I will preface that this post is not a response to gameplay, but more to reading tourney results online.

Every time I see "the new hot sauce" competitive list, it's always hinging on some ridiculous combo that grants units 2++ / rerollable 2++s, ignore cover shooting, crazy twin linking, etc. Sometimes these lists use mechanics from one army, but more often that not we see them abusing mechanics from two codices.

I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

Games that are won at the list are games that are more profitable to GW.

This is a direction that everyone should have expected since the very beginning of 6th edition. It's also one of the major reasons I got out of the game shortly after 6th edition hit.

Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

 Ailaros wrote:
Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

I have no problem with people pushing the limits of the game to design the most competitive lists possible. I just wish that the most competitive armies didn't rely on abusing mechanics from separate codices to create deathstars that are nigh invulnerable and blow away pretty much everything except other nigh unkillable deathstars.

My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

I have no problem with people pushing the limits of the game to design the most competitive lists possible. I just wish that the most competitive armies didn't rely on abusing mechanics from separate codices to create deathstars that are nigh invulnerable and blow away pretty much everything except other nigh unkillable deathstars.

My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

In my own opinion it's still better then dealing with 5th's near invincible vehicles.

No, is the short answer. In point of fact, quite the opposite. I wish there were less people digging their heels in and refusing to adapt to a changing game system. We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Games Workshop has altered the rules to the game in order to allow players to pick up new armies without breaking the bank. For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

What's more, I believe that one of the greatest aspects of 40k is the ability to combine units and characters in ways that other people have overlooked/dismissed/not thought of. Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I can certainly commiserate with your specific example of the humongous deathstar, however. When everyone does the same thing though, it means that once you find the effective strategy to use against it, it will be effective against many of the variants of that strategy.

I hope your games improve, though, and I hope this helped.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

Yes. Yes we are.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Well, but the problem IS the people. There would be nothing wrong with an abusable system if nobody ever chose to abuse the system. Furthermore, abusers are always going to be more clever than designers.

I mean, it's the fundamental paradox that exists with the rule of law. Laws are only written for people who break them.

Jimsolo wrote:We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

Plus, I'd note that will better is always different, different is not always better.

Jimsolo wrote:For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

Jimsolo wrote:Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I wish this were true. Alas, in reality it's pretty much the internet figuring out the combos immediately and then telling everyone else about them, and then everyone spamming them.

Perhaps the first taudar player a few weeks ago felt like a clever little snowflake figuring out something that no one else had yet, but that feeling must have been ruined pretty quickly by the internet.

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

 Ailaros wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

Of course not. But I DO think that the game studio considered the rules carefully enough to spot and correct the most severe 'adverse codex interactions' (to coin a phrase) that the new Eldar codex would have with the codexes it could ally with.

Jimsolo wrote:For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

Well, I've never seen any real interest in low points games. When I started getting into 40k, all I ever heard was a lot of "oh well, we're really looking for a real game." I had to spend quite a bit of scratch to get an army large enough to play most opponents, and more still to get an army large enough to field a variety of competitive units.

Jimsolo wrote:Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I wish this were true. Alas, in reality it's pretty much the internet figuring out the combos immediately and then telling everyone else about them, and then everyone spamming them.

Perhaps the first taudar player a few weeks ago felt like a clever little snowflake figuring out something that no one else had yet, but that feeling must have been ruined pretty quickly by the internet.

See, I just can't agree with you. 40k isn't WoW. There's more than one right way to play a given army. While some of the popular lists are certainly useful (usually because they are easy to learn, see my lecture repeated ad nauseum elsewhere for details) they are also easy to defeat because you get so much practice fighting them. However, I agree that the majority of combo players only seek out the "most effective" list they can off the internet. And to repeat my original opinion: I wish more people were combo players. Specifically, I wish more people were seeking invention and innovation. The flaw you point out here isn't with the system, it's with the players. Assuming you think it's a flaw. (And while on the balance I'd have to agree with you, that's a whole different kettle of fish with deeply entrenched opinions on both sides.)

I think some people get a little blinded on this issue. I notice a lot of anti Games Workshop rhetoric here that seems to be the same thing over and over, and I think that it's all too easy for people to be so passionate about their (sometimes completely justified!) negative feelings for Games Workshop that they let their personal bias cloud their vision. In the case of allies, I think it leads people to ascribe malicious intent where none exists. I think that one of the things that makes Games Workshop one of the best games companies is that it balances both sides of that equation, the game and the company. Sure, sometimes they make decisions that are motivated more strongly by profit (because if you want to keep making your game, you kind of have to stay in business) but they also make plenty of decisions to produce a quality game, one that has improved greatly from its original form, and continues to improve.

In any event, I just wanted to take a second to take up a 'pro-allies' stance. (Some days I feel like the Lorax. I speak for Mat Ward, because Mat Ward has no voice. ) I understand that there's some strong feelings against it, and that I'm unlikely to change them. I'm just trying to make a reasonable case for people who are on the fence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

Well that hardly fits the bill of "effective one-two punch your opponent doesn't see coming." It's pretty obvious isn't it?

Oh, wait, I see what you did there. That's sarcasm! Aw! Ohhhhh snap!

Clever you.

Meh.

There has always been powerful units/combos/lists/builds/build types.

And then there has always been gakky players who whine about it and try to condescend tournament players because they themselves can't figure out a way to beat them.


What I do agree with, is that 6th seems to have brought with it a bunch of crap that's just frustrating to play against. And by that, I mean having to use seriously unconventional tactics instead of just "i shoot my tactical squad into your screamerstar, what, no kills? you're playing 40k on easymode, herpaderpderp."

I don't play with allies--my armies tend to have little room to fit them in because I'm detrimentally addicted to expensive toy soldiers and buy way too much for any given army project. However I rather like their inclusion--yes it I think it does horrible things to the tournament scene, yes I really hate what -that guy- (and boy does my FLGS have one!) does with the system. But for every WAAC copypasta Taudar list there is out there I bet there's three casual IG/Ork lists out there finally fulfilling Little Timmy's dream of having a Deff Dread march alongside his poor bloody infantry.

The tournament scene is a big part of 40k--don't get me wrong--but I don't remember hearing about Mat Ward, Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, or Jeremy Vetock playing in any tournaments recently (not that I've actually done a comprehensive search on the matter). Thus, I'm inclined to believe that the rules aren't written with a tournament setting in mind. It sucks that WAAC lists can drain the fun out of a game, but I would rather have a system for weird, fun combos that is abuseable, rather than a system without those zany combos. However, a non-abuseable system with wacky combos is preferred above either, naturally.

You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

40k has never been written with the competitive player in mind. Let alone the competitive tourney scene.

GW's game design is a haphazard affair and any perceived imbalance is a result of this piss poor effort at game design and coordination.

Remember GW do not care a jot of balance, they do not think it has a place in a 'fun and fluffy' game system.

I don't really see the problem if you're just playing socially. If you want to compete at a game which isn't designed to be competitive, then I don't have much sympathy.

they don't care much at all about the game. it's really only there to sell all the books and so that the sales people have something to sell you on if you're new to the hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

this sums it up.

People have been twisting the Codexes for every army since 2nd edition, where Wolf Guard in Termi armor had assault cannons AND missile launchers, because the codex didn't expressly permit that. So in tournaments people spammed the hell out of them.

It'll happen all the time. Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards, so that everything can buff or change how other things work, because of all the crazy rules and skills GW gave to units to affect other units. And while it used to be that a unit wasn't too bad affecting other units inside that army's own codex, now you have Eldar casting buffs on Blood Angels, etc.

I remember the old days when all you could like that was with specific psychic powers, and standard bearers.

Armies have no soul of their own on the board now, as they are all amalgamations of different armies/races just purely for the buffs they provide.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
People have been twisting the Codexes for every army since 2nd edition, where Wolf Guard in Termi armor had assault cannons AND missile launchers, because the codex didn't expressly permit that. So in tournaments people spammed the hell out of them.

It'll happen all the time. Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards, so that everything can buff or change how other things work, because of all the crazy rules and skills GW gave to units to affect other units. And while it used to be that a unit wasn't too bad affecting other units inside that army's own codex, now you have Eldar casting buffs on Blood Angels, etc.

I remember the old days when all you could like that was with specific psychic powers, and standard bearers.

Armies have no soul of their own on the board now, as they are all amalgamations of different armies/races just purely for the buffs they provide.

The CML and assault cannon wasn't so bad.

It was that you could alpha strike out all sixteen missiles in one turn and the *entire* squad could be outfitted like that which made it terrible.

The CML and assault cannon wasn't so bad.

It was that you could alpha strike out all sixteen missiles in one turn and the *entire* squad could be outfitted like that which made it terrible.

True. Luckily I have only ever played with a couple of other gamers who have the instincts and control to look at a codex entry like that and think, "Hmmm....I think that was an oversight. There is no way they meant for that to be possible, and still be fun."

Unfortunately, I think that mass of 40K players now are the types of gamers where nothing is sacred when you are trying to win, and GW making all these crazy combos possible, whether intentionally or through lack of oversight, and then having them change allies (I think back in older editions allies' abilities could only affect other units chosen from that allies own codex, right?) just encourages the wrong lines of thinking.

Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

But yeah, the codex crackers have been at the whole mathhammer game for years. I played a 500 point tourney in 2nd Edition where a guy brought a Chaos Lord with every mark who killed six of my genestealers in one turn of hand to hand combat. When you realize how ludicrously impossible that was with 2nd Edition hand to hand rules, yeah, mathhammer. It is what it is.

Of course, I rarely play the game, and when I do, it's with my friends, and not the stinky kids with a bunch of those new gundam models and a netlist. So I can empathize with the people who are facing the latest in 6th Edition ridiculousness.

I think it's definitely the universe that carries the game, rather then any merits of the game. Otherwise there wouldn't be video games and the entirety of Black Library. I think people really just like the depth of the universe of Warhammer and 40K, and if GW gives them easy ways to slaughter opponents, even if it's through horrible min-maxing and game balance, they figure "so be it".

I mean, my gaming group wanted me to run a tabletop RPG, and I was going to run it in the Warhammer World, just with non-FFG game rules. I just love the atmosphere.

I thought about playing it Call of Cthulu style. The players investigate weird things, then the slowest ones get eaten by them.

Anything else doesn't feel very 40Kish. I mean, I guess you could play Deathwatch, and roll dice for a few hours and decide who killed the most things. Or Black Crusade and be a complete sociopath (instead of a minor sociopath like Deathwatch). Or whatever the heck is going on in Only War.

People know how to break rules.... its a fact.... they play to win because they have some childish need to "be ahead"... one guy at my FLGS runs a space wolf list, 1750 of pure through and through thunderhammers, and power weapons.... put those bad boys in drop pods.... nobody has fun! Nobody plays with him as a result.

I can understand having a stacked combine list like that for a tournament, where you aren't necessarily playing for fun,which is what we are talking about, but still those broken combos probably shouldn't exist to begin with

I miss old cultists...

Personally, I would like a world where the new edition rules were accompanied by all the current codecies (SM fall into one massive category like they are currently with the new Dex) being redone simultaneously...

My only problem with this game is the simple fact that the newer codecies will also trump the ones that came before.. Its just GWs way of trying to pigeon hole people into buying multiple armies, if not ALL the armies so that people have the means to constantly play the 1 army at the time that is superior to all others due to some broken mechanic / exploit.

GoliothOnline wrote:

My only problem with this game is the simple fact that the newer codecies will also trump the ones that came before..

Really? Tell that to the Necrons. It took three new codex releases before we got a codex in 6E that could match the 'Crons: Tau. 6E CSM, Dark Angels and Daemons sure as hell weren't doing it.

6th Edition is largely fine- and it's certainly better than Metal Bawxes-Hammer that was 5th. 6th's biggest problems are MEQ getting crapped on by everything, assault getting crapped on by everything, and allies. But as far as actual balance quality, it really isn't all that terrible, imo.

I agree with BlaxicanX, the new rules are very fair.


it isn't an issue of balance at all, it's an issue of who knows how to work the rules. It's becoming more of a WM style game now with older codices being used with new rules. some old codices are just broken as hell with new rules, and are incredibly OP. once all the new books come out our hobby will be as perfect as it can get....once all the FAQ's are released

I actually quite like combos as long as they make it awesome. Examples such as Calgar, Lysander, Beliel and a DA Techmarine with the forcefield thing attached to a full unit of Deathwing TH Termies with the forcefield, vs a full squad of decked out paladins led by Mordrak, Draigo, Stern and GM with cheesegrenades, everybody having Hammers and 5 Psycannons, everything Mastercrafted with every upgrade and Banners and whatever else, clashing right in the middle of a huge 5000pts (not Apoc) game. The destruction was massive and ended with Beliel and Draigo, but it was Calgar and Lysander who did most of the heavy lifting actually, with Calgar being able to pass all the tests and Lysander giving the unit Stubborn and Calgar being able to let more Termies deep strike in. It was fantastic.

People must be forgetting how IG and SM variants fully dominated 5th. The combo back then was just massive amounts of mech, which most Xenos lists couldn't hope to handle (until broken Crons). "Competitive" players will always be trying to keep up, especially when there are imbalances between different armies. But, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and Crons are all fairly balanced against one another. It is problematic that only 4 codices are competitive, but I'd argue that 5th wasn't any better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I prefer the combos you can create with allies. There are a ton of good ones. It's just that people emulate the ones that make the most noise.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

I'm really struggling to find any sympathy for the whiners on this one. If somehow you thought 5th edition was balanced and competitive, then you clearly weren't playing at GTs (or more aptly GKs). But if that's the case, then you aren't playing GTs now, so TauDar shouldn't be an issue.

However if you never played GTs before (or WAAC games) and you are now, and you can't put it together that venue/game type is the issue... well your opinion is kinda worthless.

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

I play mainly straight CSM or straight SM. I love 6th. I'm thrilled xenos have some teeth again. The ally matrix is awesome for people starting new armies and for keeping the game fresh. If your own anecdotal losses keep you from seeing the big picture, that your failing, not the edition's. If youre entering tourneys and getting stomped... Welcome to GW tourneys, they haven't fundementally changed. It's been cheese since 2nd edition and its always been build the best easy button at the top (though I will note that plenty of regional tournaments and smaller GTs have seen non top tier lists do very well and even win).

If your not in tourney play, sit down and work out some league or club rules to blunt WAAC lists. If you can't, then most the people you game with must disagree with you and I'd say your issue is with them and again, not the edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Typed from iPhone riding in car, pardon mistakes

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

Not to mention most of those were CSM allied to Main Detachment Necrons.

Armies are supposed to have weaknesses that balance out their specialties for a reason. That's the balance. If you're just going to add rules to allow an assault army to easily take allies from another completely different race that is awesomely shooty, you might as well have that Assault army have said awesome shooty stuff in the first place.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, but the problem IS the people. There would be nothing wrong with an abusable system if nobody ever chose to abuse the system. Furthermore, abusers are always going to be more clever than designers.

It's not really abuse, it's an expected result of simple economics. It's just a game, one person's got to win it and there are good options and bad ones. The people who choose strong options are just people who are playing the game. The people who can't grasp that are just whiners.

 Ailaros wrote:
Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

No I can't, but that's because the authors of the Tau codex are writers first and their mathematical skills are not the same as the people who play in tournaments. We all know that the authors don't compete and probably don't have a clue about what they're doing. Even competitive players recognize this and have learned to accept it. I won't be switching to Tau and I will continue to compete, that's half the fun of the game.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

You need to spend quite a bit to get even a 1000 pt army off the ground. An HQ and 2 Troops goes further for some armies than others, and the goal is always to have a somewhat complete army. 1850 pts is an arbitrary mark people have chosen to describe this completeness, but I think most people will probably wind up with more than that if they plan the game for any length of time.

The allies system also lets you slowly incorporate another army into your preferred game size. If you just want a couple units, then that's all you need in an allied detachment. No need to buy another 1000+ pts from scratch.

 Ailaros wrote:
Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

I'm sorry you feel this way. I do think that the ally system was designed to encourage people to spend money on another army. I don't think anybody requires allies in order to compete in the game though, and I doubt that allies ruins the game for anybody. I actually like the allies because I think it encourages people to start another army they've been looking at, or it can help keep old codices competitive to some degree. Many marine players were only staying relevant by including IG allies which is a far cry from breaking the game. If making SM borderline useful is making the game worse for somebody, then I pity them. I recognize that the TauDar combo is obnoxious, but I'm not really convinced that it's any worse than straight Tau either.



Also I don't understand how this edition of deathstarhammer (or flyerhammer or whatever you're upset about) is any worse than last edition of metalboxhammer or reservehammer. The whiners in this thread seem to be romanticizing an era of warhammer which never existed. The game has always had a dominant codex and frustrating units, whether they're Farsight bombs, psyback spam or completely reserved drop pod assault. If you don't like strong units, don't take them and don't play in tournaments. If somebody in your gaming group is playing useful units, then don't play against them or ask them if they would be willing to make a different list. If they don't want to, that's their right and they should be allowed to play against a competent player and learn something.

fuhrmaaj wrote:
Also I don't understand how this edition of deathstarhammer (or flyerhammer or whatever you're upset about) is any worse than last edition of metalboxhammer or reservehammer.

Because, as bad as its balance problems were, MSU transport spam had two redeeming factors:

1) It was at least interactive. Unless you completely ignored the metagame and didn't bother to bring any anti-tank units you were always killing stuff and at least had an illusion that there was a proper game with both players having a chance of winning. With a re-rollable 2++ death star, for example, you don't get any of that interaction. Your opponent rolls dice to see if they can kill your whole army, and if they fail you sit on an objective and win.

2) It represented a deliberate choice of direction for the game. GW clearly wanted to make transports better in 5th, and that's what we got. But with something like the re-rollable 2++ death stars it feels like it was just something GW didn't anticipate and we're stuck with a stupid mistake until a new codex comes out in a few years.

Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

tactical positioning...

I've played Tyranids through 5th and thus far into 6th and, as far as I could tell, Imperial MSU lists just kind of lined up and shot at me. If I got into assault, units just died in place. They didn't even have to get out of their transports.

6th edition is much more tactical in my eyes. Yes, Tau and Eldar are the exception. But to everyone else you're trying to dodge around all of the AP 2 and Overwatch as you play the game. Heck, even just the inclusion of First blood, slay the warlord and linebreaker have made the game more tactical.

I have a BA Deathcompany list that has no scoring models that still wins games because it clears off the objectives and relies heavily on those three secondary missions. I've built it to seldom give up first blood and I almost always get it with my drop pod full of sternguard with combi-meltas/plasmas.

In 5th, it was cool to be space wolves with 8 razorbacks or GK that could spend like 60 points a razorback with 3 dudes inside that fired 4 TL str 7 rending shots a turn. Things are different, these tactics still work but very differently in the world of Coversaves everywhere and massed firepower.

 Blacksails wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

Look into the complaints and that's what most of them are. People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

We play nids and faced vehicle spam back in 5th. Dealt with it. I understand it's hard if you're a BA player, we got whupped bad by them once and have tabled them several times since 6th, but this is essentially is a fun fluffy game.

Plenty of people play, say, Orks and have fun (we hope to), are they simply idiots for enjoying themselves?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

Look into the complaints and that's what most of them are. People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

We play nids and faced vehicle spam back in 5th. Dealt with it. I understand it's hard if you're a BA player, we got whupped bad by them once and have tabled them several times since 6th, but this is essentially is a fun fluffy game.

Plenty of people play, say, Orks and have fun (we hope to), are they simply idiots for enjoying themselves?

I'm not saying you can't have fun, or play whatever army you want. That's not my point. My point is simply this;

There would be significantly less complaining if this game was genuinely and truly balanced, across codices and within each one, as then the game wouldn't be mostly pre-decided on selecting broken army A and allying in broken army B.

That's it. I make no claims people have to play a certain way, but a balanced game is fun for both casual players and competitive players. I won't say that's a hard fact, but its close enough to be a fairly definitive statement.

I would never want my army to auto-win. Most of my friends feel the same.

The enjoyment of the game doesn't come from the win. It comes from what it took to get there.

And even in a loss, you can walk away knowing it was a great game that well fought on both sides, where the skill of your opponent made up the true challenge, not the power level of the army or one or two important dice rolls.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Blacksails wrote:People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

You 100% missed the point of what blacksails said. Wanting a balanced game is, in fact, the opposite of wanting your army to roflstomp (or any other, for the same reason).

fuhrmaaj wrote:You need to spend quite a bit to get even a 1000 pt army off the ground. An HQ and 2 Troops goes further for some armies than others, and the goal is always to have a somewhat complete army.

You can make a reasonably strong 1000 pt. imperial guard list with 21 infantry models and 4 vehicles. That's not much of a hardship, really, I think the problem is this..

fuhrmaaj wrote:1850 pts is an arbitrary mark people have chosen to describe this completeness

... which is sort of an attitude problem. I really like playing games at low points levels, and find the idea that if you're not playing at 1850 points meaning you're not playing a "real" game of 40k to be annoying.

Plus, if anyone is new to the game, or even just to an army, they will get the best experience with the army playing at low point levels with their core units than rushing off to play with the fanciest toys possible. If allies allow you to skip good points levels that provide good learning experiences, that sounds like a bad thing, not a good one.

It would be better to tell FLGS people to suck it up and play at more reasonable points levels, I'd think.

AegisGrimm wrote:Armies are supposed to have weaknesses that balance out their specialties for a reason. That's the balance. If you're just going to add rules to allow an assault army to easily take allies from another completely different race that is awesomely shooty, you might as well have that Assault army have said awesome shooty stuff in the first place.

Right, and I may argue for or against various things to hash out abstract principles, but this is the one thing that actually annoys me a bit, personally. It would kind of bug me to see that the special thing that I took, that I made the sacrifice for by playing the army, that I was following good fluff protocols for, just showed up in every other army. One of the things that makes the CSM codex special is helldrakes, and one of the things that makes guard unique is the vendetta. If I show up to my FLGS and everyone has one of those two vehicles regardless of what army they play, well... that's just... bad.

As said in the quote above, why bother making armies different in the first place, if everyone can take the same units? What specialness is there left when you soften what differentiates? Why play guard if everyone is including some guardsmen? That kind of thing.

fuhrmaaj wrote:It's not really abuse, it's an expected result of simple economics. It's just a game, one person's got to win it and there are good options and bad ones.

kb305 wrote:i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

And this has the hazard of a real, serious problem.

In chess, for example, both players have the same pieces, so the game is fair. You can't be a noob who gets roflstomped because you brought the wrong pieces. Allies can only increase the power disparity in 40k.

Now, I like the fact that 40k doesn't have chess levels of balance, and you can choose to bring weaker lists against worse players. That's a strength. However, played without a sense of ethics, the game quickly can devolve into people with strong lists beating other players so badly that the games themselves are boring to play. And that can cause a gaming group to disintegrate.

And that's the serious problem at risk here. Allies give people more options to abuse unethical decisions that can push other players out of the game.

Jimsolo wrote:There's more than one right way to play a given army

Yes, but what happens when not everybody appreciates this fact?

In the case of my FLGS, there was a brief moment where half the store switched over to tau. Now that eldar has come out, some who didn't switch to tau, switched to eldar (or took them out of mothballed closets). And yes, we have taudar now.

The tide - exacerbated by allies - is so strong that some of our less must-win-at-any-costs players are starting to migrate over to fantasy. Because otherwise they have the option of playing really boring games where they don't get to do anything because they're tabled by taudar by turn 3, or they have to play a very different kind of army than they want to play (and don't want to play mech/tau gunlines because, once again, that's boring), or not play 40k at all.

In this case, allies are enabling bad people to be worse people. It's festering rot, rather than helping clean it.

AegisGrimm wrote: Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards.

That's actually a clever way of putting it. Especially if we're talking about the "you can take anything ever made" branch of MTG. Of course, that got so out of hand that they had to add a lot more restrictions (only starting with sealed starter decks, only using things that came out within the last 2 years), etc.

In another way, MTG has figured out what 40k has known all along - the game is better with more restrictions, not worse. The codex system helps things from getting completely out of control.

I mean, can you imagine how bad 40k would be if you could always just take any unit from any codex?

Mr. Burning wrote:Remember GW do not care a jot of balance, they do not think it has a place in a 'fun and fluffy' game system.

Which would bring us to this. Just because a game is designed to be fun, doesn't mean the game is better if it's designed poorly. A better balanced game with more concise rules makes the game more fun, not less.

And in the end, a game is really only determined by its rules. If fun and fluffy is another way of saying don't want tight rules, then why play a game at all? Why not sit around and have pretend time with miniatures in a ruleless, open-ended environment?

Because if it's a game, rather than pretend time, it has to have rules. If it has rules, then better rules are better than worse rules. Regardless of one's definition of fun.

Jimsolo wrote: I DO think that the game studio considered the rules carefully enough to spot and correct the most severe 'adverse codex interactions'

Of course, one could make the argument that "it could be worse". And certainly it could be.

I think part of the problem here is one of scope creep. Allies are just a part of the game, but in a thread about allies, it's sort of the only thing that matters.

Jimsolo wrote:Specifically, I wish more people were seeking invention and innovation.

Certainly as do I. I would note two things about it, though.

Firstly, there is a HUGE amount of playing around with things you can do within the confines of an individual codex. I mean, over the first year of playing guard, I played with six very different types of guard armies. And there was still plenty of room to go (never played leafblower, never played with vendettas at all, never tried to make a go of powerblobs anyways). I mean, in that huge pile of experimentation over a full year, I still didn't manage to use a bit less than a THIRD of the units in my codex.

The codex system hardly stifles THAT much creativity.

Secondly, does allies giving more options actually inspire that much creativity? I mean, as mentioned, there was a lot of stuff that I had the option to try out, but never tried out. Just because you have the option to try out even more stuff doesn't mean you will.

So, practically speaking, what real gain is there? Is it worth the cost?


And to go completely off-topic..

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I thought about playing it Call of Cthulu style. The players investigate weird things, then the slowest ones get eaten by them.

I'm going to start up a 40k RPG soon. The 40k rules, but with stuff added on like it being cooperative vs. a GM, and with fog of war on, etc. 40k scales down to tiny points levels shockingly well.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

Allies =/= cheesey combos (the OP complaint). I haven't seen the NOVA lists yet, but running grey knights and necrons isn't the issue. Screamers with 2++ rerolls + 2 helldrakes or fortuned Riptides is. How many of the top 10 had those type of... combos? Thats the issue at hand.

 Lobukia wrote:
However if you never played GTs before (or WAAC games) and you are now, and you can't put it together that venue/game type is the issue... well your opinion is kinda worthless.

Going to partially ignore that.

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos.

I assume the OP really meant combos such as Puffmander+Farseer, which we see a lot.

I play mainly straight CSM or straight SM. I love 6th. I'm thrilled xenos have some teeth again. The ally matrix is awesome for people starting new armies and for keeping the game fresh.

There is no balance whatsoever in the ally matrix. I am not a fan of double FOC, but can see the value of being able to ally, _for fun_. Allies are not chosen based on what looks nice but what brings the most dangerous combinations. I can live with that even though I don't like it.

I suspect GW's playtesting never takes this kind of approach to army building.

If your not in tourney play, sit down and work out some league or club rules to blunt WAAC lists. If you can't, then most the people you game with must disagree with you and I'd say your issue is with them and again, not the edition./

I guess expecting common sense is asking too much. People don't have to bring their tournament lists to club games. Want to give Howling Banshees another try? Use them in the club game, leave your 5+ wave serpents at home.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Anybody else tired of combohammer?  @ 2013/09/09 06:48:41

Post by: Martel732

What playtesting?

Reply by: Crablezworth - click to view full reply 

7463

Anybody else tired of combohammer?  @ 2013/09/09 08:45:07

Post by: Crablezworth

The moral of the story is that Warhammer 40,000 if it is anything, it is not a pickup game, it's too many different things to too many different people to ever be a pickup game.

With that said, if you can find opponents who enjoy playing the game in the same way or spirit as you, you will have a great time and fall madly in love with the game. If it all just feels like a race to the bottom no matter who you play, you will find little enjoyment. And with some opponents, it will always be a race to the bottom.

Reply by: Hivefleet Oblivion - click to view full reply 

55306

Anybody else tired of combohammer?  @ 2013/09/09 09:03:02

Post by: Hivefleet Oblivion

 Ailaros wrote:



You 100% missed the point of what blacksails said. Wanting a balanced game is, in fact, the opposite of wanting your army to roflstomp (or any other, for the same reason).

Nonetheless, it's undeniable that a good number of people complaining about the 'unbalanced' 6th, are those who feel their own army is disadvantaged. People's idea of balanced tends to be a status quo that happens to benefit them - throughout society, throughout history. My original point was said partly in jest, but a survey of opinions here would tend to back it up.

 Ailaros wrote:

It would kind of bug me to see that the special thing that I took, that I made the sacrifice for by playing the army, that I was following good fluff protocols for, just showed up in every other army. One of the things that makes the CSM codex special is helldrakes, and one of the things that makes guard unique is the vendetta. If I show up to my FLGS and everyone has one of those two vehicles regardless of what army they play, well... that's just... bad.

I absolutely agree. In our local store tournament, which was pretty competitive, there were no allies - we didn't make it in time, i'm not sure if that was a criterion, but I think there would be a benefit in controlling this aspect in the competitive arena, purely for more genuine diversity.

 Lobukia wrote:
Screamers with 2++ rerolls + 2 helldrakes or fortuned Riptides is. How many of the top 10 had those type of... combos? Thats the issue at hand.

Oh gak, that sounds hideous. I might just use that strategy if I ever decide to dabble in competitive 40k again.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

Umm, excuse me, but isn't this exactly what happened in 5th? Did I dream up all those Razorback/Chimera/Psyback/Venom spam lists?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Nonetheless, it's undeniable that a good number of people complaining about the 'unbalanced' 6th, are those who feel their own army is disadvantaged. People's idea of balanced tends to be a status quo that happens to benefit them - throughout society, throughout history. My original point was said partly in jest, but a survey of opinions here would tend to back it up.

No, not really. Its not undeniable, and there isn't some vast majority who simply want their codex to be best. There are quite a number I've observed on here who play Tau and Eldar who freely admit the armies are in their own league and that the game would be better if they were balanced. Not to mention the general call for balance, not 'I wish my codex was super powerful'.

I also highly, highly doubt any intelligently worded survey would indicate even the remotest inclination you suggest. People want balance. Balance is fun. Winning that takes skill and thought is infinitely more satisfying than winning because your chosen faction is three tiers above your opponent's.

If you want proof, go to the other gaming boards on here for Warmahordes, or Infinity, or any of the other ones. Go see how many people are complaining that their faction isn't an auto-win button.

Its because those games are all significantly more balanced than 40k, and the playerbase is generally pleased with it.

The game is way better than it was in 5th at the least. There may be some bent-ass combos out there right now, but overall lists are still for the better part varied in some way whereas in 5th you went to a tournament and saw the exact same Grey Knight army 10 times.

And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
The game is way better than it was in 5th at the least. There may be some bent-ass combos out there right now, but overall lists are still for the better part varied in some way whereas in 5th you went to a tournament and saw the exact same Grey Knight army 10 times.

And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

Just a thought, but if they made a tight, balanced rule set, with fair and equally balanced codices with proper internal balance, they would sell more models. And for a simple reason.

With proper balance, every unit would be a good unit.

So really, its not as unreasonable as you make it seem for us to at the very least want GW to produce a better rule set. Making a proper rule set and releasing balanced codices does not preclude GW from turning a profit. They're not mutually exclusive in the slightest.

Its not a simple black and white issue, where we either have a poor rule set and a profitable business, or a great rule set and a broke company. Many other wargames are capable of producing far better rules, listening to feedback, and turning profits while expanding their consumer base and market share.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

Then why don't you just stop playing the game and leave the people who actaully like 40k [strange as it may seem to you ] in peace? Jeez .

Because people can be both disgruntled and invested.

Martel732 wrote:
Because people can be both disgruntled and invested.

Maybe he has a 40k addiction.

Maybe. I pity anyone actually addicted to this game. I've played the same army for 15 years now, mainly with old metal models. I play it because I can get a game at my FLGS, and that's about it. I pretty much hate GW and hate giving them money. They are are the robber barons of the gaming industry.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. I pity anyone actually addicted to this game. I've played the same army for 15 years now, mainly with old metal models. I play it because I can get a game at my FLGS, and that's about it. I pretty much hate GW and hate giving them money. They are are the robber barons of the gaming industry.

Once you learn that everyone in the world is terrible and evil and has unsavory motives for doing anything you'll be much happier.

What do you mean I'm paranoid?

Re-rollable 2+ deathstars aren't the biggest deal ever, you can beat them. 5th had its dangerous deathstars too, especially with old Fateweaver.

The same helpless feeling some armies feel vs the new Deathstars or FMC Daemons, is the way a lot of armies felt vs mech spam of 5th. Many codices had very few answers.

There are a fair number of ways to mitigate CC/Psychic Deathstars. SW allies for RP. Nids have Shadows. Anyone with Divination can roll for Misfortune, Telepathy can help with Dominate/Hallucinate. Eldar have multiple de-buffs at their disposal. You can tarpit, or go MSU in order to minimize losses.

40k won't ever be balanced. Most games aren't, it's just that with 40k you end up having to change armies fairly frequently. If you can't accept that, you may need to consider another hobby.

kb305 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

Honestly, I never once saw a Cyclone Spam list. But maybe I played with a better quality of people than others did. Nobody in our "meta" did stuff like that. We never had problems with virus or vortex grenades either. It wasn't like I played in a tiny group either. There was a kid named "Cheesy", but that was about it. Some guys had more powerful lists than others, but I have almost entirely fond memories of 2nd Edition, and absolutely hated what they turned the game into with 3rd where you just rolled dice and pulled models off as fast as possible.

I just know that I nearly always alpha striked my Cyclone if I happened to take one.

As far as 6th Edition crapping on assault, that's only an improvement to the overall direction of the game. I imagine it is painful for the assault based armies though. GW really should have pushed the codex releases for Orks and Tyranids up with that in mind. Rework them and give them the ability to shoot at things like they did in 2nd Edition. Get away from Stick and Hammer 40K, and move it back towards a sci-fi based game with fantasy elements rather than a fantasy game with sci-fi elements.

Though, having said that, a sci-fi game gave us giant Taudar Gundam robots, which was a worse turn than introducing flyers. Those things are ruining 40K more than anything else. A bunch of slow moving flyers that are still really hard to hit as if they were moving fast, and exploiting that limited vulnerability to become massive game changers.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Honestly when talking about the way some competitive lists are made "combohammer" style that's not really the Devs fault when they're the ones pushing to make the game more focused on being a fun, casual game.

As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Honestly when talking about the way some competitive lists are made "combohammer" style that's not really the Devs fault when they're the ones pushing to make the game more focused on being a fun, casual game.

As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

I don't accept this. I think the writers are too lazy to write tight rules that can cut down abuses. Or, even worse, they don't understand/play the game they are writing for.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Armies have no soul of their own on the board now, as they are all amalgamations of different armies/races just purely for the buffs they provide.

I wouldn't say that so broadly honestly. I for one have a Sisters army with no allies, and I'm looking at a pure Space Marine army, again with no allies. Some of us believe allies should be limited to combinations that provide flavor (like CSM and Daemons), at least when we build and play them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Honestly when talking about the way some competitive lists are made "combohammer" style that's not really the Devs fault when they're the ones pushing to make the game more focused on being a fun, casual game.

As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

I don't accept this. I think the writers are too lazy to write tight rules that can cut down abuses. Or, even worse, they don't understand/play the game they are writing for.

Playtesting is in two-phases. First the devs do it, then they have people from GW do it who aren't on the dev team (my money is the WD guys). They don't write the game for tournaments like NOVA or Adepticon though, and that's something we need to accept. They have said they write a beer and pretzels game and Jervis has made many a statement about making sure the game is fun for all the players. That's the game they're writing. If we choose to leave that design philosophy then it's our problem not theirs.

I don't get to play that often, nor do I read every codex that comes out, so I rely on being able to gauge the strength and power of an enemy unit by how it looks as a miniature. This became a mistake in sixth edition, as the most powerful combinations are psychic powers and innate abilities that are not represented on the model whatsoever. In fact, that's actually why I stopped playing Warmachine, I couldn't keep up with the new releases and got hit by combos I couldn't predict (if anyone knows Lady Aiyana, you may know where I'm coming from, she looks harmless). This isn't a flaw with the rules, though, it's a flaw with me as a casual gamer.

Meh, combo-hammer in and of itself doesn't bother me, and I'm not an ultra-competative player. Its the fact that the SAME combos get used over and over, with little to no deviation, that kind of ruins the game for me.

I don't care if you crush my fluff-bunny list with your ultra-nasty tournament ready combo-laden list, just don't use the same combos every freakin' game we play. Not only does it show zero imagination or creativity, its BORING to play against. A friend of mine that I play frequently is guilty of this, and its finally starting to backfire on him as our respective armies have received new rules/models. We know exactly what he's going to play in general, so we tailor our lists just a bit to include a unit to derail those combos. Beardy? Sure, list tailoring is always a touch beardy, but so is bringing the same power-combos every 1500 point game when the guy owns 3000+ points in models. I keep telling him all he needs to do is STOP taking those same combos and he'd completely derail us. But no, every army he fields continues to include at least two of the three combos he has used for the last 6-7 months (one is a constant).

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

What you're ignoring is that if GW makes decisions against the best interests of the hobby they won't have a business. Long-term success depends on having a quality product that people want to buy. If GW produces mediocre models and garbage rules they're going to fail no matter how well they cut costs or increase prices.

ClockworkZion wrote:
They have said they write a beer and pretzels game and Jervis has made many a statement about making sure the game is fun for all the players.

Sorry, but that's just lazy and/or incompetent design. A good designer can create a game that is fun for "beer and pretzels" games AND competitive tournaments. An incompetent idiot like Jervis is only able to use "beer and pretzels" as a way of saying "don't look too closely at the rules I'm selling" and an excuse for why you should buy their garbage even when you see the obvious flaws. The fact that GW has convinced people that this is a good idea is arguably their greatest success as a business.

 LValx wrote:
The same helpless feeling some armies feel vs the new Deathstars or FMC Daemons, is the way a lot of armies felt vs mech spam of 5th. Many codices had very few answers.

The difference is that with mech spam you could at least kill stuff. If you couldn't at least kill a couple Rhinos then the problem was your list, not game balance. Unless you deliberately built a list to remove anti-tank you'd have weapons capable of dealing with AV 11 transports. And unless you were stuck with one of the oldest codices (a very different problem) you could fight back even more. With a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, you just can't kill it unless you brought one of the very specific counters for it. You don't even get the illusion of being able to fight back, you just have a frustrating "game" of throwing everything you have at the death star and accomplishing nothing.

ClockworkZion wrote:
As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

Not at all true, because intelligent game designers do two things:

1) Hire the "abusers" to playtest the game. Only clueless idiots like GW have "casual" players design the game and never bother to playtest properly.

2) Design built-in failsafes in case you miss something. If you're going to add flyers, make sure everyone has access to at least mediocre AA. If you have vehicles, make sure everyone has an anti-vehicle unit. Etc. That way if a list that spams an overpowered unit shows up there's a counter already waiting for it.

WOTC does both of these things with MTG, and the result is a balanced game where high-level competitive play may occasionally go in different directions than the developers expected, but rarely goes in a completely unanticipated direction where no counters exist.

What Peregrine said. Squared. Exalted. Squared, if I could.

Agreed, again, Peregrine has it nailed.

I can agree on the first point. There's a reason the most talented hackers often end up "workin for the man" amd breaking systems to help shore up and adress loopholes and weaknesses.

The second point I'm a bit iffy on simply because more goes into balance than just codex content. We often forget that the elephant in the room can just as often be terrain, or specifically a lack there of.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I can agree on the first point. There's a reason the most talented hackers often end up "workin for the man" amd breaking systems to help shore up and adress loopholes and weaknesses.

The second point I'm a bit iffy on simply because more goes into balance than just codex content. We often forget that the elephant in the room can just as often be terrain, or specifically a lack there of.

Which is addressed through the main rule book on how to set up games; if they had bothered to do it properly.

All boils down to proper rule writing either way.

 Peregrine wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
They have said they write a beer and pretzels game and Jervis has made many a statement about making sure the game is fun for all the players.

Sorry, but that's just lazy and/or incompetent design. A good designer can create a game that is fun for "beer and pretzels" games AND competitive tournaments. An incompetent idiot like Jervis is only able to use "beer and pretzels" as a way of saying "don't look too closely at the rules I'm selling" and an excuse for why you should buy their garbage even when you see the obvious flaws. The fact that GW has convinced people that this is a good idea is arguably their greatest success as a business.

Peregrine, the two rerollable deathstars are the screamercouncil and seercouncil. Both will have troops and support units to kill. This is generally the best option vs. deathstars anyway. Not to mention fairly reliable counters being available to most codices. I think you are making it out to be worse than it is. I know people who ran both at nova and the list, like deathstars before it, are still susceptible to tac lists that are played well.

 LValx wrote:
Peregrine, the two rerollable deathstars are the screamercouncil and seercouncil. Both will have troops and support units to kill. This is generally the best option vs. deathstars anyway. Not to mention fairly reliable counters being available to most codices. I think you are making it out to be worse than it is. I know people who ran both at nova and the list, like deathstars before it, are still susceptible to tac lists that are played well.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. It's not an "I can't beat this" problem, it's a "this isn't fun" problem. Yes, you can win with a "kill their troops while the invulnerable super-unit runs around wiping out whatever it feels like" strategy, but that's a frustrating experience that makes you wonder why you bother playing the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:
A good designer can, but only if they choose too.

Sorry, but choosing to make a game that appeals to only one group of customers instead of one that appeals just as much to the "main" customers while also appealing to lots of other customers is just stupid from a business perspective. If GW's designers are making a conscious choice to do that (rather than just being too incompetent to get it right) they should be fired and replaced with better ones.

And honestly, hiring people to abuse your system isn't outsmarting them, it's hiring them to get paid to do what they normally do.

The point is not to outsmart the people who "abuse" your system, the point is to make a good game. You hire the people who "abuse" your system because they will abuse it, tell you what you need to fix, and the result will be a better game.

No one plays Sim City in a tournament, and even if they did the devs aren't responsible for balancing it for that. Why? Because it's a casual game, and you're to do what you want with it, but the point remains that the game isn't built around competetive play.

It has nothing to do with being a casual game, nobody plays Sim City because it's a single-player sandbox game. That's a genre of games that can't be played as competitive tournaments without losing everything that makes them fun. 40k's problems, on the other hand, are entirely caused by lazy and incompetent game designers. A tournament version of 40k would play just fine as a "casual" game. In fact it would probably work better than the current game because you'd no longer have the problem of choosing your favorite units vs. having a chance of winning.

If you want a good example look at MTG: excellent competitive balance, rules that have zero ambiguity, and a thriving "casual" community that enjoys a wide variety of "casual" play styles. There is absolutely no reason that competent professionals couldn't do the same with 40k.

lol at sim city reference. 40k is a player vs player pick up game for crying out loud.

if any type of game needs tight, good rules it would be a PvP pick up game.

 Peregrine wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
A good designer can, but only if they choose too.

Sorry, but choosing to make a game that appeals to only one group of customers instead of one that appeals just as much to the "main" customers while also appealing to lots of other customers is just stupid from a business perspective. If GW's designers are making a conscious choice to do that (rather than just being too incompetent to get it right) they should be fired and replaced with better ones.

I disagree with you on this. The devs are doing a fine job and it's really not their fault it they end up picking up customers who play the game differently. It's a lot like shows like My Little Pony, there is a definite target audience, and it ends up picking up people it's not aimed at anyways.

Honestly I think you're just coming across as bitter and angry because the game isn't catering to what you think it should be.

And honestly, hiring people to abuse your system isn't outsmarting them, it's hiring them to get paid to do what they normally do.

The point is not to outsmart the people who "abuse" your system, the point is to make a good game. You hire the people who "abuse" your system because they will abuse it, tell you what you need to fix, and the result will be a better game.

Clockwork, your entire argument boils down to equating a poor rule set as a casual one.

Everyone else's point is that a good, solid rule can be as 'casual' as 40k, but still be competitive.

In fact, I'd argue that 40k isn't even a casual ruleset. Its unnecessarily complicated, is riddled with rule oversights, poor wording, and massive balance issues.

A tighter rule set would be easier to play, far more balanced allowing for more combinations to be fielded, and allow better meshing between casual and tournament level players.

Check out nearly every other wargame that's gaining traction. They don't have to make such a hard distinction between casual and tournament level, because the game works great in both environments.

40k doesn't even work well as a casual game.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree with you on this. The devs are doing a fine job and it's really not their fault it they end up picking up customers who play the game differently. It's a lot like shows like My Little Pony, there is a definite target audience, and it ends up picking up people it's not aimed at anyways.

Again, if you can appeal to audience A and B instead of just A without sacrificing any sales or appeal to A and you choose not to then you are an incompetent designer. And if your management continues to employ you after you make such a stupid profit-destroying decision then they are incompetent as well.

GW tried that. They ended up with massive leaks from the playtesters and honestly I don't think the game was better for it. That was primarilly 3-4th edition, both editions which are more commonly referred to as "inferior" to 5th and 6th editions which are less tournament based.

So why does GW's incompetence at stopping leaks matter? MTG has professional playtesting and (meaningful) leaks are extremely rare.

I was using Sim City as an example of a product that has a defined niche and how it's not the developer's responsibility to please everyone.

It's a terrible example because Sim City can't appeal to competitive tournament players without sacrificing everything that makes it Sim City. 40k only fails to appeal to competitive tournament players because its designers are incompetent.

And really, the idea that "the developers don't have to please everyone" is one of GW's greatest successes as a business. They can sell you half a game and not only will you eagerly buy it, you'll even defend it to other potential customers and insist that selling you a whole game would ruin everything. Thanks to your low standards GW can continue to employ the cheapest incompetents to write their games instead of having to pay extra for more talented game designers.

And you keep comparing 40k to Magic and honestly it's a BS comparison. Magic is designed around being a tournament system game. It always has. It has cards that come into and out of circulation, which is a large factor of how it can balance things. And even MtG has had stupid things happen (8th Edition Core: AKA everyone play Darksteel Forge and Darksteel Colossus). Comparing a card game that has been designed to be competetive and has options available to it that 40k doesn't (blocks, cycles, banned lists) isn't a fair or even a close comparison. It's like comparing a tree to a dog, they're not even the same kind of thing.

No, the thing that MTG has that 40k doesn't is competent professional designers. The exact mechanics used to balance the game don't really matter, the important part is the attitude of the people making it. WOTC starts with the assumption that they're going to provide a high-quality game with broad appeal, and understands that things like professional playtesting are required to make a high-quality game. GW, on the other hand, starts with the attitude that as long as you shove a pile of garbage out the door the fanboys and 12 year olds will buy it and the investors don't care enough to investigate and see how much profit you're throwing away.

 Blacksails wrote:
Clockwork, your entire argument boils down to equating a poor rule set as a casual one.

That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying that there is a difference in focus between what the Dev's goal is with the rules and what people are doing with them.

And yes, the rules CAN be better, but the point was that the goal hasn't been for a competitive ruleset, and that a competitive ruleset requires a specific design goal from the ground up with the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
Everyone else's point is that a good, solid rule can be as 'casual' as 40k, but still be competitive.

I agree, that a competitive ruleset can be used by casual players. I disagree that a casual ruleset has to be geared to be playable on a competitive level though.

 Blacksails wrote:
In fact, I'd argue that 40k isn't even a casual ruleset. Its unnecessarily complicated, is riddled with rule oversights, poor wording, and massive balance issues.

That's exactly the reason why it's no a competitive game and more focused on a "beer and pretzels, good time with your friends" experience. It's hardly perfect, but the most fun I've had with it was when I dropped playing it competitively and embraced that it's flawed, but it doesn't mean people can't enjoy it.

It's like a B-Movie, you can have lot's of fun with it if your mindset is right.

 Blacksails wrote:
A tighter rule set would be easier to play, far more balanced allowing for more combinations to be fielded, and allow better meshing between casual and tournament level players.

Yes it would but frankly I don't think GW gives a toss about tournament players and that's their choice to make we like it or not.

 Blacksails wrote:
Check out nearly every other wargame that's gaining traction. They don't have to make such a hard distinction between casual and tournament level, because the game works great in both environments.

40k doesn't even work well as a casual game.

40k works GREAT as a casual game. And honestly I have looked at other games. I didn't like their scale (most of them are skirmish games) or something about the theme or setting didn't interest me.

Like I said, games who are geared towards tournaments are designed from the ground up to be that way. Considering GW's bad attempts at it I don't blame them for staying away and focusing on hobbyist over tournament players. CAN a tournament-centric game be playable by everyone? YES. But a casual based game doesn't have to be accessible to tournament players to be fun.

EDIT: I'm not changing my mind about anything I've said. I firmly believe that 40k is perfectly fun as a casual game and that people just need to be a little less uptight so they can enjoy it better.

However, I'm just not going to keep arguing with people who think that they can equate "doesn't play how I want it to" to "the designers fail at life". I've got too much to do to spend all my time on here dealing with people who are far too angry about a game played with plastic people.

Seriously, if some of you get this wound up about 40k on the Internet, I can't imagine how you react when things are actually bad (in a real world, important matters sense).

ClockworkZion wrote:
That's exactly the reason why it's no a competitive game and more focused on a "beer and pretzels, good time with your friends" experience.

No, that isn't it at all. There's a huge difference between being geared to the "beer and pretzels" experience and being so poorly designed that you have to low your standards to "beer and pretzels" to even attempt to enjoy it. 40k's design flaws don't make it a better "beer and pretzels" game, they just make it suck at everything else.

40k works GREAT as a casual game.

Only if you have very low standards. The rules are an awkward mess (even ignoring YMDC-style "nitpicking"), and lack of balance hurts casual players more than competitive ones. Competitive players will just play the latest overpowered units/armies and happily win with them, it's casual players that stop having fun because their favorite units/armies get crushed by more powerful ones.

I firmly believe that 40k is perfectly fun as a casual game and that people just need to be a little less uptight so they can enjoy it better.

Or people can just spend their time and money on better games.

ClockworkZion wrote:

That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying that there is a difference in focus between what the Dev's goal is with the rules and what people are doing with them.

And yes, the rules CAN be better, but the point was that the goal hasn't been for a competitive ruleset, and that a competitive ruleset requires a specific design goal from the ground up with the game.

The point many of are making is that why would anyone purposefully design a ruleset to alienate a significant portion of the player base that have organized large scale tournaments for well over a decade. In fact, GW did, once upon a time, so 40k at some point or another has at the very least been a pseudo tournament level game.

It just makes no business to not spend a little extra time and produce a grade A ruleset that everyone can play with equally. I can assure that such a product would sell better. In fact, I'm positive part of the success of some of the newer miniatures companies is due to writing an excellent set of rules.

ClockworkZion wrote:

I agree, that a competitive ruleset can be used by casual players. I disagree that a casual ruleset has to be geared to be playable on a competitive level though.

It isn't about being geared. Its about being just a good ruleset. A good rule set can be played at any level because it would be simple, clear, concise, balanced and the right amount of genuine 'cinematics' or story driven element. It'd be hard to deny such a rule set wouldn't be enjoyable for everyone equally, at no loss to either the casual or competitive player.

ClockworkZion wrote:

That's exactly the reason why it's no a competitive game and more focused on a "beer and pretzels, good time with your friends" experience. It's hardly perfect, but the most fun I've had with it was when I dropped playing it competitively and embraced that it's flawed, but it doesn't mean people can't enjoy it.

It's like a B-Movie, you can have lot's of fun with it if your mindset is right.

I've also had a lot of fun playing Beerhammer. But I've the same amount of fun, if not more playing BeerSpaceships, or any other balanced ruleset with alcohol. I'm not saying is torture or un-fun, I'm saying it could significantly better, and isn't so for any real reason.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Yes it would but frankly I don't think GW gives a toss about tournament players and that's their choice to make we like it or not.

Sure, they don't care. We all are well aware, but it can't hurt to discuss things like this, as it will hopefully bring to light how poor the rule set is and drive some more money into the companies that actually do listen to feedback.

ClockworkZion wrote:

40k works GREAT as a casual game. And honestly I have looked at other games. I didn't like their scale (most of them are skirmish games) or something about the theme or setting didn't interest me.

Like I said, games who are geared towards tournaments are designed from the ground up to be that way. Considering GW's bad attempts at it I don't blame them for staying away and focusing on hobbyist over tournament players. CAN a tournament-centric game be playable by everyone? YES. But a casual based game doesn't have to be accessible to tournament players to be fun.

I love the fluff, a lot of the models, and the general mood of 40k. I love my IG and I've loved the look of two painted 40k armies against eachother. But the whole experience regardless of casual play or tournament level would be better if the rule set was just, better.

ClockworkZion wrote:

EDIT: I'm not changing my mind about anything I've said. I firmly believe that 40k is perfectly fun as a casual game and that people just need to be a little less uptight so they can enjoy it better.

However, I'm just not going to keep arguing with people who think that they can equate "doesn't play how I want it to" to "the designers fail at life". I've got too much to do to spend all my time on here dealing with people who are far too angry about a game played with plastic people.

Seriously, if some of you get this wound up about 40k on the Internet, I can't imagine how you react when things are actually bad (in a real world, important matters sense).

I'm not wound up in the slightest. If anything this last comment looks as though you're more wound up trying to defend 40k. Some of us love the background, the models, their army, and other aspects while disliking the rules. Its never a bad thing to intelligently discuss the matter. We're not trying to tell you you're a horrible person, or how to play. The point is simply that 40k is a generally sub-par ruleset that has so much more potential if GW actually spent the time to write a great ruleset and codices. For whatever reasons they choose not to, and we have to deal with that. But it won't stop us from at least intelligently and calmly discussing the finer points of it.

Please don't assume anyone here is wound up or losing touch with reality, or any other insinuations. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, just politely do so and leave. No need for that final line.

Thud wrote:
Meh.

There has always been powerful units/combos/lists/builds/build types.

And then there has always been gakky players who whine about it and try to condescend tournament players because they themselves can't figure out a way to beat them.


What I do agree with, is that 6th seems to have brought with it a bunch of crap that's just frustrating to play against. And by that, I mean having to use seriously unconventional tactics instead of just "i shoot my tactical squad into your screamerstar, what, no kills? you're playing 40k on easymode, herpaderpderp."

What makes 'tournament players' so good? It's just copying net lists and bringing broken units to a game for numbercheese. Anyone can do that. You're not a unique snowflake, bro.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

Good business decisions are business decisions that make you money. Releasing Finecast with a price drop (due to the massive drop in production cost) would have been a good descision, even with the flaws, as people would have been more tolerant to the miscasts and likely bought even more models. Releasing it with a price increase wasn't. Re-packing the Dire Avengers to have half of their number at the same price per box (effectively a 100% price increase) was not a good business decision, as less people overall will buy them to make up that cost.

It's not impossible to listen to your community and make good business decisions based on their feedback. Corvus Belli have been doing this fantastically of late.

People asked for a campaign system - they released a Campaign rulebook. It is still a very linear campaign, not a 'create your own', but it was handled with such respect for the gamers playing it that people don't mind. This also came with a free miniature if you pre ordered.
People asked for a Nomad doctor that wasn't an anime cheesecake catgirl. They made one.
People asked for a female Wulver model. They got 2 in a brand new multipart box.
People asked for new Spec Ops models. They're doing a whole new range of 'Dire Foes' sets that have two opposing new Spec Ops models, plus a Civilian model different for each box some of which are based on popular art in the books. Plus they also decided to name some of the new characters after veterans in the community (Konstantinos and Yasbir) or on fanart (Trasimedes). They also include an exclusive scenario based around normal armies plus those 3 models.
People asked for display models rather than game models. They released the Bootleg series.
People asked for an Art book. They released one, with A4 glossy prints of some of the art in it as a free bonus. This also came with a free miniature if you pre ordered.

These are examples of Corvus Belli listening to what the community wants, and giving it to them when they can. They also give the community news on the progress of some of the projects. Crazy huh? This even shows in their financial report. The company made record revenue last year, and over the last 3 has shown massive growth every year. Least year was, IIRC, over double the previous year.

And GW does listen to its customer base as well. It's why we have fliers in the game, for example, or apocalypse at all.

Anyways, I suppose one could go all conspiracy theory with this. The idea being that it's making an imbalanced game with a curious choice of development cycle ON PURPOSE. The purpose being to make serious competitive players so angry that they quit the game altogether and go find something else to play.

If their main demographic is the casual player, it would be a silly, but possibly fruitful gambit to purge the serious type to make it so that those left over don't have to deal with them.

 Ailaros wrote:
And GW does listen to its customer base as well. It's why we have fliers in the game, for example, or apocalypse at all.

Anyways, I suppose one could go all conspiracy theory with this. The idea being that it's making an imbalanced game with a curious choice of development cycle ON PURPOSE. The purpose being to make serious competitive players so angry that they quit the game altogether and go find something else to play.

If their main demographic is the casual player, it would be a silly, but possibly fruitful gambit to purge the serious type to make it so that those left over don't have to deal with them.

But it's not the competitive player that quits from unbalanced rule books. It's casual players who don't have the money or time to buy brand new armies that happen to get stronger. The competitive player goes out and gets 15 tzeentch flamers when they get good for half a year, not the guy who wants to eat some pretzels with his dice rolling.

A balanced rule set that gets updated with all the codexes at once would benefit everyone. It's never going to happen due to how they designed their business model and simple logistics. If they want to update something it ends up being in much larger scale than small companies. So a miss for a product release is a bigger kick in the pants. So we're mostly stuck with how things are. However, things could be improved if they at least play tested the rules a little more. Just bring in a few obnoxious gamers and let them at the rules. Broken combos could be quickly revealed and kept out of the final codex release.

bogalubov wrote:But it's not the competitive player that quits from unbalanced rule books. It's casual players who don't have the money or time to buy brand new armies that happen to get stronger.

I don't think you understand what a casual player is. A casual player doesn't buy new units when new armies come out that are stronger because he doesn't care that the new army has gotten stronger. He wouldn't spend the time or money, because he doesn't want to. At least, not if the only purpose is to make his army stronger.

Furthermore, there are a lot of casual gamers out there that have huge collections of 40k stuff. They don't have to spend time and money to buy minis that they already own.

The behavior you're talking about is only exhibited by players who want to have an easy time winning games. That's not all players. I doubt it's even close to a majority.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't think you understand what a casual player is. A casual player doesn't buy new units when new armies come out that are stronger because he doesn't care that the new army has gotten stronger. He wouldn't spend the time or money, because he doesn't want to. At least, not if the only purpose is to make his army stronger.

But that's not the point. The casual player gets crushed by the competitive player who did buy Helldrakes/Riptides/etc, and can't compete without buying the same overpowered units to spam. The competitive player is happy, the casual player quits the game.

Furthermore, there are a lot of casual gamers out there that have huge collections of 40k stuff. They don't have to spend time and money to buy minis that they already own.

So in your theory why would GW care at all about those people? If they don't buy new models they aren't making GW any money, and it's better to sell Helldrakes/Riptides/etc to the competitive players.

The behavior you're talking about is only exhibited by players who want to have an easy time winning games. That's not all players. I doubt it's even close to a majority.

Or just anyone who thought "hey, that Riptide model looks cool". If you have a deliberately unbalanced game some people will win easily just because of what they thought was a cool model, and it's the "casual" players who are most likely to quit over that.

A lot to read with a mobile..

I don't mind the basic rules, they are the same for all. They work for both casual and tournament play.

The problem are the codexes. They are all over the place. We should not have top tier codex or 3rd tier or whatever. They can be different but at the same time close to each other in power level. I can't believe that basically the same people gave us Codex CSM and Eldar. Once you screw up the intended power level of a codex, then you are stuck with that.

Supplements to fix this? Bring them on, but what the heck was that black legion supplement?

I don't understand one thing . If it is true that GW is making the game only for the casual player and they don't want their games to be played by tournament players , then isn't it kind of a stupid. They are losing customers . WoT can make a card game which is great for tournament player and is great for the casuals . Both groups by the game and both use the same rules , the difference is only the cost of someones deck . On the other hand you can have two dudes spend the same amount of cash for two armies and will be happy and the other one will ask himself why didn't he just burn his money . And it would be true for both 2 casual and 2 non casual gamers.

I don't know if comparing 40k to a game where the difference is pure and simple how much money you spend is necessarily a good thing.

One of the reasons I got into 40k, in fact, is because when I played MTG back at the beginning it became so obvious so fast that whoever had the richest parents just won the game. The fact that 40k has things like codices and things like points limits at least means that you don't simply buy wins. At least, not to anywhere near the same extent.

Uuuhhhh, you know that's not actually how MTG works, right? In casual play your group just makes decks within a similar tier of power, and in competitive constructed play it is about who is the best pilot of a top-tier deck. If you can't acquire the necessary cards then you don't try to seriously play competitively. Ban lists, limited formats, and rotating formats act as the same restrictions that points limits do in 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

What you're ignoring is that if GW makes decisions against the best interests of the hobby they won't have a business. Long-term success depends on having a quality product that people want to buy. If GW produces mediocre models and garbage rules they're going to fail no matter how well they cut costs or increase prices.

Right but they've not doing that. Many people on here would say they are, but what a lot of competitive players fail to realise is that we are a minority in this hobby, and the vast majority of players don't give a crap about rule balance, nor do many of them even understand it any better than the devs. Also what is an isn't a mediocre model is 100% in the eye of the beholder. GW makes high detailed miniatures and from there it is solely up to personal tastes. But again, what many people don't seem to realise is that what they like and don't like does not hold true for everybody, perhaps not even for a majority, and many people get lost in thinking their opinion has become fact just because the internet agrees. We Dakkites and Warseerites and all the other people that attends forums online are a minority of gamers, and we shouldn't forget that.

What this usually results in is unrealistic expectations from the vast majority of gamers who attend online forums, expectations that no serious business could possibly undertake. And it is all underlined with the narcissistic notion that we have rights within this little dance. The simple fact is we can vote with our wallets and that's all, and while the majority are voting yes, silent or not, then GW are doing it right.

And above all else, if they were not doing what was in the best interest of the majority of hobbyists, then they wouldn't have a business, but they do, and people still buy their product, so they are obviously doing something right, even if the internet insists otherwise. I've seen shops take the stance that the internet would have GW take, of putting the hobby first 100%, and those gaming sops are struggling, because gamers are people too, and they will take advantage of you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't think you understand what a casual player is. A casual player doesn't buy new units when new armies come out that are stronger because he doesn't care that the new army has gotten stronger. He wouldn't spend the time or money, because he doesn't want to. At least, not if the only purpose is to make his army stronger.

But that's not the point. The casual player gets crushed by the competitive player who did buy Helldrakes/Riptides/etc, and can't compete without buying the same overpowered units to spam. The competitive player is happy, the casual player quits the game.

I rarely agree with Ailaros, but I think you are the one missing the point here Peregrine. The fact that most casual players don't care about power or balance or winning and losing means that when they get curb-stomped they don't care that they got curb-stomped. And in the case where they feel bad about it, they mostly just don't play the 'power gamer with the power list'. I have been in a lot of different gaming groups over the years and I have yet to see somebody quit because they lost all the time. It's a common mistake of us competitive players to forget that some people play solely for the joy of playing, even when the local power gamer bashes them in every other week.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you want a good example look at MTG: excellent competitive balance, rules that have zero ambiguity, and a thriving "casual" community that enjoys a wide variety of "casual" play styles. There is absolutely no reason that competent professionals couldn't do the same with 40k.

This comparrison doesn't work. For a start in MTG you can build a deck using ANY color combination you like. You can even build a deck using all 5 colors and even non-color cards. Also every card is available to any person and any deck. The equivalent to this in 40k would be to open any unit of any type to any army. This is a far cry from removing allies, your argument here would be suggest opening up all armies as allies and using any unit any way you like. In other words, just play apocalypse. That way anybody can have access to any overpowered unit, thus "balancing the game".

Also note that even MTG has it's overpowered cards and useless cards. I have a white angel deck, which by and large is not a tournament competitive deck for the fact that it is monocolored and monocreatured, but I like it none the less because of its theme. However in saying that its still a bad idea for me to run 4 Angel Of The Provinces in my deck because its vastly overcosted in terms of mana.

So I'm afraid the comparison fails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, the thing that MTG has that 40k doesn't is competent professional designers. The exact mechanics used to balance the game don't really matter, the important part is the attitude of the people making it. WOTC starts with the assumption that they're going to provide a high-quality game with broad appeal, and understands that things like professional playtesting are required to make a high-quality game. GW, on the other hand, starts with the attitude that as long as you shove a pile of garbage out the door the fanboys and 12 year olds will buy it and the investors don't care enough to investigate and see how much profit you're throwing away.

Its not exactly hard to balance MTG when everybody can take any card in their deck for any reason. The only restriction is that you're only allowed 4 of any card in your list. What doesn't work in MTG is taking a monocolored deck to your tournament. You'll get annihilated if you do that. You still get overpowered cards and useless ones to boot. If you remember Sol Ring then you'll remember that they had to limit that in tournaments because it was severely broken.

It's deceitful to talk about rules and power in 40k and rules and power in MtG without mentioning the recently horrifically broken cards that have been released. WotC does help the player base more fully than GW does, but the comparison isn't exactly right. Comparing the rulesets would be MtG's comprhensive rules v the BRB. Codex rule comparisons would be closer to looking at the high-power cards of the block, i.e., Jace the Mind Sculptor or Griselbrand.

Talore wrote:Uuuhhhh, you know that's not actually how MTG works, right? In casual play your group just makes decks within a similar tier of power, and in competitive constructed play it is about who is the best pilot of a top-tier deck. If you can't acquire the necessary cards then you don't try to seriously play competitively. Ban lists, limited formats, and rotating formats act as the same restrictions that points limits do in 40k.

Oh, you can certainly add restrictions in after the fact to make it more fair, of course. Banned lists, though, aren't a part of the core rules of the game like FOC restrictions are in 40k.

And still, you don't need to have a lot of money to buy a "top tier" 40k army relative to the price of buying any other 40k army. The fact that you need money to buy into the "serious levels" of a "competitive" card game is still pretty telling.

Godless-Mimicry wrote: nor do many of them even understand it any better than the devs... What this usually results in is unrealistic expectations

Right. Just because a person can't win a game in the same way every time, guaranteed when new rules come out doesn't mean the game is necessarily imbalanced. I'd agree that a lot of the game's imbalances really boil down to "waah! I lost a game!" or "I think GW is stupid" or "I like blaming external factors for my negative emotions!"

Few, if any players of games are proper game designers in and of themselves. The fact that most people see the CSM codes as codex: helldrakes, for example, really shows a lack of the kind of depth of thought required to make meaningful statements about game balance.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:And in the case where they feel bad about it, they mostly just don't play the 'power gamer with the power list'.

Actually, that's an important point.

I bet there have been more people pushed out of 40k by the fact that they can't find anyone to play with them than have been pushed out by losing too many games in a row. I've certainly seen WAAC and TFG players slowly pushed out the door through the inevitable pressure of ostracization before.

And part of it, I suppose, is the nature of the beast. If you're one of only two casual players in a store full of competitive people, then you're likely just fine with the idea of playing the same person over and over again (coming up with new scenarios, etc.), while if you're one of only two play-only-to-win players in a group, you're probably going to get bored with only playing that one other person rather quickly.

hubbsey wrote:
It's deceitful to talk about rules and power in 40k and rules and power in MtG without mentioning the recently horrifically broken cards that have been released. WotC does help the player base more fully than GW does, but the comparison isn't exactly right. Comparing the rulesets would be MtG's comprhensive rules v the BRB. Codex rule comparisons would be closer to looking at the high-power cards of the block, i.e., Jace the Mind Sculptor or Griselbrand.

Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well. It's just more obvious a lot of the time because the cards have the exact same effect but one costs more mana than the other. For example.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=206349

Whitesun Passage - Cast it and get 5 life for a mana cost of 2

or you could use

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=48214

Sunbeam Spellbomb - Only one mana to cast and then a further one mana to either gain 5 life or draw a card.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

To the OP:

I agree, I do not like some of the combos that "competitive" gaming gives to people, but 40k was never designed as a "competitive" game, it was always designed as a casual game, it was designed for homebrew scenario games and homebrew units with a few snacks to go around with a few drinks and a laughs with mates

"Competitive 40k" is just really "I-have-rules-hammer" like many have said, the combo's you see just blatantly abuse the mechanics and whilst I like this edition as to me it looks more like a toolkit to create your own adventures with friends than an equal game where both forces have a chance of winning, so my advice would be not to look too much into it and create a few homebrew scenarios and units and get with a few friends and have fun, as that is what this edition of the game was designed to be

I hate cheesespam, whether it's all from the same book or from two different ones. It's just no fun.

Yet I am glad for the ally rules. For casual lists it allows nice fluffy combo armies, and in general allows playing more armies more easily without having to build all of them to "primary detachment" level. For my such allied-only detachments are IG and SoB (well, SoB models are still enroute with some additional IG infantry too).

I mean, I agree Peregrine, that the 2++ deathstars are no fun, but most deathstars are unfun to play against. Be it mass LRs, TWC in 5th, DCA in 5th, Wraiths, Paladins, etc. Its part of the game and solutions are easy to come by, you don't question taking anti-tank, why question taking anti deathstar?

MTG had certain decks that made me feel similarly helpless at times, combo decks, I think there are some similarities in their boom or bust style and both can leave you feeling really helpless.

Personally I like that 6th opened the doors for more combo type lists that rely on synergy rather than pure firepower. All sorts of lists are thriving. Unfortunately, they are mostly just different takes on Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Necrons.

Argh. people seem to keep forgetting that casual players usually play other casual players. They aren't being driven off by the WAAC players. In fact, they avoid the "other guys" like the plague, because smashing a guy with the current meta is not fun, it's just winning.

I am a casual gamer, and have been for 15+ years. I am completely out of touch with the current meta, or even the one before that. I field Orks like it's 3rd edition, or maybe even 2nd. My Eldar "Corsair" army only contains the units that I think are "cool" for Eldar to have, like Swooping Hawks converted from plastic Scourges, a small squad of Dark reapers, and a pair of old Wave Serpents( using the first ForgeWorld turrets they came out with) that I can change into Falcons. I don't even own a single Warwalker.

My Marines have been Ultramarines since Second Edition, and I have an entire army painted as Legion of the Damned.

I love 40K, but I hate that every unit, character, and weapon has a special keyword skill that you have to refer to an entire section of the rulebook to find, like it's Plainswalking, or Haste, on a Magic Card. (Obviously simple examples thereof, but they are off the top of my head and I haven't played a game of Magic in 10 years).

You do realize that you've made a conscious effort to play this way because you enjoy it, which is fine. You play with similarly minded people, which makes sense. The reason though that you've made that distinction is because 40k is such a poorly balanced game, players are nearly forced into different camps that disagree.

If 40k was balanced and tighter, there would be a much smaller gap between super casual players and super competitive players. You wouldn't have to worry about people bringing crazy deathstars or fielding nothing but wave serpents and riptides, because every army would function on a similar power level. Player skill would matter more, rather than what kind of list you bring.

Yeah checked out the results of NOVA... and listened to the podcasts about it... and so I hear there was a lot of Taudar, and TauTau... not to mention that there may have been a problem with games not ending on time... yet people say it was the best tournament ever. Does not sound fun to me, but I was not there so w/e.

I play CSM and my brother plays Tau (my main opponent considering the limited time I have to play the game) and not only do they just ignore rules that should be a part of the game, like cover saves, and it's also true they take forever to roll all their stupid tauquipment. He does not play the cheesiest list and is generally good about things but still, WTF GW? God I hate Tau.

Yes there are counters and ways to deal with it, but the point here is that anyone with an inkling of care for how their army looks on the tabletop and is lacking about 2 grand in liquid cash to pay for a painted army that would play against the newest meta, things just go way too fast to adjust. I really hope to see more combo scores of hobby + competition at tournaments, longer, more relaxed games at 2000 pts, and at this point, just allow forgeworld and dual force org and all the toys because the whole system is fethed anyway, i had a thin hope that GW was playtesting sixth ed to be balanced but that has flown out the window.

You just have to have an agreement with your opponent to make lists that are roughly balanced and equal, or just not care, simple as that... and it can be fun and I actually like the way that sixth ed plays better than fifth.

I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

To the OP, and as others have kind of chimed in about.

Welcome to 40k. Welcome to why I left it.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

Are you kidding me?

http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130429.pdf

Half the time the reasons 40k has complicated rules is because many are so poorly written, along with special rules combined with the fact that nobody writes codex's without apparently either checking the rulebook, looking at another codex, or actually talking to each other about it without thinking anything beyond what they feel like writing.

MTG's is simple at first, then you get into the more complicated set but at the same time it grows further from the simple beginnings. Considering you still have to balance for five factions, card interactions, along with the fact that you are building for an entire block (standard) rather then just simply doing what you feel like doing.

It might be better to figure out what you are talking about first, before showing that you have no knowledge of it.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

In essence that's true. The developers are also able to make counters very early against anything too strong. Every single tournament you see always has the new host of cards to pick from that are the next latest card to take. It doesn't take a lot for them to make a card redundant that was once strong. They just make a counter for it in the next upcoming set and because anybody can take any card then its available to everyone. So what was once an overpowered card in one tournament will be gone within the next tournament.

In order to do this for 40k you need to give each army their counters. Currently they are making the rounds with AA support. So this is the latest counter they are adding to the codices but of course this takes a while because codices have a large turnaround period.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

Are you kidding me?

http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130429.pdf

Half the time the reasons 40k has complicated rules is because many are so poorly written, along with special rules combined with the fact that nobody writes codex's without apparently either checking the rulebook, looking at another codex, or actually talking to each other about it without thinking anything beyond what they feel like writing.

MTG's is simple at first, then you get into the more complicated set but at the same time it grows further from the simple beginnings. Considering you still have to balance for five factions, card interactions, along with the fact that you are building for an entire block (standard) rather then just simply doing what you feel like doing.

It might be better to figure out what you are talking about first, before showing that you have no knowledge of it.

This, confirmed for someone who knows very little about Magic.
Of course, this is ALSO ignoring the fact that the guy who helped create Magic was, y'know, a PhD in Mathematics.

Is balance perfect in MtG? No it's not, but if there is a rules dispute you are virtually guaranteed that there will be an answer. In fact I can't think of a single rules dispute in Magic that wouldn't be ended in a single post or less, as opposed to the ridiculous YMDC threads where people argue over "the" and "it".

Furthermore, with a few exceptions the MtG tournament environment is always very alive with different decks as opposed to "Tau, Tau/Tau, Tau/Eldar, Eldar, Eldar/Eldar"

I mean you could even boil down 40k to "move models, shoot with them, then move them again and assault" and it sounds just as contrived as Ailaros' example.

Personnely I feel it will be ok once all the codex come out with a new 6th edition shiny hardback.
I understand they want to make as much money from it so certain new ideas with in the game drive that home but they aren't stupid enough to not do Market research not understand if people don't have fun with the constant creep it will continue.
Wait for guard to come out, IG is the fluffy allie for SM I think we will see those two books work well together, I think we will see tryanids and orks being very stand alone powerful and we will see blood angels and grey knights more inline with imperial armies so they go together well to beat some of the more powerful xeno books standing alone or allying up.
I personally only play with my wife and my friends so we are all very open about just having fun, I would recommef that everyone just be more open with the people they play with, guess what it may sound cheese but it's in the rule book for a reason, forge a narrative! GW don't organise tournaments, at GD there isn't a list building or game playing comp there's a painting N modeling one, they sell novels and EU rpg and cards and games, I think people need to revaluate the reason they play and how they play.

 LValx wrote:
I mean, I agree Peregrine, that the 2++ deathstars are no fun, but most deathstars are unfun to play against. Be it mass LRs, TWC in 5th, DCA in 5th, Wraiths, Paladins, etc. Its part of the game and solutions are easy to come by, you don't question taking anti-tank, why question taking anti deathstar?

There are two big differences:

1) Anti-deathstar in 5th was mostly about making sure you had efficient weapons available, and the best anti-deathstar weapons (volume of fire, demolisher cannons, etc) were also great against everything else. With the 2++ deathstars you need specialized counters (5th edition relic psychic defense mostly) that not every army even has access to.

2) 5th edition death stars were tough, but killable. Once you accepted that it's going to take some work to kill it you could see meaningful results, especially if you went with volume of fire instead of depending on a handful of plasma guns. A re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much invulnerable. You aren't going to harm it in any meaningful way through firepower alone, so if your codex doesn't have leftover 5th edition psychic defense you're going to have a very frustrating game.

Personally I like that 6th opened the doors for more combo type lists that rely on synergy rather than pure firepower.

The problem is that certain things went from "synergy" to "broken". Taking orks to be a meatshield wall for your Tau gunline is synergy. Whether you like the idea of allies or not it's a legitimate game design decision to include that synergy. Whole units with a re-rollable 2++ is vastly more powerful, and feels like a mistake that GW didn't playtest enough to catch.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

That's a bad comparison because MTG has the built-in limiting factor of mana bases. If you play a monocolor deck you will have a very consistent mana base and your deck will always operate efficiently. If you play the best cards from all five colors you need to work a lot harder to get the lands to play them all, and you risk fatal inconsistency to get that power. That tradeoff usually drives good players to focus on a executing a single strategy effectively (playing limited colors to do it) and not do things like throwing a couple lightning bolts into their blue/white control deck.

With 40k, on the other hand, there are no limits on allies besides the troops + HQ requirement (which is often what you wanted to take anyway). As long as the allies matrix allows it you can just throw a rune priest into your army and enjoy your overpowered relic of 5th edition.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well.

Don't forget that most cards (by total numbers) in a MTG set are designed for either sealed/draft (where you need a lot of 'weak' cards to make it work properly) or "casual" players who like weird stuff regardless of its power level. When you see a weak common in MTG it's probably a deliberate design decision for limited. When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

Yeah, hilariously you actually got that one exactly wrong. Both cards are garbage and have no place in a constructed deck (they're sealed/draft fillers), but the artifact is actually the worse of the two usually. It costs the same total mana to get the life from both, but the spellbomb has to be played during your turn instead of at the end of your opponent's turn once you know you don't need to commit the mana to something else.

And yes, it's easy to point out a better card. Even a basic land would be better. TBH if you're using either of those in a constructed deck you probably don't understand MTG very well.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

That's a bad comparison because MTG has the built-in limiting factor of mana bases. If you play a monocolor deck you will have a very consistent mana base and your deck will always operate efficiently. If you play the best cards from all five colors you need to work a lot harder to get the lands to play them all, and you risk fatal inconsistency to get that power. That tradeoff usually drives good players to focus on a executing a single strategy effectively (playing limited colors to do it) and not do things like throwing a couple lightning bolts into their blue/white control deck.

Yes, I did say it wasn't a good comparison. I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming. Not to mention mana limitation is easy to work around. There are plenty of land cards that allow for dual mana. Are you playing a red & black deck? Well you can just take Dragonskull Summits in your land base which allow you to use either black or red mana. On top of that you then use Akoum Refuge which does the same with a slightly different effect, etc, etc. I know of three types of red/black land mana cards off of the top of my head. So thats 12 land cards right away that allow you to use either red/black mana & the drawbacks are not too severe.

I am aware that most players don't use all 5 mana colors in tournaments but the point is that they can construct their deck around any colors they want. There are no restrictions to what colors they can take, so therefore they can build a deck around the cards that are the most effective.

With 40k, on the other hand, there are no limits on allies besides the troops + HQ requirement (which is often what you wanted to take anyway). As long as the allies matrix allows it you can just throw a rune priest into your army and enjoy your overpowered relic of 5th edition.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well.

Don't forget that most cards (by total numbers) in a MTG set are designed for either sealed/draft (where you need a lot of 'weak' cards to make it work properly) or "casual" players who like weird stuff regardless of its power level. When you see a weak common in MTG it's probably a deliberate design decision for limited. When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

Yeah, hilariously you actually got that one exactly wrong. Both cards are garbage and have no place in a constructed deck (they're sealed/draft fillers), but the artifact is actually the worse of the two usually. It costs the same total mana to get the life from both, but the spellbomb has to be played during your turn instead of at the end of your opponent's turn once you know you don't need to commit the mana to something else.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck? I shouldn't be using them at all? But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

And yes, it's easy to point out a better card. Even a basic land would be better. TBH if you're using either of those in a constructed deck you probably don't understand MTG very well.

Of course, but then you yourself have already confirmed the point I was making. Magic has useless cards and therefore by default it must also have cards that are better and so useful. Therefore it is not a "balanced game" where you yourself said earlier on this post "When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is".

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

 DarthOvious wrote:
I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming.

Of course it can be compared. The point isn't the exact mechanism, it's that you need to have a mechanism. GW's current execution of the allies system is very badly done and is responsible for a lot of the most frustrating parts of the game. MTG, on the other hand, does "allies" well and doesn't suffer from the same problems.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want.

You can, but you won't win. Unlike 40k MTG has built-in design principles that focus your strategy and make "take the best of everything" a bad idea.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

You aren't allowed to disagree about that. WOTC has explicitly said that most cards in a set are balanced around sealed/draft formats, which require a range of power between "too weak to play" and "game-ending bomb". Those "useless" cards aren't useless, you're just not playing the format that uses them. In the part of the game where those cards are meant to be relevant they are balanced exactly how they need to be balanced.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're utter trash and I can't think of a single situation where either of them belongs in a constructed (IOW, not draft/sealed) deck, unless you're deliberately playing a weak deck to help teach someone the game.

But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

I never said that. No combination of cards will make either of those two playable in constructed.

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

I already did. They are "useless" because they are not designed for the kind of MTG you're playing. They exist because weak cards are necessary to make sealed/draft function properly. You use them in sealed/draft games, you're not supposed to even consider using them anywhere else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming.

Of course it can be compared. The point isn't the exact mechanism, it's that you need to have a mechanism. GW's current execution of the allies system is very badly done and is responsible for a lot of the most frustrating parts of the game. MTG, on the other hand, does "allies" well and doesn't suffer from the same problems.

It does allies well by allowing any guild faction to ally with any other guild faction. Technically thats not an ally system, its just a "take whatever you want" system. If you do that then of course you're going to have a balanced game because anybody can take any card they want in any deck they want. The only thing you need to do is make sure your mana base is fine.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want.

You can, but you won't win. Unlike 40k MTG has built-in design principles that focus your strategy and make "take the best of everything" a bad idea.

How is this any different from saying that you can take X unit from 40k but you won't win? The point I am making is that there are bad cards as well as good cards in MTG and therefore it is still a bad idea to have some cards in your list. The game isn't completely balanced in the way that you can turn up with your deck and play someone else with their deck and then be guranteed an even game. Thats simply not true. Some decks are considerably more powerful than other decks and thus it is still up to players to consult each other about the power level of their decks.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

You aren't allowed to disagree about that. WOTC has explicitly said that most cards in a set are balanced around sealed/draft formats, which require a range of power between "too weak to play" and "game-ending bomb". Those "useless" cards aren't useless, you're just not playing the format that uses them. In the part of the game where those cards are meant to be relevant they are balanced exactly how they need to be balanced.

Oh well, WOTC said it, so it must be true. Well GW also said that 40k is a beer and pretzels game so you obviously can't disagree with them either. Oh wait, but you are disagreeing with them. See if you can disagree with a company's stance then so can I.

Once again I disagree. There are a lot of magic cards which are just useless and by that I mean its because there can be a better card that does the same thing for a better mana cost or the same thing with a side benefit for the same mana cost.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're utter trash and I can't think of a single situation where either of them belongs in a constructed (IOW, not draft/sealed) deck, unless you're deliberately playing a weak deck to help teach someone the game.

So basically you agree with my point?

But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

I never said that. No combination of cards will make either of those two playable in constructed.

So basically you agree with my point?

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

I already did. They are "useless" because they are not designed for the kind of MTG you're playing. They exist because weak cards are necessary to make sealed/draft function properly. You use them in sealed/draft games, you're not supposed to even consider using them anywhere else.

The only issue I have with allies in 6th is the additional detachment they fill, rather than taking up space in a single FoC. While no one really cares if you take 7+ troops, it becomes game breaking when you have 3 HQs, 4 Elites, 4 Fast, and 4 Heavies. If we were restricted to the same allied limits yet within the standard FoC matrix, there would be less imbalance. As it is, you are penalized if you don't take allies simply because you give up those extra FoC slots.

Not saying allies are a bad thing, just that the expanded FoC is the real problem versus a non-allied/single-FoC army.

SJ

The only issue I have with allies in 6th is the additional detachment they fill, rather than taking up space in a single FoC. While no one really cares if you take 7+ troops, it becomes game breaking when you have 3 HQs, 4 Elites, 4 Fast, and 4 Heavies. If we were restricted to the same allied limits yet within the standard FoC matrix, there would be less imbalance. As it is, you are penalized if you don't take allies simply because you give up those extra FoC slots.

Not saying allies are a bad thing, just that the expanded FoC is the real problem versus a non-allied/single-FoC army.

SJ

I think that would add at least some balance. It's just too easy to use allies to shore up your excellent shooty army with the excellent choppy bits from another army. You might as well put each set of races that can ally in one giant codex to pick piecemeal from at this rate, as that's what people like to treat it like.

For me, if i am going to be playing an army, I like it to be one pure race/chapter, and part of the game(not necessarily the most FUN part, but a very legitimate part) is dealing with the downfalls of that army's particular playstyle.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

I just read this and had to respond.
As a Magic-player myself I have to tell you that that is untrue for Legacy.
In Vintage it are usually even the decks with 0 colours that win the tournaments

My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!
Not like WH40k, where 10 Flayed Ones are as expensive as a Helldrake.
Friendly games are usually balanced around a budget, not around a 'card maximum'.

Kangodo wrote:My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!

Does that mean that you think only rich people should have the good armies in 40k?

AegisGrimm wrote:I think that would add at least some balance. It's just too easy to use allies to shore up your excellent shooty army with the excellent choppy bits from another army.

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

Peregrine, I suppose our opinions differ because I don't find the Screamer council or Seer council all that broken. I've got bigger complaints (Wave Serpents) than a very random, very expensive combo unit that many armies can counter.

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

That is true. Allies become especially and obscenely stupid when you can take your own army as an allied contingent. Lol, what?

"It was a day of infamy. The forces of the United States have stormed the beaches of Pearl Harbor. It will be a tough campaign to follow, but fortunately the United Stated brought a staunch ally along as their brothers in arms, the United States."

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

That is true. Allies become especially and obscenely stupid when you can take your own army as an allied contingent. Lol, what?

"It was a day of infamy. The forces of the United States have stormed the beaches of Pearl Harbor. It will be a tough campaign to follow, but fortunately the United Stated brought their brothers in arms, the United States."

Wouldn't it be more like

"The Army has brought in their most powerful allies, The Marines!'

I dunno, because at least they fight differently.

 Ailaros wrote:
Does that mean that you think only rich people should have the good armies in 40k?

No, I would like it if 'bad' units would be cheaper.
In MTG I have a couple of decks who are 'utter crap' but still enjoyable to play against newer players, they top at 50 Euro each.
They actually have a format where you can only play cheap cards.
A local gaming site actually hosts tournaments where decks may cost no more than 35 Euro.
And it's quite "hardcore" and competitive.

The 'tournament-list' for Necrons is around 570 to 600 Euro, that's around the same price as a good MTG-deck.
I wanted to start a melee-list with Flayed Ones, but I gave that idea up when I saw they were 36 per 5 models.
My "fun" and at the same time "crap" army-list was actually more expensive than a strong tournament-list.
But something like that can't be achieved in a game like Warhammer because of the way the models work, too bad.

In regard to casual 40k games,

I have been playing 40k for years. I great many of the games I play are casual pick-up games. My experience has been that almost nobody builds push-over fluffy list. I have fought against triple helldrake chaos, Nob biker deathstars (5e), metalbox spam armies (5e), double lash armies (4e, remember those), Nidzilla armies (any edition), you name it, all in casual pickup games. I don't think I have ever seen a Tyranid army without at least one Tervigon since there codex dropped, and I never saw one without at least two Carnifexes before their codex dropped. I also have never, under any circumstance, seen a unit of rough riders of vespid on the table top. These casual gamers everyone speaks of, the ones who knowingly take underpowered units and repeatedly get stomped, I don't believe they exist.

Sure there are plenty of players decent enough not to use obvious exploits like building complex wound allocation abusing Nob squads, but repeatedly taking weak army builds and getting stomped is another story.

A nob biker deathstar or a nidzilla list isn't a casual pickup. It's a competitive pickup.

Well, strictly it's neither. It's a pick up where your opponent fields the easiest list available at the time to win a game.

And making "bad" stuff cheaper necessarily makes "good" stuff more expensive. Not only does it do this relatively, but it would necessarily do this absolutely as well, as the prices of some items would have to go up to keep profits the same if the prices of other stuff went down.

These casual gamers everyone speaks of, the ones who knowingly take underpowered units and repeatedly get stomped, I don't believe they exist.

Ahem. I exist. I don't purposefully take underpowered lists/units for "fluff reasons", but I have never fielded an army that adheres to any established "winning meta". I actually like all the niche armies. Like Kroot Mercs, and Legion of the Damned from the Cursed Founding rules. Of course, I own a 2,000pt Sisters army, too.

Most of the underpowered units I field are ones that I doggedly use because I like how they look as models, and after buying and painting them, I'll be damned if I leave them on the shelf . Like my Scourges that use carbines to count-as Swooping Hawks. Swooping Hawks have never been a very good unit, but I think they look cool and fit with the theme of my personal army.

Well in that case I not sure I believe in the existence of casual pickups then. Point is that I haven't encountered anybody other than those new game with these kind of soft casual list people seem to be talking about on this thread. Maybe its the local gaming culture, but I have my doubts. It seems rather natural that people are going to include in their list those units that are actually effective.

What is being referred to as casual games in this thread really sounds like games with unwritten houserules where it is forbidden to spam the most effective units available. Quite honestly, it sounds like a poor argument that 40k rules as they stand are beneficial to casual players, as said casual players are essentially making gentlemen's agreements to amend the way the game is played to correct for the inherent inbalances found within the game.

That's true about the gentlemen's agreements. Although I know I am coming from a slightly unique angle as I play among friends rather than strangers in pick-up games. I am there to hang out with friends above a fun game of 40K, not boredly push around a bunch of spammed units, and so are any others I will be playing. All lists tend to be take all comers-lists, rather than niche metas, because those types are easier to change-up so things don't get dull.

I can see a lack of existence of casual pickups, as most people who go to that sort of game want to have the best chance to lock in a win against an unknown opponent. I'm not there to play a stranger, I am there to hang out with my "friend who plays Black Templars", for example. You can;t really have a "casual" pick up game unless you know it's going to be against someone you know.

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

I just read this and had to respond.
As a Magic-player myself I have to tell you that that is untrue for Legacy.
In Vintage it are usually even the decks with 0 colours that win the tournaments

One such deck would be the Eldrazi deck.

Fair enough, Thats a point I can concede but I don't think it affects the overall point of my argument. Some cards in MTG are just useless. I was thinking more along the lines the pro tour magic tournaments I have been watching. Monocolored decks don't tend to do well in those.

My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!
Not like WH40k, where 10 Flayed Ones are as expensive as a Helldrake.
Friendly games are usually balanced around a budget, not around a 'card maximum'.

It becomes an expensive hobby that way though, but then this is why decks have different power levels. My Angel deck costed me quite a bit to put together and even then its certainly not a competive deck. Its just a deck I like the theme of. It includes 1 Avacyn of Hope, 1 Angel of Sereneity and 4 Baneslayer Angels. Thos 6 cards cost me about £50 alone.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

I just read this and had to respond.
As a Magic-player myself I have to tell you that that is untrue for Legacy.
In Vintage it are usually even the decks with 0 colours that win the tournaments

One such deck would be the Eldrazi deck.

Fair enough, Thats a point I can concede but I don't think it affects the overall point of my argument. Some cards in MTG are just useless. I was thinking more along the lines the pro tour magic tournaments I have been watching. Monocolored decks don't tend to do well in those.

My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!
Not like WH40k, where 10 Flayed Ones are as expensive as a Helldrake.
Friendly games are usually balanced around a budget, not around a 'card maximum'.

It becomes an expensive hobby that way though, but then this is why decks have different power levels. My Angel deck costed me quite a bit to put together and even then its certainly not a competive deck. Its just a deck I like the theme of. It includes 1 Avacyn of Hope, 1 Angel of Sereneity and 4 Baneslayer Angels. Thos 6 cards cost me about £50 alone.

Well the previous block was all about the dual colored, so that's why the recent pro-tours have been all about them. The new block seems to be trying to buck that trend considering the Devotion to X mechanics.

Kangodo wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Does that mean that you think only rich people should have the good armies in 40k?

No, I would like it if 'bad' units would be cheaper.
In MTG I have a couple of decks who are 'utter crap' but still enjoyable to play against newer players, they top at 50 Euro each.
They actually have a format where you can only play cheap cards.
A local gaming site actually hosts tournaments where decks may cost no more than 35 Euro.
And it's quite "hardcore" and competitive.

The 'tournament-list' for Necrons is around 570 to 600 Euro, that's around the same price as a good MTG-deck.
I wanted to start a melee-list with Flayed Ones, but I gave that idea up when I saw they were 36 per 5 models.
My "fun" and at the same time "crap" army-list was actually more expensive than a strong tournament-list.
But something like that can't be achieved in a game like Warhammer because of the way the models work, too bad.

Its unfortunate but costs on models are usually conected to the cost of plastic to make the models. Cards however are usually pretty cheap to make. For MTG cards you are really paying for the rariety of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

I just read this and had to respond.
As a Magic-player myself I have to tell you that that is untrue for Legacy.
In Vintage it are usually even the decks with 0 colours that win the tournaments

One such deck would be the Eldrazi deck.

Fair enough, Thats a point I can concede but I don't think it affects the overall point of my argument. Some cards in MTG are just useless. I was thinking more along the lines the pro tour magic tournaments I have been watching. Monocolored decks don't tend to do well in those.

My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!
Not like WH40k, where 10 Flayed Ones are as expensive as a Helldrake.
Friendly games are usually balanced around a budget, not around a 'card maximum'.

It becomes an expensive hobby that way though, but then this is why decks have different power levels. My Angel deck costed me quite a bit to put together and even then its certainly not a competive deck. Its just a deck I like the theme of. It includes 1 Avacyn of Hope, 1 Angel of Sereneity and 4 Baneslayer Angels. Thos 6 cards cost me about £50 alone.

Well the previous block was all about the dual colored, so that's why the recent pro-tours have been all about them. The new block seems to be trying to buck that trend considering the Devotion to X mechanics.

Thats true. There is also Renounce the Guilds as well. So they have been recently adding some things in to encourage less multicolored decks.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The only issue I have with allies in 6th is the additional detachment they fill, rather than taking up space in a single FoC. While no one really cares if you take 7+ troops, it becomes game breaking when you have 3 HQs, 4 Elites, 4 Fast, and 4 Heavies. If we were restricted to the same allied limits yet within the standard FoC matrix, there would be less imbalance. As it is, you are penalized if you don't take allies simply because you give up those extra FoC slots.

Not saying allies are a bad thing, just that the expanded FoC is the real problem versus a non-allied/single-FoC army.

SJ

Wow, what a great and simple idea! Nice.

I feel a bit like my gaming group was a calm island in the webway. That's why I sometimes feel a bit stupid for being opinionated on this topic - I shouldn't be. Anyways, I have never been flattened by a player, and if it was it was due to my errors rather than what list my opponent has got. I have played some really tough lists, and come out on top too, but I maintain this is more due to that player's lack of any real wargaming experience, and a bit of luck. I guess that the reason other people on this forum have a hard time because they find an experienced player with a optimised list - it's just a deadly combination. At the end of the day I believe the skill of the player through his decisions is a greater factor than the list he brings to decide victory. Perhaps some lists really don't require any 40k knowledge to function well - the only thing you can really do is avoid them. If that is how that person wishes to play his game of 40k then so be it - it might be how he enjoys the game....

I think you just need to manage your interactions with your player base better - find everyone who agrees with you, and single out the ones who don't. I'm not saying that bringing a competitive list is bad - when the sun sets we will all have different opinions on how this game should be played. All that matters is that we enjoy playing the game the way we want to. But I do believe in a necessary divide - most (not all!) cases, competitive players who use optimised lists cannot blend with fluffy, "organic" or non competitive players. As I have said previously, pick up games sometimes do not always go how you wanted them to. Just check the player's attitude, list build and approach to 40k as a gamer before you begin a game, and you should no longer have the problem.

Hopefully this has helped. I say just play the game how you want to, with people who also want to play it in roughly the same style you want to as well. Leave the others - they will play the way they want to with other like minded people, like you would do - the only difference is the way you and they play.

G.A.

First I want to say hi to this community as my account has just been activated. Been years I was here. I read this discussion with interest and would like to share my point of view as well.

I started with 2nd edition so I have seen many rules and codices come and go. I was a kid that time, went to my local games store where we used to play and had a very hard time collecting an army because as a kid you could not afford building an army from scratch. Fortunately, you could play Necromunda-style as the system was good for a few models on each side and a real pain when lots of units and vehicles were fielded. The game had its flaws and with each ruleset it improved a bit. Sometimes new things were broken as well or one could scratch ones head if one was confronted with a situation the rules resolved poorly. As an example I could field the deathwind-pod from the SM drop-pods. A thing designed to clear the landing site and provide covering fire while during the very crucial step when the unit disembarks - when it is most vulnerable. Maybe a good comparison are paratroopers. While they ditch their chute they are vulnerable.
And I say "Huzzah! What a great thing to have! An always-landing parachute that provides covering fire....unless you read in the rulebook's fineprint that it cannot use the deathwind the turn it lands. Template weapons may not snapshot by default and landing under shock rules means, that this vehicle has used cruising speed thus only snapshots are possible. Working as intended or coherent with fluff? No, Sir!
Well, either you are competitive and are annoyed because of this and some guys may or may not start flame threads like "Dr0p-Pod is da f4il! Nevah use 'em again..yadda yadda curse GW yadda!" or simply shrug their shoulders and go with it. There is always the possibility - and i guess GW politics encourage you to do so - to make house-rules. If you max out the fun by doing so, then do it.

I only atttended to local tournaments and really was annoyed at maxed-out armies and still am. It is a pain to play against those and honestly, i have not the time to learn the rule to the point that I could see any loophole. I am no lawyer
That is, why I play the social game with fellow players. Playing Ultramarines since early 90ies I always have in mind what they represent and try to think about what troops may be available to the commander. It is more fun for me to do so. I do not care about maxed efficiency really. But I care about my friends and am always looking forward to another game chatting about good times and eating a pizza. The game is a means of social interaction to me and my guys. But there are also people who play games to get recognized by their archievements related to the hobby. Either they want to have the best-painted models or the most efficient army. And they are by no means better or worse than oneself. GW provides a game that satisfies a broad spectrum of profiles. It is up to you whether you want to play against a "munchkin" although I dislike this word as learning the rules that good to make them work in your way is some feature to be respected. Before play talk with the guy, talk about what you expect from the game and If you do not match expectations enough to have fun then do not play. Talk about the hobby instead, paint a model, exchange painting tips or talk about the latest movies. But do not play each other if one would ruin the fun for another.

IMHO there is only one true way of playing: when after the game all agree they had fun. Just my 5 cents...

I think allies was one of those things that started off with good intentions and a "narrative" mechanic (ie. CSM w/ daemons , traitor guard , marines w/ guard etc) and went horribly wrong.

I just see 6th edition "allies" as 5th's "wound shenanigans"- a set of rules that got exploited (although perfectly legal to do so) and was embraced by some and called cheese by others. I honestly don't know what happened in previous editions, but it's one of those things that we're probably stuck with until 7th.

This is another topic that boils down to "If you play with like minded individuals, you'll be ok. If not, you'll have a bad time"

Well, the strange thing is how arbitrary and unbalanced it is. Most armies could make use of 5th ed's wound wrapping. Tyranid, meanwhile, can't take allies at all, and nobody allies like tartau or taudar.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, the strange thing is how arbitrary and unbalanced it is. Most armies could make use of 5th ed's wound wrapping. Tyranid, meanwhile, can't take allies at all, and nobody allies like tartau or taudar.

At least the Tyranid thing makes sense as flesh eating bugs bent on eating everyone in order to reproduce are not likely to make alliances. However, the Tau are just weird. There is no reason given why Tau and Space Marines are best friends. As for the Eldar, they're not really friends with anyone and are always following their own plans.

What they should have done was allow allies, but not allow the cross pollination of ICs into allied units.

Dr.Desastro wrote:
First I want to say hi to this community as my account has just been activated. Been years I was here. I read this discussion with interest and would like to share my point of view as well.

I started with 2nd edition so I have seen many rules and codices come and go. I was a kid that time, went to my local games store where we used to play and had a very hard time collecting an army because as a kid you could not afford building an army from scratch. Fortunately, you could play Necromunda-style as the system was good for a few models on each side and a real pain when lots of units and vehicles were fielded. The game had its flaws and with each ruleset it improved a bit. Sometimes new things were broken as well or one could scratch ones head if one was confronted with a situation the rules resolved poorly. As an example I could field the deathwind-pod from the SM drop-pods. A thing designed to clear the landing site and provide covering fire while during the very crucial step when the unit disembarks - when it is most vulnerable. Maybe a good comparison are paratroopers. While they ditch their chute they are vulnerable.
And I say "Huzzah! What a great thing to have! An always-landing parachute that provides covering fire....unless you read in the rulebook's fineprint that it cannot use the deathwind the turn it lands. Template weapons may not snapshot by default and landing under shock rules means, that this vehicle has used cruising speed thus only snapshots are possible. Working as intended or coherent with fluff? No, Sir!
Well, either you are competitive and are annoyed because of this and some guys may or may not start flame threads like "Dr0p-Pod is da f4il! Nevah use 'em again..yadda yadda curse GW yadda!" or simply shrug their shoulders and go with it. There is always the possibility - and i guess GW politics encourage you to do so - to make house-rules. If you max out the fun by doing so, then do it.

I only atttended to local tournaments and really was annoyed at maxed-out armies and still am. It is a pain to play against those and honestly, i have not the time to learn the rule to the point that I could see any loophole. I am no lawyer
That is, why I play the social game with fellow players. Playing Ultramarines since early 90ies I always have in mind what they represent and try to think about what troops may be available to the commander. It is more fun for me to do so. I do not care about maxed efficiency really. But I care about my friends and am always looking forward to another game chatting about good times and eating a pizza. The game is a means of social interaction to me and my guys. But there are also people who play games to get recognized by their archievements related to the hobby. Either they want to have the best-painted models or the most efficient army. And they are by no means better or worse than oneself. GW provides a game that satisfies a broad spectrum of profiles. It is up to you whether you want to play against a "munchkin" although I dislike this word as learning the rules that good to make them work in your way is some feature to be respected. Before play talk with the guy, talk about what you expect from the game and If you do not match expectations enough to have fun then do not play. Talk about the hobby instead, paint a model, exchange painting tips or talk about the latest movies. But do not play each other if one would ruin the fun for another.

IMHO there is only one true way of playing: when after the game all agree they had fun. Just my 5 cents...

This.... this sums it up perfectly in my mind. What a good first post.

bogalubov wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, the strange thing is how arbitrary and unbalanced it is. Most armies could make use of 5th ed's wound wrapping. Tyranid, meanwhile, can't take allies at all, and nobody allies like tartau or taudar.

At least the Tyranid thing makes sense as flesh eating bugs bent on eating everyone in order to reproduce are not likely to make alliances. However, the Tau are just weird. There is no reason given why Tau and Space Marines are best friends. As for the Eldar, they're not really friends with anyone and are always following their own plans.

What they should have done was allow allies, but not allow the cross pollination of ICs into allied units.

Or just allow Ultramarines to ally with them rather then the whole codex.

I only atttended to local tournaments and really was annoyed at maxed-out armies and still am. It is a pain to play against those and honestly, i have not the time to learn the rule to the point that I could see any loophole. I am no lawyer
That is, why I play the social game with fellow players. Playing Ultramarines since early 90ies I always have in mind what they represent and try to think about what troops may be available to the commander. It is more fun for me to do so. I do not care about maxed efficiency really. But I care about my friends and am always looking forward to another game chatting about good times and eating a pizza. The game is a means of social interaction to me and my guys. But there are also people who play games to get recognized by their archievements related to the hobby. Either they want to have the best-painted models or the most efficient army. And they are by no means better or worse than oneself. GW provides a game that satisfies a broad spectrum of profiles. It is up to you whether you want to play against a "munchkin" although I dislike this word as learning the rules that good to make them work in your way is some feature to be respected. Before play talk with the guy, talk about what you expect from the game and If you do not match expectations enough to have fun then do not play. Talk about the hobby instead, paint a model, exchange painting tips or talk about the latest movies. But do not play each other if one would ruin the fun for another.

So another words you picked a weak faction long ago, never even tried to learn the game , played in a closed in enviroment with odd house rules and other people playing the game the same way ,and that means that anyone who learned the game , picked a good army is suddenly TFG.

GW doesnt enforce narrative only , because it is a way for them to cover up how bad they realy are at making rules . This is their 6th ed , there are people in the firm that worked on design longer then I live and they still are unable to have 1 way of writing rules .

Phanixis wrote:
Well in that case I not sure I believe in the existence of casual pickups then. Point is that I haven't encountered anybody other than those new game with these kind of soft casual list people seem to be talking about on this thread. Maybe its the local gaming culture, but I have my doubts. It seems rather natural that people are going to include in their list those units that are actually effective.

This is a perfect example of a point I brought up earlier. It is all too common and natural for humans to assume because they would do something a certain way, that's how everybody would do it. Maybe all of the gamers where you are from only pick units for effectiveness, but plenty of gamers pick units they just think are cool. I've known plenty of them over my 10yrs of gaming, and still know some of them to this day and they haven't changed. The idea that these people "don't exist" or are being forced to play this way by house rules is absolutely absurd.

I guess the ally matrix is a construct resulting of the necessity of having more than two players play the game allowing them to use different armies but also satisfying the hobbyist's wish to make it in a kind of canonical way. Sure - most armies battle each other more often than sharing a common goal and allying. There are certain logics in that matrix.

Tyranids will not ally anyone - they EAT them...period
Necrons regard everyone worthless but even someone inferior might have a use....and so on.
The matrix just shows how likely it would be to see other armies fighting together while sticking to 40k fluff. It is a compromise. And also you can make your own decisions and play with whoever you want.
Just bringing in 'Nids as allies for an Ultramarine army just feels wrong. There might be places where this is allowed, but i guess, they are scarce.

I for myself, use Inquisition troops working together with my Marines or the Imperial Guard I also have. Inquisition working together with guard and Eldar can be fluffy. Ever read "Ghostmaker" from Dan Abnett?
Remember: YOU tell the story. YOU play it. YOU and your pal must have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:


So another words you picked a weak faction long ago, never even tried to learn the game , played in a closed in enviroment with odd house rules and other people playing the game the same way ,and that means that anyone who learned the game , picked a good army is suddenly TFG.

GW doesnt enforce narrative only , because it is a way for them to cover up how bad they realy are at making rules . This is their 6th ed , there are people in the firm that worked on design longer then I live and they still are unable to have 1 way of writing rules .

Nope. In other words I do not want to write a summary of my 20 years of playing the game in my first post here so don't jump to conclusions please. Believe it or not, I read the rules now and yesterday and I understand them as well and there was a time where i could answer almost every rulequestion withing a few moments because i knew exactly where it was written in the books. I am just no little brat anymore who can concentrate on that all his free time. I have a job and a girl I spend lots of attention on nowadays. My tournament days are over and i have become a casual gamer since edition 4 which i considerede the worst personally. In the past I played Imperial Guard lots of times FYI and in tournament environment I was not complaining about success. IG never was a weak faction nor is it today.
If you like to call a games store where you play the games by the rulebook a closed environment then feel free to do so. Usually our "odd" houserules covered terrain and buildings we made and what their effects on the game would be - something what is covered by the rules today but was not during edition 2 besides modifying the to-hit-roll. I just wanted to point out that there are many ways to play the game. There is casual gaming, there is playing a campaign (did that before as well. We made house rules and combined 40k with epic and gothic about 10 years before planetary invasions came out) or playing a tournament. GW enforces narrative? Well, it is their good right to do so. They OWN the game. They OWN the idea. They make money with it and pay the paychecks of their workers. We - as gamers and fans - are entiteled to nothing. We are free to buy the game and have fun with it as it is. And we are free to write to GW to complain or to make suggestions. A whole staff of designers make the rules so of course they do not have only 1 way of writing something. This comes naturally with doing a project with a team and let other guys playtest the ideas. The result always is a group efford and a compromise.

Dr.Desastro wrote:

Just bringing in 'Nids as allies for an Ultramarine army just feels wrong. There might be places where this is allowed, but i guess, they are scarce.

Its called Apocalypse.

However they still don't get any benefits from their "allies".

The short answer the OP's question is no. I am not tired of it. It makes me want to step up my game. Someone comes to my local shop and beats me with Taudar then I go home and scan through codexs till I find something that will beat him.

On the other hand who brings triptide to a causal game with out asking if it is ok first? I personally try to play to the level of the player Im playing against. If its a friendly pickup game I throw a list together in about 2 minutes and go with it. If I'm trying some super d-bag army list I'll let my opponent know and see if they are ok with it. If its a tournament and taudar are the new hottness then i'm pulling out all the stops and playing them. Or ill sit with my group of 6-7 WAAC buddies on how can we beat these the crazy new communist-space-cow's and their sparkle dancer boyfriends.

You know how you can stop people playing these armies? Stop playing against them. Or hey, I know this is crazy, but you can ask if you can play a toned down game.

You: "You know I really don't want to play against 4 riptides today. You think we could not play with MC's today?"

Me: "Yea sure thats fine with me. I've been wanting to try something new. Let me get my Sisters of Battle"

See how that works? Worst case is I say thats all I have then we dont play.

I've only ever faced down one allied list that I would classify as broken, and that was a Necron/CSM list. And I completely agree with spacewolved in this, a list that curbstomps me can still be fun to play against, and fluff-wise you do get some absolutely shining moments of heroism. A Friendly Local Gaming Store is just that, friendly. People WANT the other players to have fun. I don't know if I've managed to find some shining utopia of a gaming store, but my personal experience is that people are reluctant to use horrendously broken tactics unless both parties have agreed to it, and that includes allied lists

In my experience, list building has been the most important competitive component for Games Workshop games for as long as I can remember.

The nameless wrote:
I think allies was one of those things that started off with good intentions and a "narrative" mechanic (ie. CSM w/ daemons , traitor guard , marines w/ guard etc) and went horribly wrong.

I just see 6th edition "allies" as 5th's "wound shenanigans"- a set of rules that got exploited (although perfectly legal to do so) and was embraced by some and called cheese by others. I honestly don't know what happened in previous editions, but it's one of those things that we're probably stuck with until 7th.

This is another topic that boils down to "If you play with like minded individuals, you'll be ok. If not, you'll have a bad time"

I agree with this assessment of GW's logic on allies.

Generally speaking, my beef with Combohammer is not with the players at all. We're all playing a competitive game. I want you to make the nastiest list you possibly can, given the army that you play, because that's what I'm going to do. However, my problem is with the poor game design that permits this to happen in bizarre ways.


If the Allies Matrix started as a way of "facilitating the narrative", which I believe that it did, then it should reflect that. We should NEVER see Grey Knights fighting alongside Necrons. A lot of people say that Tyranids shouldn't be allowed to ally with anybody - maybe you haven't been playing long enough, but Genestealer Cults were popular in 2nd edition.



Long story short, my beef is with game design allowing ridiculous combinations while disallowing others that make sense, not with the players that work within these poor mechanics to make these combinations.

Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

 Deadshot wrote:
Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

Check the allies matrix sometime. You can't actually ally IG with Nids

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The nameless wrote:
I think allies was one of those things that started off with good intentions and a "narrative" mechanic (ie. CSM w/ daemons , traitor guard , marines w/ guard etc) and went horribly wrong.

I just see 6th edition "allies" as 5th's "wound shenanigans"- a set of rules that got exploited (although perfectly legal to do so) and was embraced by some and called cheese by others. I honestly don't know what happened in previous editions, but it's one of those things that we're probably stuck with until 7th.

This is another topic that boils down to "If you play with like minded individuals, you'll be ok. If not, you'll have a bad time"

I agree with this assessment of GW's logic on allies.

Generally speaking, my beef with Combohammer is not with the players at all. We're all playing a competitive game. I want you to make the nastiest list you possibly can, given the army that you play, because that's what I'm going to do. However, my problem is with the poor game design that permits this to happen in bizarre ways.


If the Allies Matrix started as a way of "facilitating the narrative", which I believe that it did, then it should reflect that. We should NEVER see Grey Knights fighting alongside Necrons. A lot of people say that Tyranids shouldn't be allowed to ally with anybody - maybe you haven't been playing long enough, but Genestealer Cults were popular in 2nd edition.



Long story short, my beef is with game design allowing ridiculous combinations while disallowing others that make sense, not with the players that work within these poor mechanics to make these combinations.

Gk hears about a planet that may have some chaos shenanigans going on and decide to roll out. They show up, Crons are there shooting up a chaos cult. Dragons are flying by being chased by pastries. Gk think to themselves "Hey, we could use these robot guys to kill the chaos then we will kill them later!" So they team up for one battle and purge the bad guys.

Bam, narrative forged.

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

Check the allies matrix sometime. You can't actually ally IG with Nids

I was making an arguement against IG and Nids being given Alliances.

 Deadshot wrote:

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

Check the allies matrix sometime. You can't actually ally IG with Nids

I was making an arguement against IG and Nids being given Alliances.

But Nids can't ally with anything, which is why I said go check the allies matrix

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

Check the allies matrix sometime. You can't actually ally IG with Nids

I was making an arguement against IG and Nids being given Alliances.

But Nids can't ally with anything, which is why I said go check the allies matrix

Can I now facepalm?

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Talonair wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Allying Imperial Guard with Nids allows stupidly unfluffy combinations like Vendettas and Manticore batteries. Yeah, cool for Cults but when you give Nids the one thing that makes them Nids by not existing (vehicles) they are no longer Nids.

Check the allies matrix sometime. You can't actually ally IG with Nids

I was making an arguement against IG and Nids being given Alliances.

But Nids can't ally with anything, which is why I said go check the allies matrix

The guy above me (forgot your name sorry!) gave an arguement for having Nids and IG being allowed to ally in the name of Genestealer Cults. I argued against because the people who want this for their old GS Cults will be outnumbered by the competitive players who just want to spam Vendettas and whatever else alongside Tervispam.

The only thing i dont like is imperial servants allying with xenos scum.. It's just not right, man!

Even after a battle won they ought to try and annihilate eachother, yuck..

Eldar use to be Imperial allies back in the day, and should be battle brothers with the Inquisition per background fluff dating back to RT days. Ultramarines have and unhealth partnership with Tau per their fluff. On the flipside, why oh why would Necrons ally with anyone?!? I can see forces of Chaos allying with pretty much everyone except for 'Nids, who might require a "corruption" suppliment to pull that off, or 'Crons (or obvious reasons).

I find the matrix to make sense for the most part, and hope they adjust it in the future to be more in line with their own background fluff.

SJ

The Tau partnership simply doesn't make sense, the codex itself (well, at least the 5th Ed one, haven't really read the fluff too much in the new one yet as I just received it) contradicts it - there's the whole bit about the UM + various other chapters fighting against a Tau offensive and whatnot, and it's a "current" event. Allies of convenience I could see in a stretch, but Battle Brothers? Ridiculous.

 tvih wrote:
The Tau partnership simply doesn't make sense, the codex itself (well, at least the 5th Ed one, haven't really read the fluff too much in the new one yet as I just received it) contradicts it - there's the whole bit about the UM + various other chapters fighting against a Tau offensive and whatnot, and it's a "current" event. Allies of convenience I could see in a stretch, but Battle Brothers? Ridiculous.

I was always to understand that the allies chart represents not just the closeness in ideology, but in tactics as well. While philosophically they are quite different, the Tau and the Space Marines share a similarity of combat doctrine, based on rapid, surgical strikes, that would enable them to cooperate on a military basis much better than some other pairings, even other Imperial pairings. Seems reasonable to me.

I don't see how having a similar military approach has much bearing on your willingness to ally with an enemy. In fact you could as easily argue the opposite, in that you'd be more willing to ally with a foe with completely different capabilities than your own because their style of combat, though alien, has proven effective.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 tvih wrote:
The Tau partnership simply doesn't make sense, the codex itself (well, at least the 5th Ed one, haven't really read the fluff too much in the new one yet as I just received it) contradicts it - there's the whole bit about the UM + various other chapters fighting against a Tau offensive and whatnot, and it's a "current" event. Allies of convenience I could see in a stretch, but Battle Brothers? Ridiculous.

I was always to understand that the allies chart represents not just the closeness in ideology, but in tactics as well. While philosophically they are quite different, the Tau and the Space Marines share a similarity of combat doctrine, based on rapid, surgical strikes, that would enable them to cooperate on a military basis much better than some other pairings, even other Imperial pairings. Seems reasonable to me.

Grey Knights and Necrons share neither tactics nor ideology. Let's be honest: They threw a bunch of names in a hat and drew at random.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Grey Knights and Necrons share neither tactics nor ideology.

Which is why they're allies of convenience, not battle brothers. GK know that Necrons can't be turned to Chaos, so they're potentially useful allies if there's a greater enemy to deal with.

If they don't know necrons .Then how can they think that they can't be turned to chaos , when even super human primarchs did ?

Makumba wrote:
If they don't know necrons .Then how can they think that they can't be turned to chaos , when even super human primarchs did ?

Um... what?

Necrons can't be turned to Chaos. Doesn't matter if the Primarchs could.

 ChakLong wrote:

Makumba wrote:
If they don't know necrons .Then how can they think that they can't be turned to chaos , when even super human primarchs did ?

Um... what?

Necrons can't be turned to Chaos. Doesn't matter if the Primarchs could.

Keywords: they, think, don't know Necrons.
Your universe knowledge might be a little different than GKs. Do they _really_ know that Necrons are immune to chaos?

Necrons are immune to chaos as they do not register in the warp.

Dakka discussion as to why Necrons cant fall to chaos

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/486596.page

*but i guess you could forcibly insert a deamon into a necron body.

Hazal your not getting.what he is saying, we as godly overlords of the 40k universe know more that any living in universe character, whilst we know that necrons can't fall to chaos (but can be corrupted by its warping influence) the grey knights do not know this fact at all, they simply believe that the necrons can't fall, but cannot be certain of it.