I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

Everyone wants a powerhouse army, well most do. I play for the fun of it. Started with Nids, got bored, then Dark Eldar, like em but meh. THen got Sisters of battle, I freaking love playing them. not the fluff i was wanting in the WD, but the books, Also because i have never ran into anyone else who has played them, even at tournies(Smaller ones mind you) and I play orks, those are a lot of fun as well with great fluff. I refuse to play Grey Knights or necrons because while i would have fun winning, its cheese. Orbital strike every turn or flyer spam from 'crons. i play for fun and love playing opponents like that as well.So i dont want another powerhouse codex to come out. just baanced(hard feat)

Winning is fun. Enough said.

What I think everyone wants is a strong book with lots of cool stuff that makes you feel powerful, without actually being more powerful than everyone else.

Could also look at it in a way of people see that there is always lots of ballence issues, and would just rather it ballenced in there faver :(
GW sorta trained people that way with there game.
Peregrine is right, if your losing all the time for being a avg player with a crappy army, not matter how much you like them it probably grates agenst you.

Also, to be a bit more serious, a powerful army has a lot more room for creativity. If your average power level is high you can afford to bring some of those less than optimal units if you want to use the cool model or whatever. If you have a weak army then you're forced into a single list if you want to have any chance of winning, and taking anything less than the best of your codex quickly drops your chances of success to nothing.

I disagree with wanting an army to be broken. I think everyone wants a competitive army, but being able to casually smash 90% of the competition gets boring. Most everyone I know how plays competitively has 1 or 2 lists they bust out for tournaments, and 4-5 others they use in casual play. In 5th I would bust out my mech coteaz army to crush people, and play foot wolves, jumpers, or nids when I wanted a more challenging game.

A good analogy of this was my high school days playing xbox live a lot. I got very good at halo 3 and cod4. I havent owned an xbox for almost 4 years, dont play regularly, and still rack up a 3:1 kd spread when I do play. 4v4 games where I was half my teams kills and a 10th of our deaths were not uncommon. The issue became, if i was not playing competitive people, the game simply got boring. I could go play on much lower ranked accounts against scrubs, and casually handle 2-3 other players at a time.

I think most people want to compete, and nobody likes always having to fight an uphill battle. But for a real competitive player, having serious advantages against the competition gets dull fast.

I by no means want a "broken" codex. I would like to have a relatively competitive codex with good fluff, lots of options for the units (so you can keep mixing it up and keep the game different and fun), and where all the units are decent enough to see table time. (once again so you don't get stuck with just one thing that works) That sounds like a perfect codex for me.

When Eldar come around, I'd personally like them to be top teir. I don't want them to be the new cheese on the block. But I want to know that I can look at a Grey Knight army, or Necron Air Force, and not groan in dismay. It's been a while since they had a book that was more then a 1 trick wonder. They're due.

I would not say I wanted a broken codex either. Playing IG is a lot of fun, I wish less IG players spammed vendettas, but I can see why.

What I would like to see is the codex stay relatively the same, add around 5 more super fluffy units that are not unbelievably awful, slightly boost the price of the vendetta and chimera, and give us back lumbering behemoth and I will be more than happy.

What I like is being able to field a fluffy army that can still hold its own against those that are extra sharp cheddar.

In an ideal world, all the codexes would be perfectly balanced, but that is never going to happen.

As a tau player myself, I would hate to have the next cheesy codex, as I enjoy the challenge of the game. I would like a more powerful codex but nothing as powerful as Grey knights or Cron air.

The worst thing about getting a 'broken' codex is that, all of a sudden, you have to deal with peoples bad attitude. If they loose they'll whine and bitch about your "broken" codex - if they win they'll berate you for loosing with a "broken" codex *facepalm*

This happened to me with my old PAGK's when the new GK codex came out and relegated them back to the shelf.
Here's to hoping that tau don't get wardified in january :(

 taudau wrote:
The worst thing about getting a 'broken' codex is that, all of a sudden, you have to deal with peoples bad attitude. If they loose they'll whine and bitch about your "broken" codex - if they win they'll berate you for loosing with a "broken" codex *facepalm*

This happened to me with my old PAGK's when the new GK codex came out and relegated them back to the shelf.
Here's to hoping that tau don't get wardified in january :(

Why care? A good half this community are selfish whiners who feel they are smarter than most other people and entitled to win. I have played for over 10 years, I have seen armies go from great to gak and back to great again. Most whining also comes from poor tactical planning, like the dark eldar player who decided that advancing full speed at my mech coteaz army was smart, and then whined when he got shot off the board in 2 turns. If someone is not playing for the fun of the game itself, than I would not worry about what they have to say.

Do you want your army to be broken?

yes because this means I get a good dex , which will be good for a long time .last IG dex was awesome in the 5th , is even more awesome now . Now on the other hand "balanced" codex like nids , sucks all the way . not only are they unable to keep up with the top armies , but durning edition switch they offten go down to an unplayable level when a rules change or FAQ kills their single gimik .

I wouldn't openly wish for a powerhouse army, but if my army got updated and turned out to be one, I wouldn't complain too much.

When I started Grey Knights I knew nothing of the 40k meta, and then someone told me after I had started playing with them that they were the top army. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Makumba wrote:

Do you want your army to be broken?

yes because this means I get a good dex , which will be good for a long time .last IG dex was awesome in the 5th , is even more awesome now . Now on the other hand "balanced" codex like nids , sucks all the way . not only are they unable to keep up with the top armies , but durning edition switch they offten go down to an unplayable level when a rules change or FAQ kills their single gimik .

You do realise the irony in this statement don't you? You call them balanced and then say they have only one gimick; there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

I do not want my army to be broken. I want to fight at an equal playing field. It's too easy for me to go out and do a flavour of the month army. I want to fight a game of tactics and not one where I spam the best units my codex offers.

But then again, this is how GW sells a bunch of models, so what's going to change?

 lunarman wrote:
What I think everyone wants is a strong book with lots of cool stuff that makes you feel powerful, without actually being more powerful than everyone else.

Pretty much this.

The White Dwarf Sisters list, much maligned as it is, pretty much fulfilled the latter part - Exorcists, HB Retris, Scouting Domis all make me feel powerful and awesome, while not actually breaking the game. About the only thing it's missing is the 'lots of cool stuff' part - well. We do get a lot of cool stuff. Pretty much anything in Heavy Support and Fast Attack is awesome. Unfortunately, those six units make up the majority of options in the book!

So, I don't want a "broken" book. I got that when my Necrons were finally updated, and... surprise surprise, I played them for about two months, got a game or two in with each cool new toy, and switched back to the Sisters because I was bored. I'd tried out all the new things. Some of them were crazy-powerful like Doom Scythes in 6th. Some of them were mediocre, like Triarch Praetorians. It became a game of, "if I take this or this, I win. If I take this or that, I lose."

With the Sisters, I'm basically forced to take the same army list every time (with just a little variation between Retris and Exorcists depending on if I'm fighting horde or MEq). However, that one list is much more challenging, enjoyable, and fun to play against whoever I end up facing... even if I do win most of the time. That said, I've never tried facing the power rangers (Draigo + 2 lone wolf Paladins + 2 dreadnights and a Fortress of Redemption) with them, and I've never encountered a Necron Air Force... the other Necron player in the area fields a fluffy Zahndrek list with mostly Warriors, which I gleefully slaughtered with a footslogging list (hint: taking out all my transports and exorcists made for a lovely spread of heavy bolter/flamer infantry!)

If I'm going to lose, let my army be awesome in doing so.

If I'm going to win, let my army be awesome in doing so.

If we're going to draw, let us both be awesome in doing so.

That's the paradigm I play by.

I want my Tau to be competitive, but not broken, with as many units viable as possible.

I want several special characters, several normal characters, HQ options unlocking elites / fast attack options as troops, 5+ interesting Elites choices, 2-4 Troops choices, more Fast Attack, more Heavy Support.

I want to be able to run a completely Fire Warrior or Drone army, and I want there to be interesting, colorful units.

I'm fine with Firewarriors being BS3 (though they should be 9pts with it).

As for BS, I honestly think it should be based on rank (i.e. Shas'la = BS3, Shas'ui = BS4, Shas'vre = BS5, Shas'el = BS6 and Shas'0 = BS7. Other races leaders are decent BS/WS, make the Tau have WS equal to half their BS and be done with it.)

I want a balanced book with very few/no real "must haves" that are so head and shoulders above every other option you then see them spamed ad nausium.
Of corse, I also want a book that can give a good closely fought game to any opponent, but I don't want some lame flavour of the month 'uber list that just sneezes and wins.

As a Daemon player, I'm already hated by half my local store. Last thing I want is another round of OP/broken filth that breaks another entire game!

My ideal book would be something that isn't overpowered but is certainly a powerful threat and, preferably, with all the units in the dex being viable. I'd like to be able to play and win multiple ways with the models I find the most cool.

So, in short really, I'd like my army to be as good as it can be without provoking a groan from my opponent when I plonk my codex on the table. Good is good. Broken is most certainly not.

Still, I wouldn't mind a broken army as much as a bad one, since I can always play without using units or styles that are broken. For example, I do plan to collect Necrons at some point and although Fliers will probably not be as powerful by the time I get round to doing so, I don't plan on including any fliers at all. I may provoke a groan from my opponent when he realises he's against Necrons, but hopefully as the game progresses, both players will end up having fun.

You do realise the irony in this statement don't you? You call them balanced and then say they have only one gimick; there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

hey not my foult GW said that nids are the most balanced book they made in 5th ed and the fact that bad books have fewer ways to play , well again that is the truth.

That said, I've never tried facing the power rangers (Draigo + 2 lone wolf Paladins + 2 dreadnights and a Fortress of Redemption) with them, and I've never encountered a Necron Air Force... the other Necron player in the area fields a fluffy Zahndrek list with mostly Warriors, which I gleefully slaughtered with a footslogging list (hint: taking out all my transports and exorcists made for a lovely spread of heavy bolter/flamer infantry!)

So wait , you know that the codex is bad against normal lists , but because you hope to play against weak ones your own weak one seems good ? wouldnt it be better to just have a book that is good , then one where you have to fool yourself to make it "feel"as if it was good ?

Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

And then let us look at 3 best codex in 5th ed . SW/IG and GK . as top tier as it was possible in 5th ed. The armies to beat. And look different builds out of every dex. GK had puri builds , draigos and henchman coteaz . SW had drop pod using armies , Razor MSU and TWC builds . IG the most boring one had footguard and mecha guard. Now lets take a look at the "balanced" dex nids/chaos/DA. DA DW or it makes no sense to use the DA dex. Chaos DP/pm/oblits everything else inferior , nids problems with dealing with transports in a transport hvy edition , lack of frags for a melee army ah and they had two armies that were very good at killing all nids released before their own dex in the form of IG and SW.
If we could make a study about it am sure that GK/SW/IG players had and are still having more fun playing w40k then chaos/nids/DAs specialy pre FAQ DAs.

I totally disagree with you makumba. If the codex is balanced, then I'd say that every unit has some purpose. Similarly, if it's a broken codex, then there are going to be one or two really powerful units that some will spam. Par example - the Necron airforce army.

Hell no I dont want my army broken, GW glue is expensive.

As a Tau player I find that a lot of other Tau players want too much out of the next update. Yeah, being on the bottom does suck, but then again you don't get looked at as TFG when you mention what army you play.

Give my units in the next codex either a reasonable points cost reduction, or improved abilities, don't try to jam in both. Give my army new units in the next codex that are fluffy, fun and effective. Don't give me a win button, but do let me mess with the win button of others (nothing I love more than blowing up deathstars and spam) and I am happy.

 beezley1981 wrote:
Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

No, that'd be the difference between being a decent human being and not being TFG. Not all competetive players are donkeycaves and not all casual players are nice, friendly chaps.

To topics question:

No, id rather be the underdog. But not 'weak' either, that's setting yourself up for frustration.

All I really want is for the problems with my codex to be fixed and the holes plugged. Tau have already gotten a huge boost in 6th edition, and I've suddenly gone from losing most games and rejoicing at a draw (and feeling awesome at a win), to winning pretty much every game. No longer does a single mistake cost me the game.
This is partly due to my taking of Eldar allies (a farseer, prism, and 5 rangers), who fill most of the gaps in the codex (or at least my army). However because this is such a powerful combo there are a whole bunch of people using it, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for taking Taudar (even without Eldrad or broadside spam). If the new codex(s) get another huge boost, then it's going to be unpleasant playing them.

 lunarman wrote:
What I think everyone wants is a strong book with lots of cool stuff that makes you feel powerful, without actually being more powerful than everyone else.

This. A thousand times this.

I want to feel like each unit in my list/army, regardless of what it its, can perform it's given function in a fun and meaningful way, and likewise for my opponent. For a codex that can do this, there is seldom a sense of "every time it's my turn, I do nothing," which can come up when a 'weaker' codex goes up against a 'stronger' codex.

Well as a tau player myself I would like to see a few changes to happen like more choices in HQ' elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support.

So agreed with Ovion on

As for BS, I honestly think it should be based on rank (i.e. Shas'la = BS3, Shas'ui = BS4, Shas'vre = BS5, Shas'el = BS6 and Shas'0 = BS7. Other races leaders are decent BS/WS, make the Tau have WS equal to half their BS and be done with it.)

I would like to see options for differnet suits to be equipped like xv-9s, xv25s and would be cool for an xv88 .

Make ethereals useful because I love playing fluff armies, improve the kroot and vespid because I start with tau because they were like The Federation in star trek and the republic in star wars but I also want to beable to run pure tau armies, give army wide special rules like over armies have and bring points in line with all over codexes.

Siphen wrote:
I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

first fallacy. the link between "broken" and "unfluffy". that somehow, an underpowered army is "more" fluffy than an overpowered one. rats arse. 5th ed. mechanised guard, spamming valkyries and veterans. *shrug* Call them Harakoni Warhawks, Elysians or Cadian Airborne. they're as fluffy as anything else out there. there is no link between the supposed "fluffiness" of something, and its power level. an underpowered army is simply underpowered. and nothing more. you are not a better human being for using it. you get no moral victory, nor do you get a fluff badge. you get an underpowered army. knock that chip off your shoulder, it doesnt deserve to be there.
Secondly, if more stuff is worth taking, you get more viable builds, instead of being forced to fall into the monobuild that is tau 6th ed, relying on crisis suits, hammerheads, and minimising your troops. i want to play mech heavy, grunt heavy, suit heavy, auxiliary heavy and not feel like i am being punished for my choice in fielding what i think is "cool". i want to have an army that plays on the same levels as every one else. marines had their TH/SS terminator deathstar in their day. GKs had their draigowing and purifier deathstar in their day. why should i be denied mine? if all the other boys in the playground get cool toys, then dammit, i want mine too.

as an ammendum, whats "fluffy" changes over time. Do a search into the dim history of the internet, and look at 3rd ed tau buiilds. No fish in sight. tau in third were a gunline army. designed to kill the rhino rush before it arrived. 4th invalidated the "fluffy" third ed army, and brought out the "fluffy" mech tau army that replaced it and spammed devilfish and hammerheads and abused the IC rules for your suits.

second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you. personally, having an underpowered army does not make me feel good. or superior. i am not an intrinsically better human being for using it. it means i have an uphill battle against everything. with nothing to show for it. all it gets you is dejection, and demoralisation.

pushing out the power curve is a good thing. pulling things back to 0 is a common kneejerk reaction amonst 40k players, and its bad for the game.

Deadnight wrote:

Siphen wrote:
I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

first fallacy. the link between "broken" and "unfluffy". that somehow, an underpowered army is "more" fluffy than an overpowered one. rats arse. 5th ed. mechanised guard, spamming valkyries and veterans. *shrug* Call them Harakoni Warhawks, Elysians or Cadian Airborne. they're as fluffy as anything else out there. there is no link between the supposed "fluffiness" of something, and its power level. an underpowered army is simply underpowered. and nothing more. you are not a better human being for using it. you get no moral victory, nor do you get a fluff badge. you get an underpowered army. knock that chip off your shoulder, it doesnt deserve to be there.
Secondly, if more stuff is worth taking, you get more viable builds, instead of being forced to fall into the monobuild that is tau 6th ed, relying on crisis suits, hammerheads, and minimising your troops. i want to play mech heavy, grunt heavy, suit heavy, auxiliary heavy and not feel like i am being punished for my choice in fielding what i think is "cool". i want to have an army that plays on the same levels as every one else. marines had their TH/SS terminator deathstar in their day. GKs had their draigowing and purifier deathstar in their day. why should i be denied mine? if all the other boys in the playground get cool toys, then dammit, i want mine too.

as an ammendum, whats "fluffy" changes over time. Do a search into the dim history of the internet, and look at 3rd ed tau buiilds. No fish in sight. tau in third were a gunline army. designed to kill the rhino rush before it arrived. 4th invalidated the "fluffy" third ed army, and brought out the "fluffy" mech tau army that replaced it and spammed devilfish and hammerheads and abused the IC rules for your suits.

second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you. personally, having an underpowered army does not make me feel good. or superior. i am not an intrinsically better human being for using it. it means i have an uphill battle against everything. with nothing to show for it. all it gets you is dejection, and demoralisation.

pushing out the power curve is a good thing. pulling things back to 0 is a common kneejerk reaction amonst 40k players, and its bad for the game.

In trying to point out a fallacy that was not presented you are creating a strawman argument. Never was broken presented as non-fluffy or underpowered as fluffy. The TS merely points out that there is an advantage to a weaker codex in that since it does not matter if you power build or not it is weak, then you there is no point to not really going for the super fluffy armies.

None of the Tau builds you have listed were ever "fluffy". They were just the best builds for the time. It also looks like you have not updated your Tau playbook for 6th, as what you describe as a 6e Tau mono build is not really good any more. Yes, you can have a "power build" that is a "fluffy build" GK and IG being prime examples.

All I would really like to see for Tau, is suits either go to T5, FNP, or EW so they are not so easy to ID; and for FW,Vespid, and Kroot to either get a slight stat bump in what they are supposed to be good at or point reduction to bring them more in line with other codex. Getting a Kroot special HQ that unlocked Kroot Merc armies would be fun, also require bringing over some of the Forgeworld Kroot units. I don't want to see a Necron level fluff change or GK level power leap.

Siphen wrote: Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

No.

The best way to increase your challenge level is to increase your handicap (as player skill has a pretty low ceiling, and its ability to affect the game almost always filtered through random events). If my codex became overpowered, it would be harder to do this. Beating GK with GK is just a test of who was luckier. Beating GK with eldar right now would mean that either the eldar player was REALLY lucky, or there were some serious skills there.

As such, I don't want my codex to be blatantly Wardized. What I want, more than anything, actually, is for my codex to be internally balanced well. I want the number of auto-include units kept to a minimum, along with the number of things that you can't ever really consider worth taking. It's one of the things I like about the guard codex. There are really only two auto-includes (vendetta and CCS), while there are only a handful of never-takes (penal legionnaires, armored sentinels, banewolves, and a couple of the russ variants). That's perhaps a half dozen wonky units in a codex that has nearly 50 options once you include all the vehicle variants. That's not too shabby.

The only thing, powerwise, that I'd be concerned about is this:

Peregrine wrote:Also, to be a bit more serious, a powerful army has a lot more room for creativity. If your average power level is high you can afford to bring some of those less than optimal units if you want to use the cool model or whatever. If you have a weak army then you're forced into a single list if you want to have any chance of winning, and taking anything less than the best of your codex quickly drops your chances of success to nothing.

Because this is one of the unfortunate truths of the game.

I think that there are a LOT of uncreative people who are only capable of seeing one or two builds in a list regardless of how powerful the codex is. The older a codex gets, the more people get fooled into this untruth. Of course, the reason for it is that it is EASIER to get fooled into this as a codex starts becoming non-congruous with the rules edition that it is a part of.

Plus, there are design mistakes that do tend to get hammered out over time. For example, when Ap3 weapons started coming out, they were generally way overpriced (cf. vespid and hot-shot lasguns), but as the game develops, the developers think and rethink about things. Generally this makes codices better.

Anyways, if all you want is for your codex to be more powerful so that you can win more games, then save us all the hassle of trying to win at all costs and just start bringing loaded dice already. It will do you a lot better than hoping for an overpowered codex, which will drag everyone else along as collateral damage to your personal fantasy of miniature gaming glory.

All I want is a codex that is internally consistent, and is congruous with the spirit of the rules edition I'm playing in.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 beezley1981 wrote:
Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

No, that'd be the difference between being a decent human being and not being TFG. Not all competetive players are donkeycaves and not all casual players are nice, friendly chaps.

Good point. Not all casual players are nice friendly guys, but by definition, all competitive players are playing to win. I play for the social interaction and fun of the game. Playing against someone who endlessly spams boring, flavorless units isn't my thing. That being said, the game is multifaceted and caters to a wide variety of play styles. Basically, to each their own.

I've said it before and I will mention it here again. I thought the last Dark Eldar release was just about spot on. Really good fluffy codex with enough good stuff that made them a decent army without people screaming blue murder all over the shop.

I rarely play competitively so my feelings on this may differ to some. Pick your units well and perform well as a general and you can beat most things out there.

I'm also a Tau player and if GW repeated the same kind of formula I'd be a happy bunny. Decent stuff that gives you a good few options and some lovely new models to boot.

The new edition kind of stung a bit for DE as it made Webway Portals totally useless and I like variety in the types of lists you can build and the styles of play a codex has to offer. A ball dropped by GW on that imo but otherwise very happy with that release.

Puretide1 wrote:Well as a tau player myself I would like to see a few changes to happen like more choices in HQ' elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support.

So agreed with Ovion on

As for BS, I honestly think it should be based on rank (i.e. Shas'la = BS3, Shas'ui = BS4, Shas'vre = BS5, Shas'el = BS6 and Shas'0 = BS7. Other races leaders are decent BS/WS, make the Tau have WS equal to half their BS and be done with it.)

I would like to see options for differnet suits to be equipped like xv-9s, xv25s and would be cool for an xv88 .

Make ethereals useful because I love playing fluff armies, improve the kroot and vespid because I start with tau because they were like The Federation in star trek and the republic in star wars but I also want to beable to run pure tau armies, give army wide special rules like over armies have and bring points in line with all over codexes.

I think ethereals should be like either Haemonculi or ecclesiarchy priests, boosting units they join for free.

I.E. 1-6 Ethereals, boost the BS of the unit they join by 1

 beezley1981 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 beezley1981 wrote:
Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

No, that'd be the difference between being a decent human being and not being TFG. Not all competetive players are donkeycaves and not all casual players are nice, friendly chaps.

Good point. Not all casual players are nice friendly guys, but by definition, all competitive players are playing to win. I play for the social interaction and fun of the game. Playing against someone who endlessly spams boring, flavorless units isn't my thing. That being said, the game is multifaceted and caters to a wide variety of play styles. Basically, to each their own.

I wouldn't even say all competitive players are playing to win. Most of the people that I know who play competitively just want a challenging game, win or lose.

As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

 Eidolon wrote:
I wouldn't even say all competitive players are playing to win. Most of the people that I know who play competitively just want a challenging game, win or lose.

Agreed. There is a difference between a competitive player who wants the game to be fun and challenging for all involved, and a win-at-all-costs player who couldn't care less about the hobby in general on account of only having any fun when they're wiping the board clean with little-to-no effort required.

Deadnight wrote:second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you.

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

If GW was serious about inter-codex balance, they'd be willing to use FAQs to reattack point cost for certain units (obvious example: Vendetta). They're not.

On topic, I concur with folks who want the codex to be relevantly powerful without being the new Grey Knights or Vampire Counts, and who want the Codex to be internally balanced. I don't like that in the Tau Codex I feel compelled to ignore fast attack and heavy support options, and feel as if I need to look into ForgeWorld to obtain models around which I can build a relevant army.

And in that regard, I agree. Tau need a new codex badly. Not because their codex is weak, but because their codex is crummy. While the push for more content for more content's sake is a bad one in my mind, tau really do need more content.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

Its worth remembering that a good 75% of stuff whined about on the internet is not all that amazing. Draigo alone does not make a list unbalanced, nor does the inclusion of purifiers. Lists that go heavy on draigo/paladins or purifiers are often spoiler armies, and rely on good match ups to win.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Deadnight wrote:second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you.

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

I have to disagree, somewhat, with both of you on this. I think winning with a worse army does not mean being a better player, as there are a great deal of other variables to be considered, although often times it would imply that.

I like things well balanced if possible. Sure strong units are fun but that should be seen in their points costs too. Usually I choose some units in the "oooh, that sounds/looks cool" manner and start building around them no matter how useless (or overpowered) they are. The main point still is that if a game is won without the other side even having a chance it isn't really fun. I have propably more losses than victories but almost all of them have been fun anyway.

I don't want my codex to be broken either. In 40K I play IG, but I really wish that the units would be priced more reasonably. The Vendetta(!), Manticore and Hydra are undercosted, while the techpriest, primaris psyker and armoured sentinels are extremely overpriced points wise.
I want the game to be as equal as possible, so I try to field the middle of the road units that fits my playstyle and work well together to create a coherent army. I want as many units in the codex as possible to be viable, something that I really hopes that the next IG codex will improve on, especiall with the infantry.

Eidolon wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:... who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community

Its worth remembering that a good 75% of stuff whined about on the internet is not all that amazing.

Sure, but you're completely missing his point. He wasn't complaining that he went from an okay army to an overpowered one. As such, the actual quality level of GK is irrelevant.

The point he was making is that he was going along fine with his army, and then, playing the same army, he was suddenly villified. It's the change from odd curiosity to eye rolling by other people that is creating the problem. You can argue that people shouldn't be rolling their eyes at GK, but still, this misses the point. The fact is that they DO roll their eyes.

And by continuing to play your army, you are now "one of those people", even if, in fact, you are not. It's the fact that a change in the codex means a change in the way that real people are actually treating you that is what you've actually got to focus on, here. You can't change the reasoning for another person's behavior, you can only change your own behavior. In this case, coming out with a codex that is too good may mean that, practically speaking, in order to have the respect of other people, you've got to switch to a different army.

Of course, the opposite is also true with underbalanced codices. You get a lot of crap for showing up with "weak" armies from "nonviable" codices, and so a perfect world would have perfect game balance. That said, getting a codex that is imbalanced by being overpowered isn't any more pleasant to withstand than getting a codex that is imbalanced by being underpowered.

So long as human beings are both social and empathic, you are going to care about what other people think of you, regardless of the reasoning behind their opinions. Having people think less of you (or worse), takes a real emotional toll. Why someone would, on purpose, want to take that risk just so that they can win a few more glorified board games is beyond me.

I guess thats true about missing the point, I should probably be getting to bed sometime soon.

As far as people complaining about someone running the newest best codex, feth em. Thats it, feth em. I used to get bent out of shape about people complaining about the armies that I ran, even when they were bad. But after a certain point, you either dont care and dont play against those people. Or, if its in a tournament setting, troll a whiner into oblivion. I honestly believe that, if you have the time and money to play plastic man dollies, there isnt a whole lot you should complain about.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
I wouldn't openly wish for a powerhouse army, but if my army got updated and turned out to be one, I wouldn't complain too much.

When I started Grey Knights I knew nothing of the 40k meta, and then someone told me after I had started playing with them that they were the top army. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Agreed.

I mean, c'mon. How do you think us Tyranid players feel being such a middle-class codex? Have you read our fluff?

Too bad their models are so freaking sweet I can't help but love playing them anyway.

But in all honesty, all I'm looking for in a new codex is to have a cohesive mixture of units, both new and old, that give some new spice and variety to how my army is played. I could really care less if my army had a boost to it to make it better.

If my army is more fun to play with in the event of a new codex, that's the biggest boost for me I could get.

Makumba wrote:

You do realise the irony in this statement don't you? You call them balanced and then say they have only one gimick; there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

hey not my foult GW said that nids are the most balanced book they made in 5th ed and the fact that bad books have fewer ways to play , well again that is the truth.

That said, I've never tried facing the power rangers (Draigo + 2 lone wolf Paladins + 2 dreadnights and a Fortress of Redemption) with them, and I've never encountered a Necron Air Force... the other Necron player in the area fields a fluffy Zahndrek list with mostly Warriors, which I gleefully slaughtered with a footslogging list (hint: taking out all my transports and exorcists made for a lovely spread of heavy bolter/flamer infantry!)

So wait , you know that the codex is bad against normal lists , but because you hope to play against weak ones your own weak one seems good ? wouldnt it be better to just have a book that is good , then one where you have to fool yourself to make it "feel"as if it was good ?

No, that's not what I said at all.

I've played against plenty of good lists and good armies. Just because the Necron guy isn't running flyer spam doesn't mean he's a bad player or has built a bad army. I play Necrons myself, and I got bored of how easy it was to win with them without flyer spam. When I did take a pair of Doom Scythes, we called the game at the end of turn 2 because I was bored and he felt like he had no chance of winning. The only reason I did so well against the Necrons was because I tailored the feth out of my list specifically to fight against them (I'd never run massed infantry against anyone else, I'd get slaughtered! It's a specific hard counter to Necron lists!)

I like my list. My [Sisters] book is good. I have to work for my victories, but I get them. How is that not good?

Where did I say that the Sisters book is bad against normal lists? All I said was that I haven't tried playing against a specific, rather silly Grey Knight build (even the guy who made the Power Rangers only thinks of them as silly fun instead of a win button), and that no-one in my area plays a Necron Airforce. Codex: Sisters of Battle is the most powerful codex in the game for battles under 1000 points because of Celestine and cheap special weapons. They don't really start losing combat effectiveness until you hit the 1750 mark, when they might be short on Faith at a critical juncture.

barnowl wrote:
In trying to point out a fallacy that was not presented you are creating a strawman argument. Never was broken presented as non-fluffy or underpowered as fluffy. The TS merely points out that there is an advantage to a weaker codex in that since it does not matter if you power build or not it is weak, then you there is no point to not really going for the super fluffy armies.

I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken seems to imply the opposite. reading this seems to imply a fluffy list doesnt have broken BLEEP in it. which i think is a fallacy. the brokeness of a list has nothing to do with its fluffiness.

barnowl wrote:
None of the Tau builds you have listed were ever "fluffy". They were just the best builds for the time. It also looks like you have not updated your Tau playbook for 6th, as what you describe as a 6e Tau mono build is not really good any more. Yes, you can have a "power build" that is a "fluffy build" GK and IG being prime examples.

which was precicely my point. the idea for whats "fluffy" changes. and if i remember rightly, when 4th dawned, and the "fish of fury" was discovered, along with Skimmers moving fast, all of a sudden, mech tau became very viable, and strangely, very fluffy, as the codex seems to imply a very heavy mechanisation of the tau (mantas carry multiple fishes, and hunter cadres are deployed in mantas was the basis of this). i saw the traditional 3rd ed build disappear overnight for a new version of what it should be.

*shrug* my point with regard to tau in sixth, sadly is the same as tau in 5th and 4th, which is a criticism levelable against most GW armies - there are very limited effective builds in the game. the 5th ed codices offered a bit more (even if they did boil down to vet/vendetta spam) - basically with the current state of play of a very old codex, there is a very limited playbook available to you. in my mind, pushing out the power curve, and making more things effecttive increases variety, which can only be a good thing. apologies if i didnt articulate this properly in my last post.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

there is a difference between you winning a game, and the other guy losing it. the latter implies your win wasnt as a result of your own abilities.

as to the second comment bud, you're way off the mark. 40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

No, I wouldn't really want a broken codex because
during any games in which I am winning I feel "lolwut, this is kinda boring, al i have to do is walk forward and shoot" and also kind of numb. For example, I was playing an awesome friendly guy's IG (he has sisters too) with the AOBR marines plus a scout sniper squad and just walked forward with the Termies and killed all of his guardsmen on the right hand side of the board. Even when his lord commissar made two instant death saves with double sixes from a 5+ invul, he was killed next turn.

I wouldn't really like having a broken codex, as it is I just want the old metal Valhallans and other metals to be turned into plastic model kits.

Broken? No.

Top tier in a (semi)balanced system, like that of WHFB, would be great.

As much as I love playing WH40k, when playing new opponents I'd rather play a game of WHFB because I know that no matter what army they bring skill can triumph. Look at last years grand WHFB tournament, the winning army was Brettonians whose codex is what? 10 years old now?

Deadnight wrote:40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

And yet here you are, making long serious posts about a game you don't take seriously.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Hell no I dont want my army broken, GW glue is expensive.

This is clearly the only person who read the thread. I like this guy.

As for me personally, when I started towards the end of 5th, I had no idea that IG was the powerhouse that it was/is. I picked it because I loved the fluff involved. The store owner mentioned that i was the 6th or 7th IG player the store would have, but I don't think the meaning really sank in till I saw the army in the hands of the more veteran IG players just butchering every list they went up against. Luckily, I never really felt like playing the "leafblower style", so I never got whined at as much as others, but you'd be amazed how many people will call foot guard of all things OP. There's a thread I made shortly I after I joined this board, where a guy indirectly chewed me out for a good 15 minutes just because I had the nerve to pick IG as my army. I remember being quite upset about it. Now, I could care less, as sadly, I've had to get used to hearing it.

I know the evil things to take in an IG list, and if I wanted to, could make an absolutely evil IG list. However, those lists are absolutely no fun to play, either with or against, so I don't bring them. I'm lucky in the fact that our store has a healthy spread of players of all mindsets and skill levels, so I tend to bring more "fun" lists so everyone has a good time. If I ever get bored and want a hard fought match though, all I have to do is hit up one of the vets and I'm set.

Personally, I'd rather GW stopped the 1 codex every few months cycle, and released all the codexes at once at the start of an edition, or at least shortly after it comes out. They should only come out after heavy internal playtesting and balancing, and should be proofread by someone who actually understands how the english language works. Things like having costs line up across codexes, especially for the space marines (there is no reason for grey hunters to be cheaper than tactical marines for example) I don't care if they keep the rubric hidden, there needs to be some sort of system to keep units in check. Things like the vendetta shouldn't just pop up out of nowhere, whether unintentional or not. AKA I'd rather they all be as equal as possible. However, Hell will freeze over long before this happens, so I'll have to settle for the next best thing. Either play a strong codex and be mindful of what kind of opponents I'm playing so I'm not a jerk, and play more balanced codexes like orks, where I can go pretty nuts and not have to worry about it.

That said, I really wish some people would lose the idea that just because someone picked GK, IG, necrons, or SW means they're only doing it because they want to win. There are people who pick the armies for reasons other than having them be super face smashers. One of the GK players I know is probably the nicest guy at the store, and was a pleasure to play against even with his termie list for example.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Deadnight wrote:40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

And yet here you are, making long serious posts about a game you don't take seriously.

this forum doesnt just exist for you, my friend. Nor does it soley exist for the hardcore elite.

i am a big fan of the 40kiverse (and tau in particular), and have been for a decade. I consider myself a wargamer as oposed to a 40k player. which implies i have an interest in all wargames, not just the ones i play. that alone gives me all the reasons i need to maintain an interest in the goings on here, or elsewhere. Who knows. a new tau codex might even persuade me to dust off my kroot, and fire warriors, and buy into the game a bit again.

Eh, it does get kind of annoying when I do bring my Necrons out. I've been with Necrons since their debut in 1997, but I still get people muttering about power players and codex jumpers.


Admittedly, they usually stop when I start deploying metal Warriors, but the initial burst is still... frustrating.

I like my nids just the way they are, rare (in my area) and under appreciated. I love smashing people who blow them off as middle to low tier, especially because they can't really complain. We really only have one cheesy unit, and he can't even be spammed. (doom in a pod)

If we became the new cheese I might shelf them and move on until they went back to just decent again.

I will say this. As a necron player since before they even had a codex I was really looking forward to the new necron book. I love the newcrons. Necrons have for a while now been a weaker army. (Despite being strong but boring in 4th and 3rd). However while the first few months were great getting to play with all the new toys. But now I have all these codex hopping power gamers jumping to play my army. I use to be the only necron player in a tournament. Now you have trouble finding a table without one.

While no player is a unique snowflake we all enjoy some individuality in our armies. So it kind of sucks having played an army that was rare to playing an army that people see so often they don't even want to play against it.

With my Sisters codex I doubt it will be an issue. The fact the army is female will probably keep a lot of people away even if the codex is considered "top tier". But for my Necrons it is too late, the damage has been done.

When their 3rd Edition codex came out, weren't they considered very powerful then?

... Iced is a lot more eloquent than me, and has an awesome sig, so... yeah.

ExNoc, do you mean Sisters or Necrons?

Necrons, should have made that clearer

Siphen wrote:
I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

He sounds young. 12? 13?

I want each codex to be competitive and to have the ability to make "fluffy lists", too. No codex should become an "I Win" button though. That would be boring.

Siphen wrote:


Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

This. What happens when you beat a video game on normal difficulty? You try Hard/Hardcore/Insanity mode to challenge yourself or change servers if you're playing online. I feel that this is the most honest approach for 40k as well. (On top of just finding cool looking models to paint!) I'm currently (read: slowly) painting a C:SM Bike Army as it will hopefully be very challenging to play. If it becomes even more challenging in the face of newer codexes - more power to me - I can keep playing and experimenting with it instead of growing bored and eying off another codex.
And the major selling point for me? C:SM has OPTIONS. I can run bikes as troops, tactical squads or scouts. Several decent options in Elites, Fast Attack AND Heavy Support so I can keep building and not be locked into playing just the same list every week just to try for a 'win.'

Dear GW,
More challenge and OPTIONS please...

 Peregrine wrote:
Winning is fun. Enough said.

1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.
2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

As for me wanting an update for my codex (Eldar), yes. I very desperately want an update so I can avoid using bike-spam and/or Eldrad and still be effective. Do I want the update to turn my army into a cheese shop? No. I chose Eldar for their aesthetics and fluff. If i wanted to win, I would have gone with SM or Necron and only used lists I found online and were used in tournaments (successfully).

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Eh, it does get kind of annoying when I do bring my Necrons out. I've been with Necrons since their debut in 1997, but I still get people muttering about power players and codex jumpers.

Admittedly, they usually stop when I start deploying metal Warriors, but the initial burst is still... frustrating.

Ugh, those are almost as bad as the actual power players and codex jumpers...

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
When their 3rd Edition codex came out, weren't they considered very powerful then?

Necrons were very strong when their book first came out. And while no one I personally know played them, there were quite a few in the shops. I didn't really make it out to tournaments at the time since I was..12? But even going into 4th edition their ability to gauss down vehicles and constantly get back up with the monoliths own ability to be so difficult to destroy really made them frustrating. But they were still a rare army in 4th, and in 5th once they lost the ability to easily gauss down vehicles they became almost none existent. However at the last tournament I went to, 24 tables, at one point 18 of them had a necron player on them. While everyone I play with regularly knows they are my (now secondary) army, that I have played for a long time. It sucks to bring them out and have someone think I am a codex jumper. I still remember discovering necrons. I didn't even have a white dwarf to play with, just metal models, and rumors of "they get back up after being killed" so me and my friends came up with our own rules.

@Miko, thanks for the sig comment. I am quite fond of it myself. It is awesome seeing another necron player with the old metal models. Unfortunately for me due to an incident with my aunt the only original necrons i still have is my Lord, some of those huge scarabs (I use em for objectives now) and one destroyer. If I saw you set them down across the table from me I would get serious nostalgia.

Why does it bother you that people codex jump? Or that people lump you into that category? A lot of us get bored of armies rather quickly, and end up buying a new one each year or so to keep ourselves busy. If I buy the newest shiniest thing, whats the problem with that?

Hanith wrote:
1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.

Oh FFS, do I really need to define "winning" to include "against an opponent" so you don't nitpick like that?

2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

Except "winning" has just been redefined to "have the most awesome failure happen". That's just a different victory condition, just like a 40k "last stand" scenario where you will inevitably have all of your army killed but win by taking down at least a certain level of your opponent's force before you die.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hanith wrote:
1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.

Oh FFS, do I really need to define "winning" to include "against an opponent" so you don't nitpick like that?

2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

Except "winning" has just been redefined to "have the most awesome failure happen". That's just a different victory condition, just like a 40k "last stand" scenario where you will inevitably have all of your army killed but win by taking down at least a certain level of your opponent's force before you die.

You have clearly never played Dwarf Fortress. They say "losing is fun" for a reason. You definitely do not "win" when half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
You have clearly never played Dwarf Fortress. They say "losing is fun" for a reason. You definitely do not "win" when half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city.

No, I haven't played it, but my point is that the game just has a different victory condition. When half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city it IS a win because now you get to write your awesome story on a forum and brag about how much fun it was. A "win" is defined as suffering a sufficiently horrible ending, and you know before the game even begins that it is the only kind of "win" you should expect to have.

But really, all you're pointing out is the difference between a single-player sandbox game and a two-player game between opposing armies. It's absolutely insane to say that because you enjoy winning on one you have to hate the other.

I wouldn't want my army to be broken - either in a good way or a bad way. I just want good internal balance, a variety of builds possible that play well, and not bottom rung on the power curve (as long as there is a power curve). Mid teir is fine.

Peregrine wrote:my point is that the game just has a different victory condition. When half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city it IS a win because now you get to write your awesome story on a forum and brag about how much fun it was. A "win" is defined as suffering a sufficiently horrible ending, and you know before the game even begins that it is the only kind of "win" you should expect to have.

Sure, but if you're going to use the designer's definition of winning, then the way you win a game of 40k is if you throw down well-painted models, come up with some stories, and then drink a beer afterwards.

Defining "winning" a game of 40k as being totally narrowed down in scope to simply who has the most VP at the end of any given game means that you're not actually seeing the term as broadly as GW intends. As such, you're making up your own definition of the term, which rather goes against what you are just saying now.

Tying back in with the OP, I guess I fail to see how having a brokenly overpowered codex helps achieve the purpose of the game as defined on page 8 of the rulebook. The point is "whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey". If victory in a game is irrelevant to winning, then what's the point in having something that makes you more likely to gain victory in a game?

Necrons were very strong when their book first came out. And while no one I personally know played them, there were quite a few in the shops. I didn't really make it out to tournaments at the time since I was..12? But even going into 4th edition their ability to gauss down vehicles and constantly get back up with the monoliths own ability to be so difficult to destroy really made them frustrating.

they were weak as hell . glancing was doing nothing eldar circus , nothing to gunlines in the 4th because non of them were using tanks other then speeders for AC and dreads for AC and all of those were expacted to die . they had a build in auto lose option , that got easier to get if they were taking stuff like monoliths or ctans . necron were "good" against fluff players , who though it is a good idea to run 10 man tac squads and try to hth ctans or shot their 5 anti tank weapons at a monolith . In the 4th I have not seen a necron army that would not get phased out. I mean if an infiltration build got turn 1 against them they were sometimes dead before their own phase 1.

whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey

oh when am returning from a tournament with a prize pack I enjoy the journey a lot.

Makumba wrote:

whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey

oh when am returning from a tournament with a prize pack I enjoy the journey a lot.

When you are done with the journey and are enjoying the results of the journey, that is different than enjoying the journey.

Otherwise, it would be like telling a woman in labor that she will enjoy her new baby so much that, of course, she must be enjoying the delivery.

Otherwise, it would be like telling a woman in labor that she will enjoy her new baby so much that, of course, she must be enjoying the delivery.

but they are under drugs , they dont feel a thing , much less understand stuff your telling them . I dont understand the example . the end is the only thing that matters. Lets say you master paint an army , converted it to look awesome . then go to GD or some other even and the dudes at the airport stop the army , or it gets lost . the fact that it was "cool" to make/paint the army doesnt matter when it didnt achive its goal .Which is wining stuff.

same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

Makumba wrote:
same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

I'm glad we'll never play each other. What an absolutely terrible attitude.

Also - if your family needs help, you should be helping them, whether you're 'good at your hobbies' or not. So that's two terrible attitudes in one post.

Go you!

Not to mention the completely ridiculous statement that all women giving birth are drugged up to their eyeballs.

I'll start by stating I'm almost certainly never going to carry my own child because of a handful of reasons. That said, if I was, I would definitely be going for a completely lucid delivery. Yes, it'd hurt. Probably a lot. But guess what? It's totally worth it. I'd want to be able to recognise the fact I'd done it straight away. I'd like the first cuddle. I certainly wouldn't want to cheapen the miracle by saying, "I don't care about the baby, just block off my nervous system and let me sleep through it".

The only time any of the women I know would actually want to be drugged up during childbirth would be if something went wrong and it was necessary.

Similarly, I can't understand the idea that you can only have fun if you're crushing your opponent's forces beneath your bootheel. I have three armies. One is Shadowforge miniatures using Elysian rules because both are awesome. One is Necrons because I started out with them and have about two thousand points of classic metal miniatures, plus another 1500 points of new stuff that was too cool to pass up. And the last is Sisters, because they are also awesome, if a little manly in the sculpts.

Which armies do I enjoy playing with? It sure as heck isn't the boring-arse "I march or teleport across the board and slaughter everything without much real resistance" Necrons.

Makumba wrote:
but they are under drugs , they dont feel a thing , much less understand stuff your telling them . I dont understand the example . the end is the only thing that matters. Lets say you master paint an army , converted it to look awesome . then go to GD or some other even and the dudes at the airport stop the army , or it gets lost . the fact that it was "cool" to make/paint the army doesnt matter when it didnt achive its goal .Which is wining stuff.

same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

Dude, what in God-Emperor's name are you talking about? If someone has master painted an army and converted it up to look awesome, then the time and effort required for that alone would indicate that the modelling side of the hobby is just as, if not more so, important to that particular hobbyist than the gaming side of it - they've already accomplished their goals by having an awesomely converted and painted army. In the next example, if doing the hobby is their way of socialising and that's how they enjoy it, it's not wasted time and money because it's achieving its end in that particular hobbyist's life - to socialise and have fun. As for the rest of what you said about women in labour and "staying home" instead of hobbying... yeah I'm not getting into that, let's just say you're in need of some serious perspective, not in 40K, but in general.

This thread is wobbling on the rails!

All I want is a more interesting Dark Angels Codex, something that actually makes us a divergent Space Marine Codex and for it not to be full of holes or mistakes.

The new DA will hopefully be like that as from what I hear we are actually Plasma specialists and we'll have inner circle units to fit to our fluff, as well as options to balance the game as it stands (Flakk etc).

I don't really care about new units, I just want something that works, is themed/fluffy and at least on par with most codex's.

I've been a Tau player since they came out in 01'. They are the only army I have ever played and I know them backwards and forwards. I do not want a broken codex as I enjoy playing top tier armies all the time and for the most part holding my own. I play for only for fun on occasion as I have other hobbies as well. If tau could get a slight points decrease across the board, BS4 Suits, and a few new tau units(not vespid or kroot) and a nice transport/gunship I'd be fine w/ that.

 Tauownz wrote:
I've been a Tau player since they came out in 01'. They are the only army I have ever played and I know them backwards and forwards. I do not want a broken codex as I enjoy playing top tier armies all the time and for the most part holding my own. I play for only for fun on occasion as I have other hobbies as well. If tau could get a slight points decrease across the board, BS4 Suits, and a few new tau units(not vespid or kroot) and a nice transport/gunship I'd be fine w/ that.

I would love to start Tau but I want new battle-suits. Not a fan of the blocky look

 UMGuy wrote:
I would not say I wanted a broken codex either. Playing IG is a lot of fun, I wish less IG players spammed vendettas, but I can see why.

What I would like to see is the codex stay relatively the same, add around 5 more super fluffy units that are not unbelievably awful, slightly boost the price of the vendetta and chimera, and give us back lumbering behemoth and I will be more than happy.

What I like is being able to field a fluffy army that can still hold its own against those that are extra sharp cheddar.

I mostly agree with this. I just want it to stay competetive, with what I like to take. I don't use vets, storm troopers or flyers, just regular dudes and tanks. That being said, I wouldn't like the price of a chimera for a regular INF squad to go up. But if lumbering behemoth came back I would be very happy. Otherwise I just want the basic trooper to stay reasonably priced for what they are, so I can continue to mount (mostly) suicidal infantry wave Banzi charges when the mood takes me.

I don't want anything over powered, just reasonable.

I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

 Banzaimash wrote:
The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory.

Here-here! Like that is exactly the way I feel on the matter! Satisfaction from a well themed army and a hard fought battle is what is important to me for 40k games.

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

Makumba wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

Currently in a Chaos Space Marine army I can take a Slaanesh Daemon Prince as my warlord and spam Plague Guard as troops. Super fluffy isn't it? /end sarcasm

Next point Makumba please?

Makumba wrote:
but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

On an individual level, perhaps. But not in various and certain combinations, including the type that can be spammed into waac lists. Eamples;

- a msu Black Templars army, with Initiate-only bolter squads in razorbacks, vanilla termies, no crusader tanks, no chaplains
- gunline Orkz (nuff said)

People say they want a balanced, competitive book. But the truth is that the little kid inside of us want exactly what my 7 yr old voices out loud. Uber killy and sustaining.

Face it. Watching your opponent remove models from the table is hella fun. Why would you want to play an army that makes doing just that difficult. No, we want to see those guys come off in droves, not a small handfull every two turns.

Yes we can put on the breaks, we can say wait that is just a little too much. We all like to believe that we have some self control. However, when those uber powerful things do make it into a codex, its not like they never see the field of play. its because we loose out to the other side of our brain that says, hey, its available, why not use it. It lets us do exactly what we have fun doing. Removing enemy models from the table.

Now, I know there are some who say... well thats not me. Well, congrats, you are part of the infantesmal percentage of the entirety gaming comunity (which only a fraction show up on boards like dakka) that doesn't secretely want to play the best codex in the game.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Makumba wrote:
but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

On an individual level, perhaps. But not in various and certain combinations, including the type that can be spammed into waac lists. Eamples;

- a msu Black Templars army, with Initiate-only bolter squads in razorbacks, vanilla termies, no crusader tanks, no chaplains
- gunline Orkz (nuff said)

Now wait just a minute. Orkz gotta balance choppy with the shooty. A git that takes nothin but choppa is just gonna get dakka'd on cuz he's a git. Just like a git dat takes nothin but shootas is gonna get smacked upside the 'ead cuz e' can't fight.

Besides, orks have always been obsessed with guns. Having them sit there and just annihilate the enemy with nothing but gunfire is not unheard of. Heck, they had a war with the Tau that is literally named THE WAR OF DAKKA. They got to the point where they were stealing Tau weapons and using them against the Tau themselves, and of course, were making their own "improvements" to the Tau's inventions.

Other than that, I agree, there are a ton of non fluffy army compositions out there.

For example, nothing but missile launcher longfangs

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Now wait just a minute. Orkz gotta balance choppy with the shooty. A git that takes nothin but choppa is just gonna get dakka'd on cuz he's a git. Just like a git dat takes nothin but shootas is gonna get smacked upside the 'ead cuz e' can't fight.

I agree. Our comments are not mutually exclusive. A gunline focuses on two things; fixed positions and shooting. Any Ork Boss worth 'is dakka will be focusing on the opposite; mobility and melee.

Having them sit there and just annihilate the enemy with nothing but gunfire is not unheard of.

Exactly the kind of example I was going for; not unheard of (therefore not illegal), but also incredibly unfluffy.

Jayden63 wrote:Why would you want to play an army that makes doing just that difficult.

It's already been brought up several times why.

If you've ever played a video game on a level harder than the easiest possible level, you'll understand why players would want to play with a handicap, whether that be self-imposed (in the list building phase), or imposed from without (like a weak codex).

 Ailaros wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:Why would you want to play an army that makes doing just that difficult.

It's already been brought up several times why.

If you've ever played a video game on a level harder than the easiest possible level, you'll understand why players would want to play with a handicap, whether that be self-imposed (in the list building phase), or imposed from without (like a weak codex).

I don't buy that analogy though. Video gaming and table top gaming are two way different experances. (I'm 40 so I've played a good deal of both for a very long time). Even hard video games create a pattern. You know when/where the next wave will come in, as well as you know where the power ups are, etc. and lastly you can do it over and over and over again until you get it right. It is very satisfying when you finally pass that level that has been beating you over the head for the last two hours or so, I'll give you that. However, in table top gaming dice decide everything and no two games will ever be the same. As such you really only get 1 chance to get it right for a win. I think most people would like to hedge their bets towards that win, other than just let the dice decide.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Having them sit there and just annihilate the enemy with nothing but gunfire is not unheard of.

Exactly the kind of example I was going for; not unheard of (therefore not illegal), but also incredibly unfluffy.

But, if it already exists to some degree in the fluff than it is fluffy. And even if there wasnt a precedent, one of the nice things about the warhammer universe is the incredibly large scope of it. It makes it very easy to come up with your own fluff, and the game designers encourage this.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Now wait just a minute. Orkz gotta balance choppy with the shooty. A git that takes nothin but choppa is just gonna get dakka'd on cuz he's a git. Just like a git dat takes nothin but shootas is gonna get smacked upside the 'ead cuz e' can't fight.

I agree. Our comments are not mutually exclusive. A gunline focuses on two things; fixed positions and shooting. Any Ork Boss worth 'is dakka will be focusing on the opposite; mobility and melee.

Having them sit there and just annihilate the enemy with nothing but gunfire is not unheard of.

Exactly the kind of example I was going for; not unheard of (therefore not illegal), but also incredibly unfluffy.

Yes, but remember, the only thing orkz find funnier than stomping in the face of some git who can't fight, is gunning down some gitz who didn't bring enuf dakka and thought they could krump orks (silly oomies)

To be perfectly honest, I don't see it that unfluffy.

Now, if we had orks that were highly civilized, signing peace treaties, and setting up orphanages for children who's fathers never came back from wars, that would probably be unfluffy. But the fun thing about orkz is that they're so crazy, odds are, somewhere in the universe, there probably is in fact an army running whatever rediculous list you can come up with.

However, I'm getting REALLY off topic, just felt like arguing that one just for the fun of it. Cool thing about orkz is that we're both wrong and right at the same time

Jayden63 wrote: In gaming dice decide everything and no two games will ever be the same.

Then why does it make sense to powergame?

If the dice decide things, and you never get a redo then what's the point of fielding the strongest list you possibly can or to try as hard as you are able?

I kinda do. I hate Krak Missles going right into my Crisis suit. an 80pt model dead by a stupid 16pt marine.
I also want cheaper Firewarriors. Bring them down to 8 if they stilll have BS3.
I also want sternguard to have Bs5.
So yeah i want a Broken army.

 Ailaros wrote:

Jayden63 wrote: In gaming dice decide everything and no two games will ever be the same.

Then why does it make sense to powergame?

Because the dice still only have 6 possible outcomes. In most cases the higher the number the better. Powergameing is choosing to use units that make getting favorable, yet still random, results the most often in a set number of die rolls. Choosing these units and multiple of them is the basis of power gaming.

If the dice decide things, and you never get a redo then what's the point of fielding the strongest list you possibly can or to try as hard as you are able?

By using only the strongest units you are increasing your chance of this one shot event to a favorable outcome. Think of it this way, if you had to choose a number between 1 and 10 or had to choose a number between 1 and 3 with a wrong guess being no more detrimental regardless of which set you choose to guess from and a correct guess winning the game outright. Which set would you choose to guess from?

Jayden63 wrote:By using only the strongest units you are increasing your chance of this one shot event to a favorable outcome.

So?

 Ailaros wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:By using only the strongest units you are increasing your chance of this one shot event to a favorable outcome.

So?

The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks.

As such, everybody will hope that their chosen army (for whatever reason the army is chosen) will ultimately be strong and with all things being equal give them the win. Sadly, not all of us will get what we want.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:By using only the strongest units you are increasing your chance of this one shot event to a favorable outcome.

So?

The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks.

As such, everybody will hope that their chosen army (for whatever reason the army is chosen) will ultimately be strong and with all things being equal give them the win. Sadly, not all of us will get what we want.

The first line of this is true, the second is not. Anyone who really enjoys competitive gaming wants balance because winning with something overpowered is unsatisfying and boring (since you didn't win really, your OP faction did most of the heavy lifting) and losing with an underpowered faction is frustrating (since you feel you couldn't really compete due to the imbalances involved). This doesn't really hold true in tournaments however because then people really will just take whatever edge they can get.

Most people aren't really that interested in competitive gaming though and simply want to win so will take broken stuff. Want most people really want is a faction that is stronger than most but still capable of losing occasionally (this validates their opinion that in fact their army is not overpowered despite what everyone is saying because they lost that game just the other day).

 Ailaros wrote:
If you've ever played a video game on a level harder than the easiest possible level, you'll understand why players would want to play with a handicap, whether that be self-imposed (in the list building phase), or imposed from without (like a weak codex).

Except that's a terrible analogy.

A video game is a single-player game. The only challenge is from the NPCs, and let's be honest, AI isn't usually a very challenging opponent. Once you figure out how to play the game there's no challenge at all from the easiest difficulty levels, and the only reason to keep playing is to finish the story. And once you finish the story there's no replay value unless you turn the difficulty up, since there's nothing new to experience.

40k is a two (or more) player game. The challenge is from the person across the table, who is doing everything they can to beat you. The game is already challenging, and part of that challenge is bringing a better list than your opponent (who has access to everything you do). You don't need to make it harder on yourself, unless you just enjoy making bad decisions and losing the game because of them.

I'd rather play a totally gak codex than an OP one.

Probably why I won't pick up the new CSM codex. I liked them when they were slow and got things done without fancy stuff. When you won with CSM before, it was one of two things:

1. You used Oblits, Plagues, Lash Princes and Kharne
2. You were totally bat-gak crazy and tried ridiculous things like death starring with Kharne and a Daemon Weapon Khorne lord in a land raider with four terminator champions armed with double lightning claws and a MOK

 Jayden63 wrote:
Face it. Watching your opponent remove models from the table is hella fun.

I think it was hilarious when I rolled 10x with 12 D6 in my last game. What is fun in the game in my opinnion is to see units perform well or just epicly bad and get a good laugh out of it. It can be fun to see your own models being removed too depending on how it happened. If the battle get's one sided though it ain't really fun anymore.

Yeah and what is next participation is as fun as being the first ?

You were totally bat-gak crazy and tried ridiculous things like death starring with Kharne and a Daemon Weapon Khorne lord in a land raider with four terminator champions armed with double lightning claws and a MOK

and you didnt get instant disqualification for having 12[or 13 depands if the lord was a termi] in a 10 man sized transport?

YES, GODDAMNIT, PARTICIPATION IS JUST AS FUN AS BEING FIRST!

We all like winning, you can't deny it. But would you win knowing that you were destined to win by using a spam Necron flyer list or Grey Knight doom list? Of course not! You'll just wipe the floor with your opponent in 2 turns, where is the fun in that?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
YES, GODDAMNIT, PARTICIPATION IS JUST AS FUN AS BEING FIRST!

We all like winning, you can't deny it. But would you win knowing that you were destined to win by using a spam Necron flyer list or Grey Knight doom list? Of course not! You'll just wipe the floor with your opponent in 2 turns, where is the fun in that?

Yet those lists do exist. Just look in the modeling forum and you can find whole fleets of Necron flyers. So obviously, someone thinks they are fun.

Are they trying to play to have fun with their friends and have a good game OR just win games?

My analogy is this.

Which would feel better.

Winning a fight against a pro boxer, with the odd's stacked against you?

Smacking a kid round the back of the head because you know they can't really fight back?

One, makes you feel epic. The other just makes you feel like a git.

That's why I like being (Slightly) underpowered, or balanced. Because there is a challenge there, and if I just liked to win, I'd play all my video games on easy mode.

 Anfauglir wrote:

On an individual level, perhaps. But not in various and certain combinations, including the type that can be spammed into waac lists. Eamples;

- a msu Black Templars army, with Initiate-only bolter squads in razorbacks, vanilla termies, no crusader tanks, no chaplains

How is that a WAAC army? Furthermore, the Black Templars prefer orbital assaults and armoured spearheads. A Razorback-heavy list would actually be fluffy.

Makumba wrote:
Yeah and what is next participation is as fun as being the first ?

You were totally bat-gak crazy and tried ridiculous things like death starring with Kharne and a Daemon Weapon Khorne lord in a land raider with four terminator champions armed with double lightning claws and a MOK

and you didnt get instant disqualification for having 12[or 13 depands if the lord was a termi] in a 10 man sized transport?

4 terminators (8 slots), Lord (9 slots), Khârn (10 slots).

Siphen wrote:
I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

Lots of people would be thrilled to have that "killer" codex, but what is the point? Sounds like your buddy wants some serious compensation for having one of the oldest and most overpriced force books in the game. No thanks. Cut costs, make crisis suits more useful and more protective, add some troop and unit variety across the board and the Tau could be a good force to play again. I've been pleased with the things I've been hearing about the new CSM codex. It doesn't sound like it was turned into a mega-codex. Which makes me happy. I'd be a really happy camper if GW would learn to build their new codex lists within the bounds of the ruleset they have created and stop the stupid power gaming build up...

Skriker

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Are they trying to play to have fun with their friends and have a good game OR just win games?

There is no reason to believe that these 2 are mutually exclusive.

I don't want a broken army and I prove it by playing terrible lists with both my BA and GK armies... I know I could them out pretty easily but I like to ensure that my opponent has as much fun as I do. I don't see it as intentionally handicapping yourself, I see it as being an active participant in the social contract you have with your gaming opponent to play a fun and fair game. I'd rather lose with my cool lists than win with an eyeroll inducing pile of .

Even as I digest the new Chaos book I am avoiding the OTT things and keeping my theme of Black Legion with no Cult troops... if I luck out and my collection creates a list that is overwhelming to most of my opponents I will happily back off that and throw in more fun stuff. Golden rule and all that.

YES, GODDAMNIT, PARTICIPATION IS JUST AS FUN AS BEING FIRST!

only dudes that come in second say stuff like that .

Lots of people would be thrilled to have that "killer" codex, but what is the point?

more options means dex doesnt start to suck as soon the next one comes out . look at the dex with multiple builds , they go through edition change like a breeze . they are not only awesome to play with when they come out , but are also good later. Necron are the bomb now , but when GW finaly nerfs flyers[either middle of edition or at worse then 7th rolls up] they will still have viable builds without spaming flyers . Now on the other hand bad dex like old chaos[more or less 1 unit per slot ,no FA , no FoC changes] are bad after 1-2 updates in the game .

"killer" dex are always better for everyone . fluff and gamers can build more armies out of them , they are more flexible[good for gamers] , they get boring slower because of how many possible builds there are[good for fluff players] , you end up with fewer mirror matches . They are always better. I mean no one is going to tell me that he would rather have a nid/DA/old chaos type of dex over an IG/GK/SW type of one . And if they do they lie.

I like the nid codex. Problem?

I just think that if people with power lists tried to play other power list players, and normal/ fluffy lists played others, then everyone would be fine. People would play in the way that they wanted. The worst thing is when someone asks for a game, says they play DE, and then proceed to crush my BT infantry list with venom spam. It's not anyone's fault, but people should just talk to people before about their lists, simply to see whether they want to see if they want to play each other. You wouldn't see a movie without finding out what it's roughly about, and in the same way one shouldn't start a game without looking into such things. If you subsequently get tabled or bored tabling it's poor pre-game communication that's a large factor.

Some people like games that are uncertain and exciting, while others like to fight more certain battles with more reliable and powerful troops. Both are perfectly valid, one focuses on pure strategy, while the other focuses more on the story and unlikely heroic feats.

 gaovinni wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
Face it. Watching your opponent remove models from the table is hella fun.

I think it was hilarious when I rolled 10x with 12 D6 in my last game. What is fun in the game in my opinnion is to see units perform well or just epicly bad and get a good laugh out of it. It can be fun to see your own models being removed too depending on how it happened. If the battle get's one sided though it ain't really fun anymore.

I know what you mean, I would play halo with my buddy all the time for just how funny the deaths can be, and that 1 in a thousand stuid thing that can happen.
Like i know people cant help but Laugh when a fire warrior takes out a terminator in close combat.

Hi all.
The problem is not so much the gamers desire to 'win'.
But the way a game allows them to 'win'.

IF GW plc is so focused on narrative gaming , why are the intent on making the game play so strategicaly biased?
Eg what you bring has such a large impact on the outcome of the game.
Use all 'cost effective' units ,and you have significant advantage over a selection of 'least cost effective ' units.

IF the game had more tacticaly viable options, to allow units to be used in more interesting and varied ways.

Lots of special rules added to an already over complicated rule set is not substitute for actual in game decision making type tactical play..

Eg in a rule set, that allows APCs to transport infanty unit then give them fire support. Then screen heavier armour.Then use thier fast speed to out flank an enemy, and use shots from rear arc to bust some heavily armoured tanks.

They perform the roles of transport, close support, diversion-screen , flanking and tank busting.
JUST FROM IN GAME DECISIONS made by the player.
No special rules required...

So the game play the devs tout 40k should have , is in fact the diametricaly oposite of the rule set they write for it...

Peregrine wrote:40k is a two (or more) player game. The challenge is from the person across the table, who is doing everything they can to beat you. The game is already challenging

Certainly, and having it be a multiplayer game is one of the things that keeps the challenge fresh (hence why there are still people playing counterstrike after like a decade, while basically nobody plays its host game of Halflife).

However, saying that there IS a challenge does not imply that it's a HARD challenge. If you play against a new player with a crummy list and you're a good player and bring a draigowing, there's not much of a challenge there. Then bring it up to two good players with two good lists, obviously that's a challenge at a higher level of difficulty. But what happens when you reach this rather easy to reach point? How do you make the game harder?

Because there is a low, easily achievable ceiling for player skill and especially list building (say hello, netlist), then either you need to play worse, or you need to bring a worse list in order to create that same relative gap in order to make the game more challenging.

Whether this takes the form of playing an army whose power level is capped lower, or whether it's purposely taking less competitive stuff, handicapping one's self is really the only way of making the game more challenging.

Now, if you don't understand why having more of a challenge is better than winning at a lower challenge level, then my video game analogy is rather apt here. If you place winning at all above winning with more difficulty or with more challenge, then you're the kind of person who is only ever going to play games on the easiest level, as that's the way to ensure that you're going to have the highest chances of victory. Anybody who has ever played a harder challenge level on a video game instinctively knows that winning isn't as fun if there isn't a serious chance of losing, and that winning on a harder level of difficulty (in this case, with a worse army), is more prestigious than simply winning at all.

Jayden63 wrote:The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks.

I still don't follow. Losing is bad. Whether or not you win is ultimately determined randomly. Therefore you should try as hard as you can to win. That's a non-sequitur.

The correct conclusion is to do something to affect the random factor itself, not merely the odds you play.

Jayden63 wrote:The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks. As such, everybody will hope that their chosen army (for whatever reason the army is chosen) will ultimately be strong and with all things being equal give them the win. Sadly, not all of us will get what we want.

In order to have dialogue, you have to be able to listen. Starting out with a blanket statement that everyone who disagrees with your point of view is a liar is going to be disruptive to communication.

For you, what is important is the win, and that's the ONLY thing that's important (at least, it seems to me by what you're saying). If avoiding a loss is what should be the only focus of your efforts, then it goes to say that you think that you should do whatever it takes to win. Put another way, you want to win at all costs.

Know two things, firstly, there are people such as myself who feel genuine compassion and pity for you, as that kind of an attitude writ large in life will ultimately lead to a great deal of unhappiness and dissatisfaction in all aspects of one's life. Secondly, winning is not the point of 40k. To see what the game designers wrote explicitly as the reason they set up the rules the way they did can be found on page 8 of the BRB:

Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support and enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey.

Put another way, the rules designers have, on purpose, created a game with the intent of the outcome of the game to be irrelevant. If what you really want out of a game is something where winning is important, I would like to gently pressure you to look towards playing some other game, as 40k doesn't seem to be very congruous with what you're looking for.

Makumba wrote:
Yeah and what is next participation is as fun as being the first ?

You were totally bat-gak crazy and tried ridiculous things like death starring with Kharne and a Daemon Weapon Khorne lord in a land raider with four terminator champions armed with double lightning claws and a MOK

and you didnt get instant disqualification for having 12[or 13 depands if the lord was a termi] in a 10 man sized transport?

Four termiesx 2 bodies each= 8 bodies
Kharne- One body
Lord- One body

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks.

I still don't follow. Losing is bad. Whether or not you win is ultimately determined randomly. Therefore you should try as hard as you can to win. That's a non-sequitur.

The correct conclusion is to do something to affect the random factor itself, not merely the odds you play.

Jayden63 wrote:The short answer being that anyone who says they don't want to win is lying and those saying that they enjoy a challenge are telling the truth, but will still tell you that loosing ultimately sucks. As such, everybody will hope that their chosen army (for whatever reason the army is chosen) will ultimately be strong and with all things being equal give them the win. Sadly, not all of us will get what we want.

In order to have dialogue, you have to be able to listen. Starting out with a blanket statement that everyone who disagrees with your point of view is a liar is going to be disruptive to communication.

For you, what is important is the win, and that's the ONLY thing that's important (at least, it seems to me by what you're saying). If avoiding a loss is what should be the only focus of your efforts, then it goes to say that you think that you should do whatever it takes to win. Put another way, you want to win at all costs.

Know two things, firstly, there are people such as myself who feel genuine compassion and pity for you, as that kind of an attitude writ large in life will ultimately lead to a great deal of unhappiness and dissatisfaction in all aspects of one's life. Secondly, winning is not the point of 40k. To see what the game designers wrote explicitly as the reason they set up the rules the way they did can be found on page 8 of the BRB:

I clearly have failed to get my point across. I understand that there are 100s of reasons to play the game. I personally take much more pride in playing with a fully painted army than my win/loss total. However, the point that I think has not been conveyed well is that if all things are being equal. The challenge, the risk, the reward, the dialogue, the beer flavor, etc. one would rather walk away with a win than a loss. Now there are some people out there that genuinly do not care if they win or loose. However, psychologiest and studies of human behavior show that for the vast majority of people winning is good, loosing not so much. It all depends on ones personal stake in the game.

Now 40K is a game. This is the huge part. The stakes of winning or loosing are negligable. Its not like if you win you get a cash prize or if you loose someone really dies. As such ones win/loss ratio only really matters to those who care about those things. However, having said that if you never ever won a game of 40K or maybe just had a loosing streak of say 50 games in a row, can anyone truely tell me that they are having fun. How tempting would it be to try and pick up a different game at that point?

Myself, I don't actually participate in this hobby to play the game. I play maybe 12 times a year total. But I have over 10,000 points of fully painted figures from 5 different armies. I am a modeler first and a player second. However, and I'll be honest, on those 12 games a year that I do play, pulling a win usually feels better than flopping a loss.

Jayden63 wrote:However, the point that I think has not been conveyed well is that if all things are being equal. The challenge, the risk, the reward, the dialogue, the beer flavor, etc. one would rather walk away with a win than a loss.

Sure. Controlling for literally everything else, a win is going to be better than a loss.

I fail to see how this means that people should always try their hardest to win. As you say, there are hundreds of things that make a good game, and winning is only one small part of it. It seems like winning is rather down on that list (behind, say, having nice looking terrain and having both armies painted and having beer at all, etc.) that it doesnt' make as much sense to focus on a third tier issue when there are more important things to get right first.

If not going for a win is required in order to satisfy a higher-order goal, then going for the win should rightly be considered secondary to whatever else is required to make the game fun.

 Eidolon wrote:
But, if it already exists to some degree in the fluff than it is fluffy. And even if there wasnt a precedent, one of the nice things about the warhammer universe is the incredibly large scope of it. It makes it very easy to come up with your own fluff, and the game designers encourage this.

Key words; to some degree. Orks like to charge their enemies, shooting from the hip. They like to jury-rig their own machines to increase both their firepower and their mobility. They like dakka, yes, lots and lots of dakka. However, at their core, they like to bash stuff, it's what they enjoy most. It makes them warm and fuzzy inside to get hold of a squishy 'oomie and tear them apart in the most brutal, savage and inventive ways open to them. It's just in their nature. They like their trukks and their bikes and their shootas... but everyone knows deep down that those things are a means for them to get to the nitty gritty in the quickest and most efficient way possible on the modern (future) battlefield. You are right, of course, the beauty of the hobby is each player can make it their own. But, even if one chooses to have all-shooty and no-melee Orks, they must acknowledge that their list goes against one of the strongest, most fundamental aspects of the Orks established fluff, and that their list is only, therefore, fluffy to some degree.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Yes, but remember, the only thing orkz find funnier than stomping in the face of some git who can't fight, is gunning down some gitz who didn't bring enuf dakka and thought they could krump orks (silly oomies)

To be perfectly honest, I don't see it that unfluffy.

Once more, our views are not mutually exclusive. I'm not saying it's unfluffy to have shooty Orks, I'm saying it's unfluffy to have exclusively shooty Orks.

But the fun thing about orkz is that they're so crazy, odds are, somewhere in the universe, there probably is in fact an army running whatever rediculous list you can come up with.

However, I'm getting REALLY off topic, just felt like arguing that one just for the fun of it. Cool thing about orkz is that we're both wrong and right at the same time

Agreed. Unfluffy lists can certainly be lots of fun, particularly with Orks. But, as you say, we're veering slightly. Besides, more fool us for trying to comprehend the perplexing and bizarre mind of the Ork in the first place - we're only silly 'oomies, afterall...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is that a WAAC army? Furthermore, the Black Templars prefer orbital assaults and armoured spearheads. A Razorback-heavy list would actually be fluffy.

Sorry for the confusion, my examples weren't for waac lists, just legally possible yet unfluffy ones. I know it wasn't that clear from my sentence structure as I look at it now, as both aspects of my point were kinda rolled into one. My bad. As for the Razorback-heavy Templars... ummmm, yeah I just don't see it, but that's me. With Templars I see Drop Pods, LRCs, and Black Tides. I guess they could be fluffy-er if they were loaded with mixed Initiate/Neophyte close combat squads, but, again, my example was a specific way someone could be unfluffy with Templars. MSU vs. waves, all-bolter vs. close combat, and the exclusions I mentioned all build an unfluffy Templar list. That was my example in it's entirety, picking out just Razorbacks is kinda void and defeats the purpose of my original comment in its original context.

 Ailaros wrote:
Because there is a low, easily achievable ceiling for player skill and especially list building (say hello, netlist), then either you need to play worse, or you need to bring a worse list in order to create that same relative gap in order to make the game more challenging.

See, that makes absolutely no sense. You've said over and over again how 40k is a game of luck, not skill, but here you're saying that it's possible to modify your list precisely enough that the game becomes more challenging but you're still able to win? If 40k is as random as you say it is, shouldn't the random factors negate any attempt at "setting your own difficulty level"?

This is not a 40k thing, this is a cultural thing in all avenues of gaming. You see this in MMO's all the time.

That said, I am the complete opposite. I gravitate towards whatever army is the weakest or the units which most people think is useless.
I have more fun in trying to find interesting ways to use them and make them effective, then I would in simply spamming the latest greatest thing. Plus that also lets me feild the cool models I want, and saves me money from chasing the dragon.

Sisters of battle are a great example, but even with my Space Marines there are many units that don't get a look-in in most lists.

 Peregrine wrote:
Winning is fun. Enough said.

sadly the truth, true a close game once in a while in which you lose isn't bad, but playing an army that loses 95% of the time isnt fun. Setting up takes a while in this game, I don't want to waste knowing that I have almost no realistic chance of winning. I prefer if armies are on even grounds but sadly with different book writers this isnt the case. This particularly affects me as a chaos player whose new book is anything but broken infact it got worse in some places and probably wont be competitive, its pretty much 5.5 edition....