Sisters are shackled with a rule based on 7th Ed data and it’s conpletely useless. For another example, look at Terminators. In 7th, 2 Wound Terminators would have been fantastic. Now with the way armour modifiers work and multi-damage weapons, it didn’t help them at all. You just can’t use data from earlier editions in this case - you’re starting from a clean slate.
As to why they don’t have more special rules, again, when they wrote the Codex they had no idea how powerful mortal wounds and psychic powers would be, so they played it a little safe. Later Codexes - those for which they had data to base upon - didn’t need to play it so safe. Regarding them having more options previously, most of the options they used to have are now Stratagems. This isn’t GK-specific, it’s a general theme for 8th Ed (and one I strongly disagree with, incidentally).
Remember that while you’re new to the game, you’re comparing your Codex which was written conservatively due to a lack of data, to your friend’s Codex which was written later with data to be based upon and hence not written conservatively. If you compare apples to apples - namely, GK to something like the Space Marine Codex or the Adeptus Mechanicus one, or the GK Codex to its contemptorary Index books for any faction, and suddenly it doesn’t look so bad.
Edit: I should add that I sympathise with you. I play thematic Black Templars, which as a subfaction is probably the only Codex army that could challenge GK for the title of Worst Amy in the Game. The Marine statline needs a rebuild from the ground up to accommodate the new edition.
Exactly. Because they have to start writing the early codexes BEFORE the edition drops in order to meet an aggressive release schedule, those early codexes didnt have index player data behind them, while the later ones do.
The key here is that they had to start writing them before anyone got indexes.
All that may be true but they did know how badly GK were struggling when they released the newest FAQ (which did have point changes in it, you know more nerfs for marines) and yet didn't take the time to throw GK any more of a bone than "you're terrible mini-smite sucks just a little less."
I am starting to think this is almost entirely a language barrier. Karol has come back and said the exact same thing phrased slightly differently 4-5 times now, and I don't think they're getting the actual meaning when we say 'they had no data.'
What I mean, Karol, is that if you're a customer, there was time between the release of the GK index, and the GK codex.
Players had time to test out the GK index, think about it, identify things that were wrong with it, and think "this is what I would like to see improved in a codex."
Developers, the people making the game, wrote both books BEFORE any players got to play 8th edition. This is why Custodes and Deathwatch ended up better balanced than GK or normal marines, and this is why when I compare codex GK to other rules for other armies, I am primarily looking at INDEXES, not codexes.
Hindsight is 20/20. If you imagine every codex was written by the same guy at the same time, yeah, it seems like someone went out of their way to blatantly shaft your army. In reality, nearly every codex that has been having significant problems was written before the edition of the game was released to the wider public.
Games workshop's design team has said at conventions and QnA sessions that they are aware of the problems Marines are having in competitive play and they are planning on fixing them. Until then, marines and GK have fairly poor codexes. Agreeing on house rules with your opponents or creating custom scenarios can help this somewhat, because I assume as a newbie you probably don't have access to a whole army made out of the few things that do actually work reasonably well for GK (Vendreads, stormravens, Interceptors with Chapter Ancient, GMNDKs etc). When I play against Grey Knights, I play with any units in Terminator armor and any characters getting full power smite, and that helps out immensely.
the_scotsman wrote: I am starting to think this is almost entirely a language barrier. Karol has come back and said the exact same thing phrased slightly differently 4-5 times now, and I don't think they're getting the actual meaning when we say 'they had no data.'
What I mean, Karol, is that if you're a customer, there was time between the release of the GK index, and the GK codex.
Players had time to test out the GK index, think about it, identify things that were wrong with it, and think "this is what I would like to see improved in a codex."
Developers, the people making the game, wrote both books BEFORE any players got to play 8th edition. This is why Custodes and Deathwatch ended up better balanced than GK or normal marines, and this is why when I compare codex GK to other rules for other armies, I am primarily looking at INDEXES, not codexes.
Hindsight is 20/20. If you imagine every codex was written by the same guy at the same time, yeah, it seems like someone went out of their way to blatantly shaft your army. In reality, nearly every codex that has been having significant problems was written before the edition of the game was released to the wider public.
Games workshop's design team has said at conventions and QnA sessions that they are aware of the problems Marines are having in competitive play and they are planning on fixing them. Until then, marines and GK have fairly poor codexes. Agreeing on house rules with your opponents or creating custom scenarios can help this somewhat, because I assume as a newbie you probably don't have access to a whole army made out of the few things that do actually work reasonably well for GK (Vendreads, stormravens, Interceptors with Chapter Ancient, GMNDKs etc). When I play against Grey Knights, I play with any units in Terminator armor and any characters getting full power smite, and that helps out immensely.
Yes. This is exactly what happened to Grey Knights. It's the First Mover Rule. Getting the first Codex in any edition means you are going to have the worst rules after 6 months in.
In 6th edition, the same thing happened with Chaos Space Marines. It took until the end of 7th edition for them to get decent rules through supplements.
Of course, in 8th edition, the Chaos Space Marine Codex was released at the same time as the Grey Knights Codex. Codex CSM happens to be good (but is showing it's age.)
The corollary to the First Mover Rule is the Reparations Rule. Any Codex suffering from the First Mover Rule will be restored to playability in the next edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, by this logic, it’s safe to presume Orks will be OP by the time their Codex is released.
Blastaar wrote: What precisely are the changes that some players are concerned about? So far the only answer is "it restricts my personal, subjective homebrew theme". If balance isn't important to these kinds of players, open play is a thing. Other players being able to play balanced games against others that find the challenge of battling an opponent enjoyable is not going to hurt you.
I dislike the Ro3 because the army I have is now limited to a total of 4 HQ choices. We have one unique character and one other HQ character you can now take 3 of. To fill up a brigade detachment you are forced to take worthless Elite choices and you are so limited by the amount of units in the army that you quickly are forced to spam troops or take allies, because Soup is a good thing.
Before the Ro3 you could at least make several different builds workable, not break the meta powerful, but they were competitive to a reasonable degree in any competitive environment. Is that too much to ask? The fact that the Ro3 turned them into a mono-build army simply to fill up 2k in points because of Flyrant spam is terrible.
Blastaar wrote: What precisely are the changes that some players are concerned about? So far the only answer is "it restricts my personal, subjective homebrew theme". If balance isn't important to these kinds of players, open play is a thing. Other players being able to play balanced games against others that find the challenge of battling an opponent enjoyable is not going to hurt you.
I dislike the Ro3 because the army I have is now limited to a total of 4 HQ choices. We have one unique character and one other HQ character you can now take 3 of. To fill up a brigade detachment you are forced to take worthless Elite choices and you are so limited by the amount of units in the army that you quickly are forced to spam troops or take allies, because Soup is a good thing.
Before the Ro3 you could at least make several different builds workable, not break the meta powerful, but they were competitive to a reasonable degree in any competitive environment. Is that too much to ask? The fact that the Ro3 turned them into a mono-build army simply to fill up 2k in points because of Flyrant spam is terrible.
Yeah this sort of situation seems like something they should fix though specific exceptions to the rule of three, but I don't think it invalidates it completely. They could also come out with more HQs for those factions.
the_scotsman wrote: I am starting to think this is almost entirely a language barrier. Karol has come back and said the exact same thing phrased slightly differently 4-5 times now, and I don't think they're getting the actual meaning when we say 'they had no data.'
What I mean, Karol, is that if you're a customer, there was time between the release of the GK index, and the GK codex.
Players had time to test out the GK index, think about it, identify things that were wrong with it, and think "this is what I would like to see improved in a codex."
Developers, the people making the game, wrote both books BEFORE any players got to play 8th edition. This is why Custodes and Deathwatch ended up better balanced than GK or normal marines, and this is why when I compare codex GK to other rules for other armies, I am primarily looking at INDEXES, not codexes.
Hindsight is 20/20. If you imagine every codex was written by the same guy at the same time, yeah, it seems like someone went out of their way to blatantly shaft your army. In reality, nearly every codex that has been having significant problems was written before the edition of the game was released to the wider public.
.
Wait, players test stuff for GW? How does one get in to those testing groups, am not very good with english, but I could ask my dad to help me with writing raports.
People don't use custom rules here, so it isn't much of a help for me. But I agree that if I could rewrite my own codex I would make it better.
Does GW have a good history of fixing of bad armies? I do worry a bit, because being bad for multiple editions seems to point out at not, but then again maybe GK are just a very unlucky design or playtest teams.
the_scotsman wrote: I am starting to think this is almost entirely a language barrier. Karol has come back and said the exact same thing phrased slightly differently 4-5 times now, and I don't think they're getting the actual meaning when we say 'they had no data.'
What I mean, Karol, is that if you're a customer, there was time between the release of the GK index, and the GK codex.
Players had time to test out the GK index, think about it, identify things that were wrong with it, and think "this is what I would like to see improved in a codex."
Developers, the people making the game, wrote both books BEFORE any players got to play 8th edition. This is why Custodes and Deathwatch ended up better balanced than GK or normal marines, and this is why when I compare codex GK to other rules for other armies, I am primarily looking at INDEXES, not codexes.
Hindsight is 20/20. If you imagine every codex was written by the same guy at the same time, yeah, it seems like someone went out of their way to blatantly shaft your army. In reality, nearly every codex that has been having significant problems was written before the edition of the game was released to the wider public.
.
Wait, players test stuff for GW? How does one get in to those testing groups, am not very good with english, but I could ask my dad to help me with writing raports.
People don't use custom rules here, so it isn't much of a help for me. But I agree that if I could rewrite my own codex I would make it better.
Does GW have a good history of fixing of bad armies? I do worry a bit, because being bad for multiple editions seems to point out at not, but then again maybe GK are just a very unlucky design or playtest teams.
They have not in the past, but in this edition they have made a point of working with several major tournament groups and releasing major rules changes in an effort to balance things.
You have to understand: compared to any other edition of the game, the codexes in this edition have come out CRAZY fast. Like, six times faster than any edition in the past 15 years. There are yearly books intended to rebalance the game. It is safe to say that this will get looked at.
Ah ok, thanks for explaining all of this. But I do worry a bit, if they don't test their game themself and just base it on tournament data people send them, then it would be the way people say. Tournament players don't play GK, GW gets no data, so either think the army is fine, or they know what is wrong with them, but don't know what is wrong, so they don't fix stuff.
It is strange to hear that they don't have testing teams of their own. IMO it is actually crazy, no idea how they made it this long with this style of rules writing. Why don't they just make a short edition and when it is "online" they write codex for all other factions, and then after a year or two, they start a new edition and have books ready for everyone. Then no one would have to wait for a new book, and everyone would have the same starting point.
Karol wrote: Ah ok, thanks for explaining all of this. But I do worry a bit, if they don't test their game themself and just base it on tournament data people send them, then it would be the way people say. Tournament players don't play GK, GW gets no data, so either think the army is fine, or they know what is wrong with them, but don't know what is wrong, so they don't fix stuff.
It is strange to hear that they don't have testing teams of their own. IMO it is actually crazy, no idea how they made it this long with this style of rules writing. Why don't they just make a short edition and when it is "online" they write codex for all other factions, and then after a year or two, they start a new edition and have books ready for everyone. Then no one would have to wait for a new book, and everyone would have the same starting point.
GW has their own in-house testing, they just also have outside playtesters who can give them feedback from outside the Nottingham bubble.
Wait, players test stuff for GW? How does one get in to those testing groups, am not very good with english, but I could ask my dad to help me with writing raports.
It’s not quite like that, but they do take player feedback at 40kfaq@gwplc.com and they are acting upon it.
My advice when using that is to keep it short and to the point. Don’t give them a huge pile of rule suggestions, just give them a short summary of the problem and, if you want to suggest something, make it specific. Also, remember to be polite and keep your attitude positive and helpful rather than negative.
For example:
‘Dear GW,
Thank you for taking the time to consider player feedback.
Grey Knights are feeling underpowered relative to other Codexes. Owing to the fast release schedule, those books written early in the edition seem to have been left a bit behind the power curve that most of the books sit on. For example, a GK Paladin is more expensive than a Custodian Guard, but has lower stats and his psychic powers are not enough to make up the difference.
One suggestion for how to help GK out would be to introduce a series of extra psychic powers for Grey Knights, and to lower the points of units like Paladins that are more expensive than superior counterparts in the newer Codexes.
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
The big problem with the rule of 3 is that it DOESN'T help balance at all. In fact, based on what we've seen it makes balance WORSE. It takes soup from ubiquitous to mandatory, it exacerbates the strength of armies with good troop options, it kills off certain factions outright, it ruins themed lists, pushes mono-faction lists down the power ladder, and puts a stranglehold of list creativity for absolutely NO benefit.
The game is no more balanced now than when we had 7 flyrants running around. The only difference is we're seeing even more cookie-cutter builds with even less unit variety from list to list. Yes, within a list you're seeing people running more different units, but go look at the list next to that...and the next...and the next...and they'll all be basically the same thing. The rule of 3 was a stupid idea to begin with and it failed UTTERLY at what it was trying to do and should be dropped off a cliff and left to die a slow death.
The game plays strategically when you have a bunch of different units on the field, when you have a field full of one thing spammed it rarely ever does. Whether that effects balance or not, which is much more likely than you would imply, it's regardless an excellent change from a design perspective.
The people I play against use 3-4, sometimes more of the same unit and their lists work fine. As GKs go am not sure how mixing terminators and paladins would help, both seem bad, but the termintors seem a lot worse. And of course they do not fall under the take only 3 rule. the power armored dudes don't seem much better, the shunt guys would be ok, if they cost like 50% less, because they move and die in one turn. I have no idea what the goal of the astral aim GK is in the game, the psychic power is very situational and it kind of a builds,I think, around the idea that the special weapons are taken for that unit, because they can take 4. But the GK special weapons are horrible. The flame dudes are higher priced strikes with a worse smite, and no deep strike. #mindblown And then there are strikes, which seem to be to go to unit for other GK lists. I don't have them, but from what people here told me, their good side is that they costs less then termintors per wound. Which isn't much as almost everything in w40k is better costed then GK termintors.
kombatwombat wrote: Grey Knights are feeling underpowered relative to other Codexes. Owing to the fast release schedule, those books written early in the edition seem to have been left a bit behind the power curve that most of the books sit on. For example, a GK Paladin is more expensive than a Custodian Guard, but has lower stats and his psychic powers are not enough to make up the difference.
One suggestion for how to help GK out would be to introduce a series of extra psychic powers for Grey Knights, and to lower the points of units like Paladins that are more expensive than superior counterparts in the newer Codexes.
Many thanks and keep up the good work.
Best Regards’
Ok, thanks for the advice. I though they had something like a real playtest team like some other games do, when the testers get paid or at least get merch for doing their job. No one wants to work for free, and the email adress probablly is anwsered by a bot, or an intern who doesn't even play the game. But I will try to write them, my dad should help me make in understandable in english to some degree.
It is worth bearing in mind just *how much* play-testing would be required.
How many different ways can you build an army for each codex? To fully ensure balance, you'd need to take a variety of different army builds for each codex, and play it against the same variety of army builds for *every single other codex*. How many games do you need to play to ensure they are evenly matched? More than one. 5? 10?
Then you want to make sure it scales fairly. You'd want to do the same thing for different size armies. How far do you go there? 500 points, 1000 points, 1500 points, 1850 points, 2000 points?
Well I am assuming that the people that work at GW, are not slaves and do not work for food. Someone told me they have been working on the new edition for at least a year. Even if it was just half a year that is 8 hours 5 times a week of testing, and people could work at homes too, it is not like it is required to have some special machines to try stuff out at home. So it would be 40 hours per 4 weeks times 6. that is 960 hours of work time, assuming the design team does not consist of one dude, it seems to me like enough time to do. Specially as who ever is design team boss could just make people do additional work at home. A 10 man team could put a 9600 work hours in to testing. Some PC games have less and those are writen in code.
Not being able to get those new models because you can't get them doesn't make you a scrub. You know that your current army is holding you back, your aren't blaming the dice or the game or the other player.
Refusing to get the better army because you must stick to your one and only faction and that makes you better than filthy band-wagoners and its all their fault that you lose makes you a scrub.
It's not about if you have the best army, it's about what's going on in your head.
Even the guy that takes his fluffy army and loses every game isn't necessarily a scrub if he understands that his self imposed limit is what's making him lose. If he comes away telling himself that its all unfair and he only lost because everyone else had cheese and spam then he's a scrub.
there is NOT a wrong and right way to play wh40k, competitive and casual can be both fun, depend what you look for in this game. Personally i play both ways, mostly competitive but i have no problems play just to roll some dice.
The only thing i dont really understand is why some have to bother so much about what kind of play is better, you like play casual, is ok play casual but dont come in competitive topics saying Oh Lord competitive is evil and crap, same for who like play competitive, this is a GAME after all. Another thing hilarious is when a casual player come at tournaments and he is kicked in his butt, then complain cause he found "evil, crappy unbeatable, not funny lists" what did you expect, you dont like competition, Gw gives you narrative play, is not that hard to understand i guess. This is not referred to you just general talking. Anyway yes i agree, you cant blame others cause ur unable to win, is like if a soccer team wont let its best players play cause the other start complain and crying, instead of "crying" do your best to beat them and if you cant/wont well... accept it and move on, imho
I don't understand the distinction people make between casual and non casual games. I have never seen a casual list, I don't even know how would one make one. Other then randomly selecting units from a huge collection by rolling a dice, but I doubt anyone actually plays that way. I don't think that any form of playing is evil. People are evil, not things. I do want to know how GW does their books, or how they update them, to not a small degree due to how my army works. I just don't understand how the same people could do books back to back and make them so different. People say they don't have data, but they seem to make good books for factions thaty had 0 data on. They make powerful codex for already powerful index list, but make weak index armies weaker, to "stay safe". I can't get my head around how they work, Summer just started and I have 2 months free, and I spend all my summer time cash on my army. It was a realy big investment for me, and I would like to get as much as I can from it, but people just say stuff like paint the models or read the codex, and am not interested in either of those things. I would like to play, just like my friends that made me start w40k do, and not sit around at store for 6-8 hours and get 0 games in, because no one wants to play vs GK. I hope GW is going to fix them till mid summer or something. For the money the army cost me, I could have bought a new bike or buy a 2 month carnet for the bath house and still have a ton of money for food and drinks. Right now I have to sneak out of the house with tap water, because my parents think I have summer money to do stuff with it.
casual= a player who care nothing of competition and play just what he likes to play, usually play with friends at home
competitive= a player who plays the best he has and try to win
as much as he can in any event he goes
Karol wrote: Well I am assuming that the people that work at GW, are not slaves and do not work for food. Someone told me they have been working on the new edition for at least a year. Even if it was just half a year that is 8 hours 5 times a week of testing, and people could work at homes too, it is not like it is required to have some special machines to try stuff out at home. So it would be 40 hours per 4 weeks times 6. that is 960 hours of work time, assuming the design team does not consist of one dude, it seems to me like enough time to do. Specially as who ever is design team boss could just make people do additional work at home. A 10 man team could put a 9600 work hours in to testing. Some PC games have less and those are writen in code.
OK, there's 19 different codexes at the moment - with about another 4 on the way. Call it 23 factions. Assuming just a single test army list from each codex, that gives you 253 possible combinations of match-ups. Multiply that by 3 for testing at 3 different point values, and then by 5 for playing 5 test games for each combination. That gives you 3795 test games that need to be played. Assume average 2 hours per game, and obviously 2 players, so each game is 4 man-hours - that gives you a total of 15180 man-hours of testing. And this is purely for balance testing of the codexes, never mind testing of the actual rules.
Assume a standard-ish 40 hour working week, and 20 days holiday per year (i.e. 4 weeks off). A full time employee will therefore be able to complete 1920 hours of testing per year. To get it done within a year, assuming you can start balance-testing from day one (which is not going to happen), you'd need 8 full-time employees doing nothing but balance testing of the codexes. I guarantee you GW do not have this.
blackmage wrote: casual= a player who care nothing of competition and play just what he likes to play, usually play with friends at home
competitive= a player who plays the best he has and try to win
as much as he can in any event he goes
Seems awful black and white there, I think a lot of folks fall somewhere in between the fluffiest of fluffbunnies and waaciest of WAAC players. Actual balance in the lists is better for everyone on the scale. Ro3 may not affect everyone, either due to having great troop choices, diverse units that are all good enough or what have you, but it really hits the armies that have neither of those harder than it hits the ones everyone is getting butt hurt about at the big GT's.
Balance is a good idea, the Ro3 doesn't do that. Whether or not it affects your own personal list doesn't change that.
Problem I have with "rule of three" is that its lazy, yes some units are a problem when spammed - the solution is to address those units - otherwise you are back to the days of "no special characters" despite it only being a few that caused the problems.
there are a range of ways to deal with it, personally I'd go for sliding scales on point values, e.g. a Hive Tyrant costs "x", a second one costs "x+y", third one "x+y+z" etc, can also work the other way with some units that could be cheaper in larger sizes (as HH does where its an amount per model for the base unit, but a different amount to add more to it)
Karol wrote: I don't understand the distinction people make between casual and non casual games. I have never seen a casual list, I don't even know how would one make one. Other then randomly selecting units from a huge collection by rolling a dice, but I doubt anyone actually plays that way.
Well, for example, instead of number-crunching how many wounds a unit is likely to cause versus how many points it costs, how many plasma shots will it take to kill a Rhino compared to melta shots and so on... You might think "Chaos Warp Talons look bad-ass. I'm going to have a unit of them".
I did that with my GK. My friends convinced me that it is going to be fun to play w40k, and they started it in may after confirmation money. I picked GK, because they looked nice and I could afford them. I wasn't crunching anything, because I expected all armies to be more or less the same, if they cost the same money. though that the difference between a "real" army and what I got was that the "real" army costs like a vintage in MtG. And I was more or less wrong, plus the gap between armies seems to be huge. Although I have not played all armies. Can't say how ad mecha or some types of space marines are doing right now, as no one plays them here.
I guarantee you GW do not have this.
A huge company like GW can't hire 8 people to do in house testing Don't they have profits in like milions? But if they can't afford it, why not out source it. The models themself cost next to nothing for GW, and they have chains of store in places like UK. They could ask an employ or people at the store to play a few games and they could do it in an instant. Plus if they showed the rules before puting them to print, people would find what is broken in like minutes. I mean, I understand being overworked etc, but no one at the studio sat down and thought, guys maybe a reaper launcher on a model with no negatives to hit, that can be spamed and can chain shot is a bit too much?
I don't see how anyone can defend the price difference between a disintegrator cannon and a grav-cannon. Come on, they've had access to existing unit stats since before 8th dropped. They had a baseline when they designed the indexes it seemed like. It just appears that they've thrown that baseline away in order to sell more models.
It doesn't take thousands of hours to throw some numbers in a spread sheet and see how a weapon that costs nearly half of another but out performs it greatly against most weapons isn't balanced.
They tried with the index and should have used balance against the index as their baseline. Instead they release the mathematically unbalanced guard codex (really, hard to tell that mobs of 50 morale immune conscripts was op??).
The index armies were close to balanced. A couple outliers but that's what they should have fixed with the codex. The power creep isn't "oh, GW can't run super-computer simulations for weeks at a time." Hell an excel spreadsheet and some data entry isn't too much to ask. The power creep is is so bad it's hard to attribute it to anything other than a desire to sell models along with the codex release so they make a couple units in it strong so you want to add them to your collection.
But now they've shifted the powerband of the existing units so in order to make the next batch of models desirable they need to add more leading to the problems we're facing now where the first couple dexes need a redesign or serious re-pointing in order to keep up with where GW has shifted their own game (it's not like someone else did this to them).
No but it does show why 1 in house playtesting is never going to catch everything ,and 2 identifying the problem is but a part of the solution. Saying GK need a buff is nice and true. But agreeing how (big) a buff is harder. You'd just switch around who's on top of balance like a wheel.
bananathug wrote: I don't see how anyone can defend the price difference between a disintegrator cannon and a grav-cannon. Come on, they've had access to existing unit stats since before 8th dropped. They had a baseline when they designed the indexes it seemed like. It just appears that they've thrown that baseline away in order to sell more models.
It doesn't take thousands of hours to throw some numbers in a spread sheet and see how a weapon that costs nearly half of another but out performs it greatly against most weapons isn't balanced.
They tried with the index and should have used balance against the index as their baseline. Instead they release the mathematically unbalanced guard codex (really, hard to tell that mobs of 50 morale immune conscripts was op??).
The index armies were close to balanced. A couple outliers but that's what they should have fixed with the codex. The power creep isn't "oh, GW can't run super-computer simulations for weeks at a time." Hell an excel spreadsheet and some data entry isn't too much to ask. The power creep is is so bad it's hard to attribute it to anything other than a desire to sell models along with the codex release so they make a couple units in it strong so you want to add them to your collection.
But now they've shifted the powerband of the existing units so in order to make the next batch of models desirable they need to add more leading to the problems we're facing now where the first couple dexes need a redesign or serious re-pointing in order to keep up with where GW has shifted their own game (it's not like someone else did this to them).
multi-damage weaponry, especially the 2 or D3 damage variety, was across-the-board overpriced in the indexes. As were psykers outputting mortal wounds, and auto-hit weaponry. since the SM codex is essentially an index with traits (they didn't rebalance it based on play data from the indexes) weaponry like grav guns are overcosted.
Nobody is defending 15pt dissies and 28pt grav-cannons. What I will defend is the fact that at the time the rules for the grav-cannon were released, the Disintegrator cannon was THIRTY points. Not 15. and it was obviously underpowered compared to competing options...just like a grav cannon.
But then what's the reason to drop it to 15? They came up with the original 30 based on something.
And 30 dissies vs 28 grav isn't that bad when you compare their output (grav better if it stays still but with less range, dissies better if they move and get +50% range and against anything with a 4+) It's more fair than 15 vs 28 the other way.
Same with the Tau rules, eldar rules, Nids rules. There are examples from all of those dexes with significant price drops to currently op units (reapers, shining spears, hive guard, fire warriors, Longstrike, heavy burst cannons....) I can't come up with a compelling reason why the codex versions needed to be so much better (like 40-75% more efficient/durable) than the index versions other than to move models because it sure wasn't to "keep up" with the first round of dexes.
bananathug wrote: But then what's the reason to drop it to 15? They came up with the original 30 based on something.
And 30 dissies vs 28 grav isn't that bad when you compare their output (grav better if it stays still but with less range, dissies better if they move and get +50% range and against anything with a 4+) It's more fair than 15 vs 28 the other way.
Same with the Tau rules, eldar rules, Nids rules. There are examples from all of those dexes with significant price drops to currently op units (reapers, shining spears, hive guard, fire warriors, Longstrike, heavy burst cannons....) I can't come up with a compelling reason why the codex versions needed to be so much better (like 40-75% more efficient/durable) than the index versions other than to move models because it sure wasn't to "keep up" with the first round of dexes.
Your selective memory is showing.
Yes, some units that were already strong got unnecessary drops in price. The most obvious was Dark Reapers (which, oh, look, have been nerfed back to within 2pts of their previous price, how about that!) but seriously? Longstrike? Heavy burst riptides? One, how are those currently overpowered, and two, how were they not horribly underpowered in the index?
There were obvious systemic over-valuing problems with the index. Honestly, it seemed more indicative that GW wasn't quite sure how much to value mid damage weapons, mortal wounds, autohits or other mechanics that were new to the game, and they wanted to be REALLY REALLY sure that they were not releasing something that was going to turn into a giant clusterfeth immediately.
Remember how gak 50 malefic lords felt to play against? That's the situation main studio GW was trying hard to avoid with the indexes. And honestly, while we saw plenty of indexes in tournaments, internal balance was pretty off. Were you really taking Grav Cannons when everyone was in index?
The reason to drop disintegrators was obvious - it was terribly inefficient unless you were shooting at specifically W2 models, and its ability to remove them was overvalued in its pricing. They probably overshot by about 3-5 points with 15. Comparing it to a grav cannon (a weapon that needs a buff because it's terrible compared to almost everything) is asinine. Its like saying "hey whats with these busted assault marines, my striking scorpions are garbage compared to them!"
I laugh at the notion that the index stuff was more balanced than the codices. Codex balance is bad but damn you really can't defend the Index when it gave crap like Conscripts and Commisars, and the fact that the Index Necrons were probably the worst set of rules released ever.
Karol wrote: I did that with my GK. My friends convinced me that it is going to be fun to play w40k, and they started it in may after confirmation money. I picked GK, because they looked nice and I could afford them. I wasn't crunching anything, because I expected all armies to be more or less the same, if they cost the same money. though that the difference between a "real" army and what I got was that the "real" army costs like a vintage in MtG. And I was more or less wrong, plus the gap between armies seems to be huge. Although I have not played all armies. Can't say how ad mecha or some types of space marines are doing right now, as no one plays them here.
I guarantee you GW do not have this.
A huge company like GW can't hire 8 people to do in house testing Don't they have profits in like milions? But if they can't afford it, why not out source it. The models themself cost next to nothing for GW, and they have chains of store in places like UK. They could ask an employ or people at the store to play a few games and they could do it in an instant. Plus if they showed the rules before puting them to print, people would find what is broken in like minutes. I mean, I understand being overworked etc, but no one at the studio sat down and thought, guys maybe a reaper launcher on a model with no negatives to hit, that can be spamed and can chain shot is a bit too much?
OK, I absolutely agree that GW appear to have dropped the ball on Grey Knights, and I’m sorry for you that you have spent your limited gaming money on them and feel like you’ve been ripped off. That sucks. I love the GK models myself, and would definitely consider collecting them at some point. But having collected a bottom-tier army once already (CSMs from the start of 6th edition) I don’t really want to do that again.
As for GW, it sounds harsh but you are misunderstanding the point of the business a little. Their main priority is not making the very best tabletop wargame that they can, that is very much secondary to making money. Yes they could hire more testers, or implement a formal large-scale employee testing program with a view to improving balance... but would doing that make them significantly more money?
Also, I think it was mentioned earlier, but as a relative newcomer you’re just not seeing how different the ‘new’ GW is. They’ve done 19 new codexes in about a year. It used to be more like one every 3 months or so, and that was shared between 40k and fantasy. You could go for a whole edition of 40k without a codex update for your army. Dark Eldar, for instance, only got codexes in 3rd, 5th and 7th editions... The change since 8th edition is massive. It may not be the most reassuring thing ever, but it’s better than it was.
It seems like a lot of the beef with this edition is how strong alpha strikes are, how deadly most things are, internal balance being really off and external balance between beta 8th armies and 8th armies.
I think that if GW had been as judicious with their second wave of codexes and then used CA to fine tune those first couple drops we would be in a much better place, rather than throw things like grinding advance and reapers around so we end up in this race to table your opponent by turn 2 that they've gotten themselves into.
I'm not saying that those options I thought of off the top of my head are OP compared to where we are now, but that they are significantly more powerful than their index counterparts and thus are responsible for the power creep we find ourselves in now. But even the within codex stuff is crazy imbalanced so maybe that rebuts my idea that GW should be able to balance cross codex though and supports your contention they are just bad at balance in general...
And yes, I was using grav in index as it is one of the most point efficient marine weapons against a variety of targets (but I do concede that comparing anything to marines is a pointless endeavor but that is the direct result of the power creep which I'm criticizing.)
Forgeworld is it's own problem (Malific lords) and we see how GW brings the hammer down on those (or doesn't with fire raptors bouncing in points).
I'd argue that it's possible to get the balance a lot better than they did (both cross codex and internal codex) by using a bit of math-hammer as a baseline (will not answer all problems and I'd admit that a lot of the imbalance is from strategies which are hard to quantify)
I'd posit that their desire to make codexes better than the indexes (pretty much across the board) seems to be driven by the desire to sell models by using more powerful codex rules rather than what's best for the game or balance. This has created a situation where new codexes have to be even better than the previous ones because now instead of using the rather conservative indexes as a baseline they are forced to use the new increased powerlevel as a starting point.
I agree that the indexes were far from perfect but seemed to be a better jumping off point to balance vs. where we are now.
It's telling that most people could spot the outliers as the the undercosted units days into the releases of the codexes.
And overshooting disi cannons by your number of 3-5 is missing by 20-30% which is significant considering a lot of armies are running 10-20 of them (that's like pricing knights 100-200 points cheaper...)
Just to be clear, my main points are:
1. Yes GW should be able to do a better job a balance both internally and cross codex by using basic tools. Weekend warriors can spot the outliers within days of codex releases (not that they are always right but some of them have really stuck out)
2. The current level of imbalance is created by GW using new codex releases to push the sales of models instead of actually trying to balance the game.
3. Codex creep begets further codex creep as we get further away from the index levels of power and now are at the dark eldar level of balance so prepare for our new orc overlords (this wouldn't be so bad, they probably deserve it)
it is pretty dang difficult to argue that you can't make a more obnoxious and overpowered army out of the index rules at release than you can now with codexes. automagical first turn if you finish deploying first, flyers that secure objectives and ynnari soulbursting once per unit per turn instead of once per turn? Oh, or maybe you'd like back screens of culexus assassins presenting the only targetable models on the board? 3 point conscripts backed up by old commissars?
bananathug wrote: I'd agree with all of those points. But very few of them have to do with the costing of said units...
Who's talking about solely costing? You're putting on your rose-goggles for the index days before all these horrible broken codexes came out, I'm merely supplying a reality check of just how much more broken the competitive lists at the time were.
Those rules changes were handled admirably well by GW. And I am in no way saying the Indexes were balanced or better (if that's what you are getting from my posts I'm sorry I'm not more clear)
What I am saying is that the indexes were a better jumping off point in trying to achieve balance than the power creep spot we find ourselves in. Further, GW seems to be moving away from their conservative changes from the index. Now the reasons they are doing that I could never know but my guess is "new and powerful" means something different when the indexes were the baseline vs. eldar/imperial soup.
Balancing against index everything seems a better place than balancing against codex dark eldar. They've had plenty of time to figure out the outliers in the index and adjust their baseline, trying to balance against the current meta is leading to a lot of knee-jerking and making the situation worse (rule of 3, tau commander nerf, points yo-yoing)
Galas wrote: The indexes were not only more imbalanced, they where much more bland and uninteresting
I cant take seriously the affirmation that indexes where better.
7th ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent piles his whole army into a single 2000pt unit with a 2++ rerollable invuln save and the ability to be only hit on 6s and immunity to all template weapons is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!
7.5 ed: man, this strat3gy where my opponent gets to play a 3000 point list against my 2000pt list because he ran out and purchased particular models is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!
8 ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent takes 200 T3 4++ functionally fearless obsec models and 12 30 point models with full power smite is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!
8.5ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent's units and weaponry are mathematically more efficient than units and weaponry I can cherrypick from my codex is really uninteractive and BS. WTF, only 8 factions are commonly present in top table lists, with 6 more not as common but still present? Truly we are in the darkest of ages, older editions were better!
8 ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent takes 200 T3 4++ functionally fearless obsec models and 12 30 point models with full power smite is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!
Damn, I am actually happy I didn't get to play in this 8th ed. I would be twice as salty. a 30pts normal smite seems crazy good. A termintor costs more and you have to take 5 of those to get a nerfed one. So I guess stuff does get better. I wonder how GK players felt about their nerfed smite back when this abomination was runing around
Yes they could hire more testers, or implement a formal large-scale employee testing program with a view to improving balance... but would doing that make them significantly more money?
Wait so they are doing like an EA thing, every year total meta change so people have to switch armes every 6-9 months, bait options to buy for people who don't know better etc
Also, I think it was mentioned earlier, but as a relative newcomer you’re just not seeing how different the ‘new’ GW is. They’ve done 19 new codexes in about a year. It used to be more like one every 3 months or so, and that was shared between 40k and fantasy. You could go for a whole edition of 40k without a codex update for your army. Dark Eldar, for instance, only got codexes in 3rd, 5th and 7th editions... The change since 8th edition is massive. It may not be the most reassuring thing ever, but it’s better than it was.
You are right, I don't know how stuff looked like even 2 months ago. I understand that stuff were worse back in the past. But the fact that GW did 19 books, and the ones I don't play, are better doesn't really make me happy. Plus getting an update on top of the codex, that is more or less identical seems like a wasted slot. I would have rather some other army got the slot, and maybe got a better codex. The difference between playing GK index and codex seems minimal.
I wonder if when the cycle ends, GW is going to stop updating old books and just does the yearly rules update, or will they re do the armies all over again.
I wonder if when the cycle ends, GW is going to stop updating old books and just does the yearly rules update, or will they re do the armies all over again.
I sure hope not.
What they need to do is keep tweaking the rules to make a better playset and point costing.
Cover rules, terrain rules, dice and reroll reduction, a better fix to templates, More wargear and upgrades to characters/squad leaders and vehicle upgrades.
Sledgehammer wrote: When I can take 13 Leman Russes ( 3 groups of 3, 3 commanders and pask) but can't take 4 veterans squads, the rule seems counter intuitive.
9x Leman Russ Annihilator (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)
9x Leman Russ Conqueror (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)
9x Leman Russ Stygies Vanquisher (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)
9x Death Korps of Krieg Mars-Alpha Leman Russ Battle Tank (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)
There is some debate on whether the "Leman Russ Demolishers" datasheet can still be taken (it depends on how you interpret "Does your model have a datasheet the codex?"), but you can take 58 Leman Russes in a Matched Play Army.
But taking 4 units of Flash Gitz is considered horrific and spammy and must be FORBIDDEN!
I think the rule needs a tweak to stop silly spammy armies but the intention is good and a positive sign. Maybe it should be off keywords rather than datasheet titles.
Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?
I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.
After all everyone plays because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...
craggy wrote: Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?
Nothing has really been announced, but I think the next rotation of FAQ/CA will help with that. Especially considering the deep strike nerf heavily impacts non-coldstar commanders. It is hard to tell though since you have very vocal anti-Tau people like the post above. It doesn't matter if Tau spammed Commanders for the same exact reason Orks spammed boyz. (The only viable competitive list) Tau are in a much better spot right now, but it feels awkward to have not only a unique keyword rule of 3, but have extra detachment tax on top of that.
craggy wrote: Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?
Nothing has really been announced, but I think the next rotation of FAQ/CA will help with that. Especially considering the deep strike nerf heavily impacts non-coldstar commanders. It is hard to tell though since you have very vocal anti-Tau people like the post above. It doesn't matter if Tau spammed Commanders for the same exact reason Orks spammed boyz. (The only viable competitive list) Tau are in a much better spot right now, but it feels awkward to have not only a unique keyword rule of 3, but have extra detachment tax on top of that.
To be honest I'd half expect them to extend it to other troublesome HQ choices (Custodes, Daemon Princes) rather than remove it.
ValentineGames wrote: I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.
After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...
so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.
Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.
My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.
EVERY tournament lists play with that limitation, never seen those faboulous 9 leman russes for example, i play Dg+Ts+N demons and i played same way before and after the FAQ, never played more than 3x and had similar results, so it s not the rule of 3 is the player, if you are unable to win without spamming 7 flyrants well impriove your skill playing more, what else i can say. Lists which aren't competitive now wasn't before the FAQ too (maybe GK are the exception).
If you take a look at actual players standing who won before FAQ keep winning also after faq... ask yourself why, if were just cause they could spam they should lost now but they dont so...
ValentineGames wrote: I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.
After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...
so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.
In a way, it's definitely GWs fault. They allowed more than 3 of a thing, so people bought more than 3 of things with the expectation that they would be able to play them. I agree it's kind of powergamey, but again GW designs the game and players just react.
I like the rule of three, but it's unfortunate that GW ever allowed unrestricted FoC options in 6th and 7th and understandable why people might be upset with the return to limitations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.
My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.
GK were not made worse by the rule of three in any noticable way.
ValentineGames wrote: I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.
After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...
so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.
In a way, it's definitely GWs fault. They allowed more than 3 of a thing, so people bought more than 3 of things with the expectation that they would be able to play them. I agree it's kind of powergamey, but again GW designs the game and players just react.
I like the rule of three, but it's unfortunate that GW ever allowed unrestricted FoC options in 6th and 7th and understandable why people might be upset with the return to limitations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.
My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.
GK were not made worse by the rule of three in any noticable way.
since start of edition GW cutted down any OP/undercosted unit, if you are blind and keep buying models to copy internet list withiout being aware they will be cutted too is your fault, i think is clear enough GW have no problems "limiting" they make their business if players follow that trend then they cant complain. I could play 9 Dp's i never did so if they want limit themto 3 im fine, if you want play, and buy, 7 Dp well... good luck, dont understand how the "new GW" works is the best way to waste your money, also the dumber of dumbest understand a troop with tsi 4++ cant cost 3pts (brimstones) was clear they would get the axe on their head, you bought 200,you silly and you deserve, im sorry. About 7th edition i might agree but now we are in 8th and many players bought things never played in 7th (who said 6 stormravens now unplayable). Remember GW is a corporation which work for PROFIT, keep in mind that, always.
PS: and i wont defend GW cause they ruin the game i liked a lot with 6th and 7th edition but i also cant defend players so blind to be fooled by them.
I understand what you're saying, but I also think it's a bit much to expect players to foresee nerfs before they happen or to expect GW to allow one thing for 3 editions and then suddenly change their mind halfway through the edition. A lot of people started the game in 6th, 7th, and 8th, so it's not improbable they weren't able to see this coming.
Again, I don't think you'll find a stronger proponent of the rule of three than I am, but it's still possible to have some empathy for players affected and encourage GW to avoid these situations in the first place.
sometimes i agree might be a bit much... but wont understand 7 flyrants will be nerferd or 9 pcb will be as well for me is pure blindness.
As i said above i wont defend Gw, that i consider a crappy corporation just aiming at profit, but again i think players need to be more careful now, avoid to buy things clearly out of line cause the chance it will be nerfed is high, follow tournament results to try at least get a idea what could be nerfed, imho. Then of course everyone do what want with own money.
blackmage wrote: EVERY tournament lists play with that limitation, never seen those faboulous 9 leman russes for example, i play Dg+Ts+N demons and i played same way before and after the FAQ, never played more than 3x and had similar results, so it s not the rule of 3 is the player, if you are unable to win without spamming 7 flyrants well impriove your skill playing more, what else i can say. Lists which aren't competitive now wasn't before the FAQ too (maybe GK are the exception).
If you take a look at actual players standing who won before FAQ keep winning also after faq... ask yourself why, if were just cause they could spam they should lost now but they dont so...
But the problem is not for people who play tournaments. It is a problem that don't play tournaments, but still get hit by the rules. If someone has enough money to drive around to tournaments, they probablly have enough of it to update lists. And to be honest, the difference between 3 and 6 tyrants people played against me before the faq, is that with 6 I got tabled one turn fast.
If reaper and tyrants were the problem, why didn't GW deal with them the same way they delt with tau commanders? 0-1 hive tyrant with wings, 0-1 unit of reapers per army. Stuff fixed, other people army not nerfed what it aint needed.
jcd386 wrote: I understand what you're saying, but I also think it's a bit much to expect players to foresee nerfs before they happen or to expect GW to allow one thing for 3 editions and then suddenly change their mind halfway through the edition. A lot of people started the game in 6th, 7th, and 8th, so it's not improbable they weren't able to see this coming
Again, I don't think you'll find a stronger proponent of the rule of three than I am, but it's still possible to have some empathy for players affected and encourage GW to avoid these situations in the first place.
Adding to this, not everyone is spamming units for WAAC reasons and it is pretty intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. The people who have the means to “chase the meta” by spamming the latest cheese are not the ones who get burned the worst. Its people who are stuck with one off meta army and were using spamming one of their few viable units just to have a chance. Most tau players were running crisis suits as a legal proxy for Commanders strictly because that was the only list that even remotely worked.
I mean, if someone wants to go out and buy six more hive tyrants for their army that’s all on them. GW has made it clear that they are actively managing game balance in this edition through FAQs, errata, and CA. Maybe you can’t predict what will be changed and how, but if you’re going out and assembling the dirtiest of dirty lists like Tyrantspam or Malefic Lord spam, you should expect there’s at least a risk of change.
blackmage wrote: EVERY tournament lists play with that limitation, never seen those faboulous 9 leman russes for example, i play Dg+Ts+N demons and i played same way before and after the FAQ, never played more than 3x and had similar results, so it s not the rule of 3 is the player, if you are unable to win without spamming 7 flyrants well impriove your skill playing more, what else i can say. Lists which aren't competitive now wasn't before the FAQ too (maybe GK are the exception).
If you take a look at actual players standing who won before FAQ keep winning also after faq... ask yourself why, if were just cause they could spam they should lost now but they dont so...
But the problem is not for people who play tournaments. It is a problem that don't play tournaments, but still get hit by the rules. If someone has enough money to drive around to tournaments, they probablly have enough of it to update lists. And to be honest, the difference between 3 and 6 tyrants people played against me before the faq, is that with 6 I got tabled one turn fast.
If reaper and tyrants were the problem, why didn't GW deal with them the same way they delt with tau commanders? 0-1 hive tyrant with wings, 0-1 unit of reapers per army. Stuff fixed, other people army not nerfed what it aint needed.
c'mon outside matched play ( to be honest outside tournaments) i dont you have any problem , agree with your opponenst what you can play or not, the rule of 3 is made for tournaments mainly, with a friend also if i use matched rules i can easily agree about what we are going to play, so no tournaments no rule of 3 to bother about, i play both ways and i can tell it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
meleti wrote: I mean, if someone wants to go out and buy six more hive tyrants for their army that’s all on them. GW has made it clear that they are actively managing game balance in this edition through FAQs, errata, and CA. Maybe you can’t predict what will be changed and how, but if you’re going out and assembling the dirtiest of dirty lists like Tyrantspam or Malefic Lord spam, you should expect there’s at least a risk of change.
is what im saying... and honestly wasn't all the major nerfs predictable? who really though malefic lord could be spammed forever in 10x, same for brimstones at 3 pts save 4++, 7 flyrants and so on... you buy is your choice but expect the nerf bat and dont complain, this is the new Gw politic, you can like it or not but this is what you must take into account now when you assemble an army if you refuse to do is your choice, is like drive at 100mph in city center and then complain cause you hit another car.
c'mon outside matched play ( to be honest outside tournaments) i dont you have any problem , agree with your opponenst what you can play or not, the rule of 3 is made for tournaments mainly, with a friend also if i use matched rules i can easily agree about what we are going to play, so no tournaments no rule of 3 to bother about, i play both ways and i can tell it.
Agree to what? I am not an event orgeniser, so I can't invent my own rules. Neither am I the store owner or his friend. All other games are played here with normal rules, and the official FAQ/errata. I mean, I may as well start asking people to not play some units or even make them buy bad units to use against my army. there is zero chance of that happening. I don't think even the store owner could force someone to buy bad units, and he owns the only place to play in town.
I don't know what you mean by the outside of matched play comment. What else is there to play. No one sane plays open, and I don't know who narrative is for, as it takes more or less a multi thousand dollar model collection to even start optimising a list to play it.
c'mon outside matched play ( to be honest outside tournaments) i dont you have any problem , agree with your opponenst what you can play or not, the rule of 3 is made for tournaments mainly, with a friend also if i use matched rules i can easily agree about what we are going to play, so no tournaments no rule of 3 to bother about, i play both ways and i can tell it.
Agree to what? I am not an event orgeniser, so I can't invent my own rules. Neither am I the store owner or his friend. All other games are played here with normal rules, and the official FAQ/errata. I mean, I may as well start asking people to not play some units or even make them buy bad units to use against my army. there is zero chance of that happening. I don't think even the store owner could force someone to buy bad units, and he owns the only place to play in town.
I don't know what you mean by the outside of matched play comment. What else is there to play. No one sane plays open, and I don't know who narrative is for, as it takes more or less a multi thousand dollar model collection to even start optimising a list to play it.
Just because you don’t know open type players or narrative type players doesn’t mean they don’t exist and great numbers, this game and company was started by narrative gamers and story tellers and grew because of them. That’s why there’s more than just rules in all the books. Sorry you haven’t found any people like that near you because you are missing out on a huge part of the hobby.
Karol wrote: Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.
My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.
When you can still take 3 of the best unit in the codex (interceptors, GMNDks, whatever) and it'll very nearly get you to 1750 points, your army isn't overly affected by the Rule of 3.
But that is not what my army is made out of, and what I have. If I have to buy all that stuff, then I may as well pay the same money and buy something like eldar.Investing in to GK would make three times stupid. First because I listened to my friends, second because I let myself be convinced to buy a GK army and third, because investing more money in to a bad army.
c'mon outside matched play ( to be honest outside tournaments) i dont you have any problem , agree with your opponenst what you can play or not, the rule of 3 is made for tournaments mainly, with a friend also if i use matched rules i can easily agree about what we are going to play, so no tournaments no rule of 3 to bother about, i play both ways and i can tell it.
Agree to what? I am not an event orgeniser, so I can't invent my own rules. Neither am I the store owner or his friend. All other games are played here with normal rules, and the official FAQ/errata. I mean, I may as well start asking people to not play some units or even make them buy bad units to use against my army. there is zero chance of that happening. I don't think even the store owner could force someone to buy bad units, and he owns the only place to play in town.
I don't know what you mean by the outside of matched play comment. What else is there to play. No one sane plays open, and I don't know who narrative is for, as it takes more or less a multi thousand dollar model collection to even start optimising a list to play it.
Just because you don’t know open type players or narrative type players doesn’t mean they don’t exist and great numbers, this game and company was started by narrative gamers and story tellers and grew because of them. That’s why there’s more than just rules in all the books. Sorry you haven’t found any people like that near you because you are missing out on a huge part of the hobby.
They do not exist in numbers in Poland. It really doesn't help me if there is a huge open community in mozambik. Plus narrative and open, are even worse then matched play. As I said, I was losing faster vs armies with more tyrants. Under open "rules" my opponent could take not just 6 tyrants, but an army made 100% of them, and just back it up with something stupid like that this is his army fluff. Plus Poland or not, your not going to tell me that in other countries, open or narrative is the dominant way to play. It does not look like it. There I close to 0 open/narrative lists put to review in other forums list sections. You may as well tell people with armies that got hurt by the FAQ to be happy, because they can do something stupid like painting or writing fanfiction for their armies.
I don’t know the dominant way to play and don’t even think GW has that info, maybe of the survey they did. I’m just saying it exists and it tends to be fun if you play with the right people. I can’t help you if you feel let down by GW, my only advice for you in the future is pick an army that you connect with and sparks your passion, not what’s best. That changes a lot and is very subjective, as you said an army is an investment in time and money so you have to care about it. If you find an army you love then I might want to right fiction for it and you might enjoy it. I myself love ORKS and have for 30 years and they have been bad and good, and I’ve enjoyed playing good and bad units and armies. But they are my first love in 40k and always will be even if I never win a game. Maybe you should sell up your grey knights and start again, maybe when kill team comes out start a small force of something that you love.
Also I don’t know if anyone got “hurt” by the faq but they should be happy and write some fluff. I think it’s good advice. It is a game at the end of the day. No point sulking.
Don't they have profits in like milions? But if they can't afford it, why not out source it. The models themself cost next to nothing for 
