Just wondering! Why in this game is there so much competitive player hate? it's a fun game. I can't help it if I want to win and play powerful list. Please help me understand why in this game playing a good list or something powerful makes everyone hate you.FYI I'm a Tau player.
Do you take more than 2 riptides? More than 1 unit of missile broadsides?
A fun game involves all parties having fun. It helps to have balanced, all comers lists rather than I look 4 riptides and allied a knight titan because reasons.
Because not everyone can afford to by the new ''bestest thing'' or for some other reason, they don't keep up to date with the current power lists and have been using the same kind of army, either because of theme or model limitations, for a long time and have no intention to change them.
In this way, maybe you are fortunate enough to have the money to buy the new vogue army but if you play someone who just happens to be playing his Blood Angles Assault Marine horde because he likes the idea of Vampire Jump Jet Psychos and you instantly wipe out a unit a turn with an ignore cover Ion Accelorator where he gets no saves whatsoever and you only have to roll a 2 to kill him, kinda sucks the fun out of games.
Competitive players only get hate if they throw their competitive lists down the throats of people not prepared for the power creep. So have a convosation with people about hwat kind of game they want before throwing your Riptides down their throat?
Because the game is poorly written it is actually possible to have "competitive" and "friendly" armies, whereas they should be terms for how people approach the game.
The discrepancy between a top tier, optimised list and pretty much anything else is such that it frequently isn't fun for people to play against them, and by the nature of PUGs, especially, it seems, in the States, people often find themselves unable to negotiate sufficiently beforehand to get an even game (coupled with the subjective nature of what is or isn't a "competitive" list, negotiation isn't always a guarantee either.)
If people don't enjoy something, they're unlikely to think well of it.
Additionally, competitive is often conflated with WAAC and the associated poor attitude, cheating etc that comes with that label, even if this isn't necessarily the case in the majority of players.
Personally, I find that the nature of most competitive lists (identify the most efficient unit, take as many of those units as you can) is visually boring and uninteresting to play against, regardless of whether I table it or get my ass handed to me.
its usually attitude combined with the fact the other player stands no chance and has usually lost in turn 2.
Attitude is the primary thing, in my experience the "competitive" player doesn't laugh at bad rolls or funny situations and get angry if by chance they do not crush the other player.
Its a game so if we are not having fun, its a waste of time to play.
So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
People rage about competitive players because they creep into friendly/casual settings and this can make the game unpleasant for them. I like running big squads of Marines and getting into assault as much as possible, I don't want to have to resort to my tournament lists all the time.
Just tell your opponent before the game that you are an intensely competitive player and you try to bring the best lists you can. Then they can prepare properly or simply not play if that isn't the sort of game they want to play.
Some people want to be able to use a wide variety of models, but the game is so poorly balanced that they can't use them while expecting a competitive game them if their opponent only brings the best lists every time. For some players it is boring to use the same cookie cutter optimum list every time, especially if you aren't in a tournament.
Perhaps you are a great general, perhaps you are a great list builder, perhaps both, but if you only use the best lists possible, you really can't tell how good you are as a general, because you will likely often be facing inferior lists and have no need for great generalship skills. Try using less optimized lists, especially in less competitive environments, and you may find that this forces you to become a better general. It is easy to win if your army is superior, but that is no great accomplishment. It is hard to win if your list is inferior and that is a significant accomplishment.
Sometimes people just want to push models around, throw some dice and have some laughs. That doesn't really work if the other guy only uses the best lists possible every game.
Hmm... six Missilesides and two Riptides, plus the Commander's with the drones I imagine? This isn't tournament-winning uber-spam, but I'd say that it's somewhere on the upper scale of semi-competitive. To be fair though, most casual lists struggle with the weight of fire that Tau can put out.
It's cool. I think I will just go back to playing Magic or find another war game. I can't even post a list without some rules. Thanks everyone for the help. This just isn't the game for me. I can't play or put money and time into not being able to win.
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
Your approach of "I'm only going to buy the best models that give me the best chance of winning" isn't inherently wrong, but is an attitude that can only propagate because of the terribly lop sided power balance that exists in 40K.
All the other big name games don't suffer from this to nearly the same degree. While you can certainly make life harder for yourself with your list building choices in any game, 40K is the only game where it can effectively decide the outcome before any dice are rolled.
Conventional thinking in Warmachine is that essentially anything can be made to work well enough that you can give a good account of yourself, Infinity players have a saying "it's not your list, it's you" and nobody loses their gak over Y Wing spam in X Wing.
What people who campaign for better balance in 40K want is for the power curve to be flattened with fewer outliers, so if you love Riptides then taking three shouldn't get you accused of being a douchebag and if you want to run Vespids then there should be a way of doing so that means you won't lose practically every game you play. Some people interpret balance as making the game more bland and boring, but this isn't the case, much could be done to make the game more balanced simply by adjusting points values, without changing how units operate one bit.
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
Isn't this massively hypocritical? Why are you allowed to buy and play models you like, while others are destined to lose if they do the same with other models? i LOVE Harlequins, i love the models and the fluff and i think the rules make sense for the fluff, but i simply cannot use them in a game with an army like yours because they would do nothing but give away points. Heck, due to the psychic ability they might get close, but then they get shredded on the charge by that OP ability were your entire army gets to overwatch. People get iffy when they get the kind of games they were not expecting, because IF you told me pre-game what kind of cut throat game it would be i would bring my most competitive list to meet yours and whoop your ass
ramman2004 wrote: It's cool. I think I will just go back to playing Magic or find another war game. I can't even post a list without some rules. Thanks everyone for the help. This just isn't the game for me. I can't play or put money and time into not being able to win.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to win. A lot of the hate comes from people playing "Flavor of the month" or cheese/spam lists that only work until rules get patched. A lot of it also comes from intentionally trying to bend/cheat rules to your favor.
Also, there is hate against people who tailor their lists against yours. I played a guy who asked if I had any fliers. I said one. He proceeded to write a list that had nothing but fliers and obviously tabled me.
ramman2004 wrote: Deleted. i can't even post a list LoL screw this game!!!
Nope, that isn't what I said.
You can post a list, you can post a whole list with unit points values. What makes the Mods twitchy is when you post a breakdown of all the upgrade costs. GW are a litigious bully of a company, and if you publish all the info that means a list doesn't need a codex, it skirts too close to the line.
But you are correct, the golden goose that is 40K is being slowly strangled, there are massive issues for many people that need addressing, and if you don't have an existing affection for the game or the lore, it is a hard sell right now.
Don't let it out you off tabletop Wargames though, there are plenty (Warmachine/Hordes especially) that are much better geared up for strongly competitive play. GW want 40K to be some sort of tabletop battle RPG, and don't seem to care that many of the players do not.
I'm just incredibly frustrated right now with this game. I've never played a game where the objective was to lose. I've had fun getting stomped by competitive builds it only makes me improve my list. Not complain and want my opponent to play bad list so I can win. If a model sucks it doesn't make it your opponents fault.
You just need to find better opponents or at least let them know that you're bringing a pretty decent list beforehand. If they start complaining at that point, then it's their fault, not yours. There's nothing wrong with wanting to win, but IMHO40k is better when everyone's having fun (and if that means that both players are playing competitively, then good for them).
I find players who say "I play for fun, I don´t care about winning or losing" and then get angry/annoyed when they continously lose to a competitive army hilarious.
Definition of paradoxical.
Other than that, don´t mind the "40K/GW is dying/worse than ever/people are leaving/bla bla bla." It´s been going on since the 3rd edition and still somehow there´s more players now than ever before. It´s unsatisfied people who make the most noise - the happy ones don´t voice themselves even half as loud. Infact I think a player who is unhappy with the game makes 10 times more noise about it than someone who is fine with it - doesn´t mean the content players don´t exist.
Play people with the same mindset as you, you will find thousands of them at tournaments all around the world who want to play games just like you with the best lists they can get.
What we are saying is you shouldn't walk into your FLGS with that list and expect the resident Blood Angles player to have a fun game with you.
P.S. If you go to a tournement, your list could use some tweeks. For example the Devil Fish are not a good use of points and you are lacking in Marker Lights since most of your Markerlights are in one unit. You could also ally in some Psychic defense, because right now an Invisible Centaurion Star lead by Tiggy + Draigo would walk through your 2+ save army like a knife through hot butter...only easier.
P.S. If you go to a tournement, your list could use some tweeks. For example the Devil Fish are not a good use of points and you are lacking in Marker Lights since most of your Markerlights are in one unit. You could also ally in some Psychic defense, because right now an Invisible Centaurion Star lead by Tiggy + Draigo would walk through your 2+ save army like a knife through hot butter...only easier.
This is what I'm saying. My list isn't even %100 percent perfect. It has holes which I'm working on and I still get complaints cause I run 3 riptides. I have no physkers nor CC ability. So i make that up with Markerlights and Riptides but thats too OP. It makes my laugh and cry at the same time.
Its more like games of Magic where people decide they want to do some sort of Skyshroud legion deck, without caring if the Skyshroiders have the cards to make a "good" deck. If you knew your friends wanted to bring wonky decks, would you still bring a tourny deck to the game?
RunicFIN wrote: I find players who say "I play for fun, I don´t care about winning or losing" and then get angry/annoyed when they continously lose to a competitive army hilarious.
I think you'll find you only quoted part of that hypothetical poster, the full quote is "I play for fun, I don´t care about winning or losing as long as I have fun."
The issue is playing against a competitive army is frequently not fun if you're unprepared for it.
Its more like games of Magic where people decide they want to do some sort of Skyshroud legion deck, without caring if the Skyshroiders have the cards to make a "good" deck. If you knew your friends wanted to bring wonky decks, would you still bring a tourny deck to the game?
I never had friends that would spend money on bad cards.
I was just reading a post above this one about Eldar. It makes me laugh when people say this unit is good so you can't run it. You have to run the crappier unit or everyone will hate you. It's just so funny. If I could give someone new advice. It would be buy the worst units then at least you can find a game and then if you lose against someone that bring good units just complain they have the good units..
If you lose to a good list. The draw to this game should be to build a better list. To strategize and figure how you can leverage your tools. Not just complain about losing and chalk it up to the guy being a Dbag. IE: I got merked buy a dropod list. Centurions in my face. I didn't cry instead I bought EWO for my tides and improved my deployment stratagy.
Its more like games of Magic where people decide they want to do some sort of Skyshroud legion deck, without caring if the Skyshroiders have the cards to make a "good" deck. If you knew your friends wanted to bring wonky decks, would you still bring a tourny deck to the game?
I never had friends that would spend money on bad cards.
You and your friends have never bought booster packs?
ramman2004 wrote: If you lose to a good list. The draw to this game should be to build a better list. To strategize and figure how you can leverage your tools. Not just complain about losing and chalk it up to the guy being a Dbag. IE: I got merked buy a dropod list. Centurions in my face. I didn't cry instead I bought EWO for my tides and improved my deployment stratagy.
No, the draw to the game should be to be good at playing the game. List building should be an element, but right now too many match ups are effectively decided at the list building stage.
It's like it only being worth playing Red at a competitive level, because it was demonstrably better than the other four colours. Sure, if your objective was to win, you play red, but if after a while you wanted the chance to experiment with other colours to keep things interesting, wouldn't you find it frustrating that your choice was "win or experiment" and not have the ability to do both?
The problem here isn't really about the rules. 40k is only enjoyable when you're playing against people with a similar mindset. You sound like you're the type who wants to play semi-competitive and as such, I'd recommit seeking other like minded individuals. Loads of people play for fun or thematic lists, and some people have different opinions about what's spamming and what isn't. Fun is subjective; your net list may be someone's nightmare, or someone else's fun challenge. From the looks of your posts, you just seem to not belong to the proper gaming group.
I prefer Warhammer over War machine, but you might do better with Warmachine.
40k has three main parts of the hobby: playing, modelling, and fluff.
MTG has the playing portion, so you are familiar with that.
If, in MTG, you spent hours assembling and painting each 1/1 Mefolk card, you'd be much more attached. And you'd want to be able to field it. Both sides of the table can be like that in 40k, so its fairly common to try to let the other player have a chance each game, no matter what he brought. To many, the game is more about assembling and painting something beautifully, and seeing it duke it out on the table. When you've basically lost because the other player plops down a 'better' list/army, it can be frustrating.
For fluff, a lot of people really enjoy the universe. You don't 'win' at d&d by working the mechanics. Likewise, in this regard, both players can 'win' by enjoying the narrative for you.
Warmachine(/Hordes) is a much more technical and balanced game. It is much more about doing things right and winning the gameplay. It might be a much better tabletop game.
Or you could find more comparative 40k players. Although a comparative Eldar list will stomp you assuming equal skill 9/10 times, right now.
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games?
The same is true in magic, only magic forces you to update your decks with block rotations and stuff. 40k doesn't force you to update, but there is no difference between a magic player who spends $300 on a deck so they will win games and a 40k player who spends $600 on an army so they will win games. If you play for fun, it reflects in your army and people will naturally flock to you for games. If you're just trying to win, either learn to play for fun when it doesn't matter or only play in tournaments.
ramman2004 wrote:Just wondering! Why in this game is there so much competitive player hate? it's a fun game. I can't help it if I want to win and play powerful list. Please help me understand why in this game playing a good list or something powerful makes everyone hate you.FYI I'm a Tau player.
Lots of this has been covered. Mainly the it's no fun for your opponent if you prevent him from really playing the game because he's been tau gunlined off the board.
Also, as has been mentioned, there's a corollary that's been brought up, and that of attitude. The problem with internet trolls isn't necessarily that what they say is wrong, but it's everything else about what they say. The analogy here is that a person can both have good reasons to play strong lists, and then act like a complete donkey-cave otherwise, and then wonder what people have against strong lists. They don't. They have problems with people being an donkey-cave.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to you, but when you're asking about why, in general, competitive players have a bad reputation it's because, in general, their behavior tends to warrant it.
ramman2004 wrote:I'm just incredibly frustrated right now with this game.
Which is the natural consequence of a competitive player playing 40k.
40k is a dice game with colorful miniatures. It has more in common with D&D than chess. If what you wanted was a game that tested player skill, 40k isn't it, nor will it ever be.
I'm only sorry you're starting to see this too late. Well, I suppose it's never too late to change one's attitude about things.
Zewrath wrote: The problem here isn't really about the rules. 40k is only enjoyable when you're playing against people with a similar mindset.
Your second sentence directly contradicts your first.
When the only way to enjoy the game is with people with the exact same mindset and consequently power level of lists, its a direct result of the rules.
If the rules were better balanced, there wouldn't be this problem or division. Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
I don't think you have much reason to be frustrated unless you are getting hate from the people you are actually playing with. I wouldn't worry about what people on dakka say. The goal of the game is obviously to win and you can bring as competitive a list as you want so long as you aren't tailoring your list. Also don't be afraid to try new things and lose in a non-competitive setting because that can be fun and maybe even improve your ultra list. The only thing about tau that you might get hated on is just sitting and shooting while barely using the movement phase. It makes people feel like they are playing by themselves when you are just rolling dice and not moving models.
Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.
Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.
It's the players, not the game.
Blacksails wrote:When the only way to enjoy the game is with people with the exact same mindset and consequently power level of lists, its a direct result of the rules.
That's only true for a certain set of activities. People can get together in a less totally-structured environment and still have fun. Likewise, in those environments, it's the players that can ruin things.
Like a good D&D group or a good improv group. It's the people that make it work well, and a single spastic teenager thrown into it can ruin things for everyone. The problem there isn't a lack of rules keeping the spas in check, it's that someone let a turd in the punchbowl in the first place.
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
You're basically making your own case here. The problem is that 40k's rules are poorly written with almost zero thought towards balance. There should be no such thing as "bad models that don't win games", at least not to the level that 40k has. Let's go with your example. Vespids should be a viable choice under certain circumstances (IIRC they are mobile and can kill light armored infantry?), perhaps not all the time, but they shouldn't be garbage that "noobs" take because they don't know any better. On the flip side, your 3 Riptides shouldn't be so OP that they basically win games for you just because you take three.
That's the "competitive player hate". The game rules are so terrible that if you pick units you like over units that are good (see the aforementioned Vespid, IMO they look pretty cool) you lose because the units you picked are wrong, but if you are telling the truth (sorry, your post comes off as somewhat trolly) and you are new and just like how Riptides look (and I don't blame you there), you are automatically at an advantage over everyone because the Riptides are so good.
You don't see that "hate" in any other game because other games actually try to balance things. But not in 40k.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.
Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.
It's the players, not the game.
That's only true for a certain set of activities. People can get together in a less totally-structured environment and still have fun. Likewise, in those environments, it's the players that can ruin things.
Like a good D&D group or a good improv group. It's the people that make it work well, and a single spastic teenager thrown into it can ruin things for everyone. The problem there isn't a lack of rules keeping the spas in check, it's that someone let a turd in the punchbowl in the first place.
The division between super casual/winning is bad and the super competitive in other games is radically smaller. In Firestorm Armada, the difference between a list built out of your favourite units and one built purely to win is much closer in power to what you'd find in 40k. In fact, its so much closer that the end result of the game between said lists would come down to player decision making, and not on the raw power difference in the builds, very much unlike 40k.
Its the game that creates the framework for the players to play in. A radical difference in power levels and consequently division in the community between competitive and casual is a reflection of the rules. Games with better balance see less of this issue than games with poor balance.
Go visit the forums for games like Firestorm Armada or Infinity. Its a whole new world. A new fantastic point of view.
Obviously people can ruin anything, but a well designed game will reign much of the stupidity and broken balance issues that would otherwise only further divide a player base.
Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.
Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.
It's the players, not the game.
Blacksails wrote:When the only way to enjoy the game is with people with the exact same mindset and consequently power level of lists, its a direct result of the rules.
That's only true for a certain set of activities. People can get together in a less totally-structured environment and still have fun. Likewise, in those environments, it's the players that can ruin things.
Like a good D&D group or a good improv group. It's the people that make it work well, and a single spastic teenager thrown into it can ruin things for everyone. The problem there isn't a lack of rules keeping the spas in check, it's that someone let a turd in the punchbowl in the first place.
Are you STILL arguing this "balance = everything equal" tripe, after Emperor-knows-how-many threads telling you it's WRONG?
Other wargames don't have situations where Unit A is total crap that nobody would ever take, and Unit B is so good that it's always fielded. It's only 40k that has this divide between "casual" and "competitive" gamers.
Zewrath wrote: The problem here isn't really about the rules. 40k is only enjoyable when you're playing against people with a similar mindset.
Your second sentence directly contradicts your first.
When the only way to enjoy the game is with people with the exact same mindset and consequently power level of lists, its a direct result of the rules.
If the rules were better balanced, there wouldn't be this problem or division. Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
It really doesn't. League of Legends is a competive game with much better balance to their system, yet it is incredibly mundane and boring if you're just playing for fun, wanting to try champions that isn't the top 20/100+ champions available! where you get flamed and shouted at if you aren't buying the best cookie cutter items, that's in competitive setting with same rules but with different mind sets.
Also, directly contradicting is "my wet shirt is dry", not what your subjtive opinion deems wrong or right.
League of Legends is also a video game, and very different from a turn based table top wargame. I have a hard time thinking of a table top miniature wargame where you can compete for thousands, if not millions of dollars in prize money.
Your sentences contradict eachother because the rules create the game, and therefore, tendencies that come out of the game, like only being fun when playing the exact same power level and mindset, is a direct reflection of the rules. If the rules were different, this wouldn't be the case, ergo, the rules are the problem.
Backgammon is a turn based board game. Competitive backgammon players mostly never bothers playing vs casuals because it's mundane, unchallenging and waste of time. The casual will find himself on a 0-10 losing streak, thinking his dice rolls are unlucky and that there isn't any strategy in Backgammon and he will find little joy in being stomped, because he just plays for fun vs other like minded individuals.
I know what you're trying to say, but you can't apply it to my examples because you're talking apples when I'm talking oranges.
The only reason for "Competitive Player Hate" is that the game is not properly "competitive".
Army lists are highly "rock-paper-scissors" and do not get on the topic of points "balance" (I beg you).
Anyone playing 40k who is properly competitive just is in denial until they can scratch their itch properly with another game.
Then there is a horde of WAAC players who love the way the game is structured and masquerade as competitive players (who they would lose horribly against if playing a "proper" game).
It is a game for "Fluff Bunnies" and you disturb their inner peace when fielding face-caving lists.
So make up a story or pick a variety of units for "fun" or you will get a lot of "refused" games at the local hobby store.
Because the logic is still applicable, in most forms of sports, video games and mostly 99,9999% of everything that's even remotely competitive. You haven't found anything that's actually contradicting about anything I said, now you're not grown up enough to admit it, I accept that.
Zewrath wrote: Because the logic is still applicable, in most forms of sports, video games and mostly 99,9999% of everything that's even remotely competitive. You haven't found anything that's actually contradicting about anything I said, now you're not grown up enough to admit it, I accept that.
My point from the start is that the rules are indeed the problem. The post I originally responded to was claiming otherwise.
Don't be condescending. Especially when you haven't refuted anything I've said.
If the rules were better balanced, you wouldn't run into problems where the game is only enjoyable playing with people with the exact same mindset and power level of lists. In a better balanced game, ergo, better rules, you would be able to throw down against a wider range of opponents without worrying about their list, or desire to win, so long as they're reasonable people.
Therefore, the problem is with the rules. Saying otherwise puts the blame on the players for not playing a certain way. Using relevant examples, numerous wargames have written rules that are balanced and have a significantly smaller gap between competitive and casual players, which facilitates pick up games and promotes a more inclusive community.
Any game where chance plays a factor in success or failure is inherently not well suited for competitive play. Taking a risk and chance are not always one in the same. 40k does manage to get around this by having a good deal of resources on the field, were as smaller games give you less resources to deal with problems as they arise.
Attitude plays an important part as well. While I am fully aware that I can be a highly competitive player and have won many a tournament, I also know the game is for fun. I won't bring "tourney" lists to friendly games, and expect the same from my opponents of pick up games.
If my list is 5 knight titans and some extra stuff, it's crazy overpowered against most people. The same is true in warmachine and many other tabletop games. Trying to play that against pickup games won't win people over.
Zewrath wrote: Because the logic is still applicable, in most forms of sports, video games and mostly 99,9999% of everything that's even remotely competitive. You haven't found anything that's actually contradicting about anything I said, now you're not grown up enough to admit it, I accept that.
My point from the start is that the rules are indeed the problem. The post I originally responded to was claiming otherwise.
Don't be condescending. Especially when you haven't refuted anything I've said.
If the rules were better balanced, you wouldn't run into problems where the game is only enjoyable playing with people with the exact same mindset and power level of lists. In a better balanced game, ergo, better rules, you would be able to throw down against a wider range of opponents without worrying about their list, or desire to win, so long as they're reasonable people.
Therefore, the problem is with the rules. Saying otherwise puts the blame on the players for not playing a certain way. Using relevant examples, numerous wargames have written rules that are balanced and have a significantly smaller gap between competitive and casual players, which facilitates pick up games and promotes a more inclusive community.
I refuted everything you said. I gave you examples of games with much tighter rule sets than 40k could even hope to achieve. I pointed out how they where not enjoyable with wrong mind sets, the only thing that "invalidates" my claims is because "it's not a video game or a board game, so that doesn't count". If you struggle to apply the logic on provided examples, then I'm not the one with a problem.
juraigamer wrote: Any game where chance plays a factor in success or failure is inherently not well suited for competitive play.
Disagree. Every card game involves chance, yet many are very competitive. I'd take that further and argue that virtually any competitive endeavor involves chance to some degree. that is why in sports the superior team does not always win. Skill minimizes the impact of chance, but won't usually remove it entirely.
Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.
Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.
It's the players, not the game.
Blacksails wrote:When the only way to enjoy the game is with people with the exact same mindset and consequently power level of lists, its a direct result of the rules.
That's only true for a certain set of activities. People can get together in a less totally-structured environment and still have fun. Likewise, in those environments, it's the players that can ruin things.
Like a good D&D group or a good improv group. It's the people that make it work well, and a single spastic teenager thrown into it can ruin things for everyone. The problem there isn't a lack of rules keeping the spas in check, it's that someone let a turd in the punchbowl in the first place.
I think this analysis is pretty on target. I will relay a story from back in my college days: I had signed up for a Racquet Ball class, having never really played I wanted to learn the game and have a bit of fun, but was obviously not super skilled at the game. Well at some point during the course I was paired up to play against a guy who had a TON of experience and was a very good player. He proceeded to win every single point we played. There was really NOTHING I could do. Basically every serve went to the back corners and was simply an ace. I know now there are ways to return these kinds of serves etc... but At the time I had no answer. by the end of the match I was literally leaning against the back door of the court and did not even attempt to return serve if I had to move my feet. The real problem was when the game was over 21-0 x3 this guy really did not understand WHY I simply walked out of the court not really talking to him and could not figure out why I would not play him for the rest of the semester. He had not empathy and no understanding that playing against him was simply not fun for people who were not at his skill level. He seemed to love playing all of us and crushing everyone he met into the dirt. I could have been a better sport about playing him but it was just not fun so I decided I would rather avoid him. He seemed too focused on feeding his own ego a win rather than playing a game with someone and having a good time and perhaps working with them to bring up their skills.
I only bring this up because I see a bunch of posts about how the 40k system creates the kind of dichomoty between competitive and fun players, but I don't think it has a lot to do with the system specifically, it has to do with human personalities. So if you have a little empathy for your opponent you might be able to pick up on if they are having fun playing against you or not. Then tailor your list to play up or down to the level of competition. If you only focus on feeding your own ego and insist upon winning EVERY match you will drive towards uber competitive lists, which is ok if that is what your group likes, but understand not everyone likes that style of play.
I personally like to bring something different to each session I play. I look for a differnent point level, a newly painted unit, something I have never combined, etc...I win some & I lose some, but it seems like the group I play with has about the same kind of atitude.
I refuted everything you said. I gave you examples of games with much tighter rule sets than 40k could even hope to achieve.
Because its not a wargame perhaps? Wargames are different beasts than board games or video games. Board games, like backgammon or chess have set pieces that all do the same thing. There's no choice in bringing two queens or four knights. Video games also differ greatly in too many ways across many specific games. Games like League of Legends don't even operate like a tabletop wargame. The 'rules' of a video game can't be broken except by hacking and what not, which is a whole different thing entirely.
With wargames, the rules are a framework for the game. Any room for interpretation, any grievious balance issues, any problem with situations not covered by the rules open up the game to be exploited, and create divided between players who hold differing interpretations or different ideas of what constitutes a fun and fluffy list.
This is why the rules heavily impact any resulting divisions and attitudes among the player base. A loose, poorly balanced one like 40k breeds different divisions and camps, who think playing the game a particular way is better than other ways. A tighter game, like Firestorm Armada doesn't have these divisions, as the difference between a super competitive list and a super casual one is still close enough in balance that player decision making is still the dominant reason for victory.
I pointed out how they where not enjoyable with wrong mind sets, the only thing that "invalidates" my claims is because "it's not a video game or a board game, so that doesn't count".
They don't count because they're poor examples. We're discussing miniature wargames. Games where the rules cover far more situations than chess or backgammon will ever dream of, where human interpretation and error are important aspects to minimize in rules writing, unlike video games where the rules are hard wired and generally cannot be broken.
Therefore, the rules of a wargame directly impact things like the community or how your enjoyment can differ from one person or list to another.
If you struggle to apply the logic on provided examples, then I'm not the one with a problem.
Again, if you continue to be this condescending, I see no reason to carry on with you.
Perhaps you could argue my points instead of pointing out games that play radically different than wargames like 40k, Infinity, WM/H, Firestorm, or a myriad of other games that share far, far more in common with eachother than League of Legends or backgammon?
I can (and do) play a super-fluffy mono-Slaanesh CSM /w Daemons allies list and will absolutely crush my opponent if he doesn't bring a competitive list. The last game I played with my "Purple Rain" list ended with my Necrons opponent conceding at the bottom of turn 2. Does that make me a bad guy? Well, I didn't know taking Slaaneshi Heralds, Daemonettes,Seekers and a Sorcerer with some cultists and maulerfiends was a maximum OPWAAC list- but apparently very few armies can handle invisible seekers and daemonettes charging them turn 2. How's that my problem, though? I happen to like Slaanesh. If Joe Plumber happens to really like Kroot and chooses to run a kroot-only Tau list, why can't I play a mono-Slaanesh list?
On the other hand, casually gaking on opponents is just as unfun to the winner as it for the loser. There's absolutely nothing enjoyable about hearing your opponent sigh and say that he's conceding twenty minutes into a match, or having to deal with that uncomfortable silence where the two of you are just rolling dice and removing models from your opponent's board edge. That's not fun for any competitive gamer.
I've taken to "negotiating" with my opponents, but that's made things even worse, because saying "so what type of list would you enjoy playing against" or "what sounds fun to you" is tacitly saying "I know you're bad at this and your lists have no chance of beating mine, so tell me how to handicap myself so that you can have a prayer of winning", which is kind of like rubbing salt in the wound. Most people that I ask that to respond with "play whatever list you'd like" and then the aforementioned incidences with turn 2 conceding and the uncomfortable silence occur.
So, as someone who's won 8 games in a row with four different lists across three factions, and is feeling like the "big fish", I absolutely blame Games Workshop's gakky rules. It's GW's gakky rule's fault that I can't play the fluffy lists that I want to play and still have an even match with other people's fluffy lists. It's Games Workshop's gakky rule's fault that I have to arbitrarily limit myself and stop myself from taking the units that I think are cool just to give other people a fair fight, or house-rule certain powers and abilities. It's especially frustrating when I can play Warmachine and have the opposite experience. I play WM once or twice a month with a friend who actually plays the game competitively, and whenever we play the matches are usually pretty close and end suddenly, despite the fact that I only play it a couple of times a month and generally just throw gak together on the fly for my lists.
It would be nice if 40K was like that. I vastly prefer 40K as a setting.
I too wish 40K had better rules. I like 7th edition, but it could still be so much better.
And I hate feeling like a donkey cave for building a pure knights army. I happen to like giant robots, but apparently that makes me a douche because some armies can't beat them! I don't want to crush people's hopes and dreams, I just want to roll dice and have a good time. At this rate I might even have to re-convert my kustom mega-dreads and run them with different rules to get people to play me...
There is little to no point in discussing 40k if I barge in and declare my self a winner by flipping a random table, so the part about breaking rules and not being able to in video games is entirely irrelevant.
LoL is 10 times more complex, in a competitive setting, even when the rules are simple. The amount of theory crafting and books to complicated chess and backgammon play dwarfs anything miniature games can even think of, let alone the bloated mess of rules 40k has become and erroneous interpretation doesn't exist in either setting. A massive cake is just a cake, no matter how many layers or how advanced your recipe is, it's still a cake.
The rules impacts how people enjoy things in community, but that doesn't change the fact that the community is full of people with subjective opinions on how fun the game is and on what level. Backgammon is fun for casual vs casual, pro vs pro. This applies to LoL also, from casual players dicking around in LAN parties to top ranked people, and from 40k "beer n' pretzel"-games to min/max optimizer.
You're talking about a different problem entirely, and that's a divided player base, but that doesn't mean my claim was contradicting or invalid, it's just that the divide between the player base in 40k comes from a bad player base, coupled with the fact that you can spend 1000$ on a useless army, because you're clueless and then wrongfully labeled as a "fluff bunny" or "casual fluff player" instead of being listed as a noob who now properly has to invest an additional 500$ to correct his mistake.
Edit: and gakky rules
Also remember that the good units and armies change from edition to edition. Not everyone can spend the money to update all their armies every edition.
My Space Marine army was a good 5th edition army but now it is so-so. I don't have the money to update it. (well I do but I am building a new army with that money).
I don't sell armies and I am not trading or selling that army just to get a winning army. I take to much pride in my fully painted nicely painted army.
And don't give me this, Magic players don't act liek this. There are tons of Magic players who don't play competitively. There is Friday nigths drafts that eliminate the whole, who has the most money wins the game element and plenty of variations to play if you aren't a WAAC.
You are just used to sitting down to play in a Magic tournament with other tournament players. So if you want that experience in 40K then play in a tournament.
Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this proble
Oh dear, you're gonna tilt at that particular windmill again are you?
Zewrath wrote: The rules impacts how people enjoy things in community, but that doesn't change the fact that the community is full of people with subjective opinions on how fun the game is and on what level. Backgammon is fun for casual vs casual, pro vs pro. This applies to LoL also, from casual players dicking around in LAN parties to top ranked people, and from 40k "beer n' pretzel"-games to min/max optimizer.
You're talking about a different problem entirely, and that's a divided player base, but that doesn't mean my claim was contradicting or invalid, it's just that the divide between the player base in 40k comes from a bad player base
So if 40K's playerbase isn't really much different from any other playerbase (casual players clashing with competitive players is a dynamic you'll see in just about any gaming community), then how is the 40K player-base bad? It sounds like it's just a normal player-base.
coupled with the fact that you can spend 1000$ on a useless army, because you're clueless and then wrongfully labeled as a "fluff bunny" or "casual fluff player" instead of being listed as a noob who now properly has to invest an additional 500$ to correct his mistake.
Then it is a problem with the rules, isn't it? If 40K had good rules, there wouldn't be situations where you could spend $1000 on a useless army. That that can occur in the first place is indicative of a terrible and broken ruleset.
At best, while you could argue that 40K's playerbase is toxic, it's inarguable that the cause for that toxicity stems directly from the game's gakky rules. Fluff-bunnies have a chip on their shoulder because they don't like having their finely painted and expensive army get crushed repeatedly by a competitive list, and competitive players have a chip on their shoulder because they don't like being implicitly labeled as sociopaths because they happen to play to win. If 40K had a good ruleset it could avoid this mutual animosity by making the game more about the actual strategy and tactics in a game rather than the list-building.
Seems "Pins of War" is down but managed to go into the internet time machine:
Great article of "Competitive 40k does not exist":
Spoiler:
Competitive Warhammer 40K Does Not Exist
March 1, 2013
Competitive Warhammer 40K is a myth. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Who wins or loses a game of Warhammer 40K is not primarily determined by any intrinsic quality of the players, such as “skill” or “talent”. As a result, you cannot truly “compete” with another player using Warhammer 40K.
Instead, Warhammer 40K is a very metagame-biased game. The outcome of any given match is disproportionately determined by the the army-lists, the codices and other Metagame-aspects. This makes 40K the popular hobby it is. But it trumps any personal quality or characteristic that you, as a player, could actually bring to a “competition” with another player.
#1 – Chess and Shuuro and the Nature of ‘Metagame’
You’re likely asking yourself now what the hell I am up to with this.
Let me thus digress a bit to Chess and Shuuro (Alessio Cavatore’s pre-Loka Chess-variant). Seeing Alessio making his Kickstarter-splash with Loka, I dusted off Shuuro and played a bit.
But first things first: Chess!
Chess is an iconic competitive game. Why? Because Chess has no Metagame (aside, arguably, from knowing your opponents’ playstyles, stratagems or, poker-style, “tells”). For 99% of all chess games – save those with the most evenly matched players – the following will be true.
In Chess, the better, more skilled player will win against a less skilled player.
That is the heart and the soul of any competition. It’s the reason a chess tournament makes sense (from a competitive, and not a commercial perspective). You match your skills in the game against your opponents. The better player wins. If you rank high, you’ll know you’re good!
It also makes competitive Chess an intimidating thing to get into. If someone has 20-years of experience on you, that’ll count for a lot (though exceptionally talented Chess-prodigies exist).
Shuuro
Alessio Cavatore’s Shuuro – It’s great fun! (but not as competitive as Chess)
Cavatore’s Shuuro adds an interesting twist to Chess that takes a lot of teeth out of Chess, making it a more casual, family-friendly game. It does this with one addition in particular: list-building.
In Shuuro, your “army” is not predetermined (1 Queen, 2 Bishops, etc..) but can be purchased from a set number of points. Thus, you could build an “elite” army with a few Queens and Bishops, a “horde” army with massed ranks of rooks, a “jumpy” army of Knights, etc.. .
The very fact that you can build lists, and that some lists might be better than other lists, both absolute or in a particular match-up (think rock-paper-scissors), means that “player skill” is no longer the king of the game. Unlike Chess, Shuuro has a metagame. The very existence of a metagame introduces an interesting possibility that does not exist in Chess.
In Shuuro, a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player by using a better list.
#2 – Player Skill vs. Metagame: Rock-Paper-Scissors
As a consequence, who wins or looses is no longer as dependent on player skill. There is, thanks to “list-building”, a second metagame dimension that is relevant for the outcome of a match.
This doesn’t mean that skill is entirely irrelevant. It clearly isn’t. Just that it’s no longer the sole thing determining who wins the game. Have a look at my lewt diagram below.
Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist
In a match between player 1 (who has better skills) and player 2 (how is one-up in the metagame), the question of who wins will depend largely on how much either skill or metagame matters in a given game. Let’s look at the most extreme examples first.
1.For Chess: Player 1 will walk away victorious. As said, there’s no metagame to speak of in Chess, so Player 2 is screwed.
2.For Rock-Paper-Scissors: Player 2 will win. In Rock-Paper-Scissor, the better “list” (i.e. Rock, Paper or Scissor) in a match-up will win, always. “Skill” cannot change the outcome.
This is not a question of “balance”! Rock-Paper-Scissor is balanced. Arguably more so than Chess. The very logic of the game is that one list always auto-trumps the other. “Skill” is irrelevant.
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the “perfect metagame”. It is decided before the game actually begins.
Which is why a serious, “competitive” Rock-Paper-Scissors tournament would be a pointless affair, especially if you cannot “change” your choice of Rock, Paper or Scissors between rounds (as you cannot change your list in a 40K tournament). The winner of tournament where most players field paper is almost certainly a guy (or girl) that brings scissors.
In other words, it’s the “list” that matters. The player behind the “list” is irrelevant to the outcome.
#3 – So What About Warhammer 40K?
Chicago Grand Tournament 40K – Picture by Will Merydith
Of course, not ever game hits the extremes like Chess or Rock-Paper-Scissors. Most games will fall somewhere in the middle, with both factors counting for something. A Chess-Master will likely still triumph over a newb in Shuuro, even with a less impressive list.
Nevertheless, your list, your choice of Codex and the luck of hitting a tournament one step ahead of the metagame mean a lot in Warhammer 40K. Far more than in Shuuro or even other miniatures wargames on the market. Which is why list-building is such a famous past-time for people on forums, blogs and elsewhere. Which is why “famous” or “effective” lists get copied ad-infinitum.
For a “hobby-game” the dominance of the metagame over the player skill is a good thing too. It is the very reason, why playing Warhammer 40K against someone with 20-years more experience than yourself isn’t anywhere near as steep a hill to climb as it is in Chess. If you’re up-to-date on the latest lists, the rules and avoid blatant mistakes, your chances of winning are pretty even.
Once again, being one-up on the metagame is – all other things being equal – more important than painstakingly accrued skill and knowledge to win a game (or tournament) of Warhammer 40K.
#4 – Is Knowing the Metagame a Skill?
“
The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction. The term passed from military use into political parlance to describe events outside conventional bounds that, in fact, play an important role in a game’s outcome. For example, a military operation might be a game with its political ramifications being the metagame.
Splitting “skill” and “metagame” apart as I’ve done above obviously raises the question of “is knowing the Metagame itself a skill?“.
No, it’s not. At least not for Warhammer 40K.
Why?
Because (a) it is constantly evolving and driven forward (both to allow new players an easy entry and to sell more plastic) and (b) because you as a player have no influence over it.
Being “good at the metagame” of Warhammer 40K takes no skill. It only takes staying abreast with Games Workshop’s latest. If you take a break for 6 months and come back to “competitive” 40K with you 6th-month-old game, you’ll find that things have moved on. Everything you did before those 6th months will mean squat and you will start at the same point any new player starts, once she/he has gotten to the point of knowing the rules and how to avoid obvious mistakes.
Inversely, if you win a Warhammer 40K tournament, it doesn’t say anything about you or your “skills”. All it says is that you brought the right list at the right time. Nothing more.
#5 – Do You Hate Warhammer 40K Tournaments?
Warhammer 40K Metagame
No.
Warhammer 40K Tournaments are great fun.
They are a good opportunity to have some fun, meet new friends, play a few games. Obviously, tournaments also work well as a method to make people buy more toys.
Nevertheless, you’ll be having a lot more fun, if you realize that Warhammer 40K is not a competitive game, never was a competitive game and never will be a competitive game.
Competitive Warhammer 40K is an oxymoron. Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist.
From a competitive (and not a commercial or social) logic, a Warhammer 40K tournament is really only slightly more sensible than a Rock-Paper-Scissor tournament. Approaching is as if you’re starting at the Olympics (or at a Chess tournament) will only make you look like a fool.
Z.
It all boils down to a description I liked when I came across it: 40k is an RPG for armies.
Talizvar wrote: Seems "Pins of War" is down but managed to go into the internet time machine:
Great article of "Competitive 40k does not exist":
Spoiler:
Competitive Warhammer 40K Does Not Exist
March 1, 2013
Competitive Warhammer 40K is a myth. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Who wins or loses a game of Warhammer 40K is not primarily determined by any intrinsic quality of the players, such as “skill” or “talent”. As a result, you cannot truly “compete” with another player using Warhammer 40K.
Instead, Warhammer 40K is a very metagame-biased game. The outcome of any given match is disproportionately determined by the the army-lists, the codices and other Metagame-aspects. This makes 40K the popular hobby it is. But it trumps any personal quality or characteristic that you, as a player, could actually bring to a “competition” with another player.
#1 – Chess and Shuuro and the Nature of ‘Metagame’
You’re likely asking yourself now what the hell I am up to with this.
Let me thus digress a bit to Chess and Shuuro (Alessio Cavatore’s pre-Loka Chess-variant). Seeing Alessio making his Kickstarter-splash with Loka, I dusted off Shuuro and played a bit.
But first things first: Chess!
Chess is an iconic competitive game. Why? Because Chess has no Metagame (aside, arguably, from knowing your opponents’ playstyles, stratagems or, poker-style, “tells”). For 99% of all chess games – save those with the most evenly matched players – the following will be true.
In Chess, the better, more skilled player will win against a less skilled player.
That is the heart and the soul of any competition. It’s the reason a chess tournament makes sense (from a competitive, and not a commercial perspective). You match your skills in the game against your opponents. The better player wins. If you rank high, you’ll know you’re good!
It also makes competitive Chess an intimidating thing to get into. If someone has 20-years of experience on you, that’ll count for a lot (though exceptionally talented Chess-prodigies exist).
Shuuro
Alessio Cavatore’s Shuuro – It’s great fun! (but not as competitive as Chess)
Cavatore’s Shuuro adds an interesting twist to Chess that takes a lot of teeth out of Chess, making it a more casual, family-friendly game. It does this with one addition in particular: list-building.
In Shuuro, your “army” is not predetermined (1 Queen, 2 Bishops, etc..) but can be purchased from a set number of points. Thus, you could build an “elite” army with a few Queens and Bishops, a “horde” army with massed ranks of rooks, a “jumpy” army of Knights, etc.. .
The very fact that you can build lists, and that some lists might be better than other lists, both absolute or in a particular match-up (think rock-paper-scissors), means that “player skill” is no longer the king of the game. Unlike Chess, Shuuro has a metagame. The very existence of a metagame introduces an interesting possibility that does not exist in Chess.
In Shuuro, a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player by using a better list.
#2 – Player Skill vs. Metagame: Rock-Paper-Scissors
As a consequence, who wins or looses is no longer as dependent on player skill. There is, thanks to “list-building”, a second metagame dimension that is relevant for the outcome of a match.
This doesn’t mean that skill is entirely irrelevant. It clearly isn’t. Just that it’s no longer the sole thing determining who wins the game. Have a look at my lewt diagram below.
Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist
In a match between player 1 (who has better skills) and player 2 (how is one-up in the metagame), the question of who wins will depend largely on how much either skill or metagame matters in a given game. Let’s look at the most extreme examples first.
1.For Chess: Player 1 will walk away victorious. As said, there’s no metagame to speak of in Chess, so Player 2 is screwed.
2.For Rock-Paper-Scissors: Player 2 will win. In Rock-Paper-Scissor, the better “list” (i.e. Rock, Paper or Scissor) in a match-up will win, always. “Skill” cannot change the outcome.
This is not a question of “balance”! Rock-Paper-Scissor is balanced. Arguably more so than Chess. The very logic of the game is that one list always auto-trumps the other. “Skill” is irrelevant.
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the “perfect metagame”. It is decided before the game actually begins.
Which is why a serious, “competitive” Rock-Paper-Scissors tournament would be a pointless affair, especially if you cannot “change” your choice of Rock, Paper or Scissors between rounds (as you cannot change your list in a 40K tournament). The winner of tournament where most players field paper is almost certainly a guy (or girl) that brings scissors.
In other words, it’s the “list” that matters. The player behind the “list” is irrelevant to the outcome.
#3 – So What About Warhammer 40K?
Chicago Grand Tournament 40K – Picture by Will Merydith
Of course, not ever game hits the extremes like Chess or Rock-Paper-Scissors. Most games will fall somewhere in the middle, with both factors counting for something. A Chess-Master will likely still triumph over a newb in Shuuro, even with a less impressive list.
Nevertheless, your list, your choice of Codex and the luck of hitting a tournament one step ahead of the metagame mean a lot in Warhammer 40K. Far more than in Shuuro or even other miniatures wargames on the market. Which is why list-building is such a famous past-time for people on forums, blogs and elsewhere. Which is why “famous” or “effective” lists get copied ad-infinitum.
For a “hobby-game” the dominance of the metagame over the player skill is a good thing too. It is the very reason, why playing Warhammer 40K against someone with 20-years more experience than yourself isn’t anywhere near as steep a hill to climb as it is in Chess. If you’re up-to-date on the latest lists, the rules and avoid blatant mistakes, your chances of winning are pretty even.
Once again, being one-up on the metagame is – all other things being equal – more important than painstakingly accrued skill and knowledge to win a game (or tournament) of Warhammer 40K.
#4 – Is Knowing the Metagame a Skill?
“
The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction. The term passed from military use into political parlance to describe events outside conventional bounds that, in fact, play an important role in a game’s outcome. For example, a military operation might be a game with its political ramifications being the metagame.
Splitting “skill” and “metagame” apart as I’ve done above obviously raises the question of “is knowing the Metagame itself a skill?“.
No, it’s not. At least not for Warhammer 40K.
Why?
Because (a) it is constantly evolving and driven forward (both to allow new players an easy entry and to sell more plastic) and (b) because you as a player have no influence over it.
Being “good at the metagame” of Warhammer 40K takes no skill. It only takes staying abreast with Games Workshop’s latest. If you take a break for 6 months and come back to “competitive” 40K with you 6th-month-old game, you’ll find that things have moved on. Everything you did before those 6th months will mean squat and you will start at the same point any new player starts, once she/he has gotten to the point of knowing the rules and how to avoid obvious mistakes.
Inversely, if you win a Warhammer 40K tournament, it doesn’t say anything about you or your “skills”. All it says is that you brought the right list at the right time. Nothing more.
#5 – Do You Hate Warhammer 40K Tournaments?
Warhammer 40K Metagame
No.
Warhammer 40K Tournaments are great fun.
They are a good opportunity to have some fun, meet new friends, play a few games. Obviously, tournaments also work well as a method to make people buy more toys.
Nevertheless, you’ll be having a lot more fun, if you realize that Warhammer 40K is not a competitive game, never was a competitive game and never will be a competitive game.
Competitive Warhammer 40K is an oxymoron. Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist.
From a competitive (and not a commercial or social) logic, a Warhammer 40K tournament is really only slightly more sensible than a Rock-Paper-Scissor tournament. Approaching is as if you’re starting at the Olympics (or at a Chess tournament) will only make you look like a fool.
Z.
It all boils down to a description I liked when I came across it: 40k is an RPG for armies.
Please, don't bring that guy back to Dakka by proxy...
Replace "winning a game" with "playing my car stereo loudly at night" and you can see the problem more clearly.
What you're saying is that a person should be able to go out and spend several hundred dollars on an amped-up subwoofer because that's the kind of music experience they like. And when their neighbors don't, you get upset because they're complaining about it. Clearly the laws must be written wrong if I can't enjoy my music the way I like around other people. It's the rule writers who are to blame, or worse, those nosy neighbors.
How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.
If you had a more restrictive environment, then yeah, you open yourself up to fewer of the problems that freedom creates. I don't know why this means that 40k should try hard to duplicate other games that already exist that I could already be playing if I just wanted those.
Zewrath wrote: The rules impacts how people enjoy things in community, but that doesn't change the fact that the community is full of people with subjective opinions on how fun the game is and on what level. Backgammon is fun for casual vs casual, pro vs pro. This applies to LoL also, from casual players dicking around in LAN parties to top ranked people, and from 40k "beer n' pretzel"-games to min/max optimizer.
You're talking about a different problem entirely, and that's a divided player base, but that doesn't mean my claim was contradicting or invalid, it's just that the divide between the player base in 40k comes from a bad player base
So if 40K's playerbase isn't really much different from any other playerbase (casual players clashing with competitive players is a dynamic you'll see in just about any gaming community), then how is the 40K player-base bad? It sounds like it's just a normal player-base.
coupled with the fact that you can spend 1000$ on a useless army, because you're clueless and then wrongfully labeled as a "fluff bunny" or "casual fluff player" instead of being listed as a noob who now properly has to invest an additional 500$ to correct his mistake.
Then it is a problem with the rules, isn't it? If 40K had good rules, there wouldn't be situations where you could spend $1000 on a useless army. That that can occur in the first place is indicative of a terrible and broken ruleset.
1. It really isn't.
2. Read edit.
3. This hasn't got to do with anything I posted. I said something, you said it's contradicting, it wasn't, I said why it wasn't, now you insist on proving how bad/good the rules are in 40k even though I've never refuted this.
Replace "winning a game" with "playing my car stereo loudly at night" and you can see the problem more clearly.
What you're saying is that a person should be able to go out and spend several hundred dollars on an amped-up subwoofer because that's the kind of music experience they like. And when their neighbors don't, you get upset because they're complaining about it. Clearly the laws must be written wrong if I can't enjoy my music the way I like around other people. It's the rule writers who are to blame, or worse, those nosy neighbors.
How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.
If you had a more restrictive environment, then yeah, you open yourself up to fewer of the problems that freedom creates. I don't know why this means that 40k should try hard to duplicate other games that already exist that I could already be playing if I just wanted those.
That's a nonsensical metaphor.
Zewrath wrote: 1. It really isn't.
2. Read edit.
3. This hasn't got to do with anything I posted. I said something, you said it's contradicting, it wasn't, I said why it wasn't, now you insist on proving how bad/good the rules are in 40k even though I've never refuted this.
So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
BlaxicanX wrote: I've taken to "negotiating" with my opponents, but that's made things even worse, because saying "so what type of list would you enjoy playing against" or "what sounds fun to you" is tacitly saying "I know you're bad at this and your lists have no chance of beating mine, so tell me how to handicap myself so that you can have a prayer of winning", which is kind of like rubbing salt in the wound. Most people that I ask that to respond with "play whatever list you'd like" and then the aforementioned incidences with turn 2 conceding and the uncomfortable silence occur.
The rest of the post was fine, but this part I would like to respond to.
It's not really about saying "you are bad and I want to handicap myself". It's an issue, not just with 40k but with most games, that not every unit is competitive enough.
I personally own 15.000 points of Necrons and if I want to play competitive, I don't even look at 12.000 of those units.
So if I ask my opponent "what kind of game he wants" I actually mean "Can I build a list out of my 15.000 points or do I limit myself to the 3.000 points of competitive models?"
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as "handicapping myself" when I bring Lychguard instead of Wraiths; I see it as a different kind of list that is designed for opponents who are limited in the options they can pick from.
And with a game as expensive as 40k, you will always have such things!
My Ork-friend has 2000 points in total. It's only logical that he will never field a list that's as optimized as my 15.000
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
^^^
This attitude is exactly what causes competitive player hate.
ramman2004 wrote: It's cool. I think I will just go back to playing Magic or find another war game. I can't even post a list without some rules. Thanks everyone for the help. This just isn't the game for me. I can't play or put money and time into not being able to win.
How would you feel if you invite me over for some casual multiplayer with two others and I bring my Stax-deck?
As a Magic-player you should surely understand the difference between casual play and competitive.
You don't bring a Squirrel-deck to a tournament and you don't bring Stax to a casual game.
That's why you always make sure you know what kind of game is intended to be played that day.
I have a Norin, Azami, Mimeoplasm and Pillowfort-deck for EDH. Depending on the level my opponent wants to play, I bring a different deck.
For Legacy I have Solidarity, Goblins, Stax, Burn and Infect-stompy.. All of them on a different level, depending on what me and my opponent plan to do.
BlaxicanX wrote: So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
Well, we're on the same page then.
Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
BlaxicanX wrote: So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the rules didn't suck, there'd be no such thing as a "different meta".
Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
WoW had a bug, where a damage over time effect spread out of the scripted area and caused entire servers to be decimated and the panic and confusion caused was later used in a study about spreading of pandemic diseases and how human psychology works in those situations.
Just because it was a video game didn't mean the logic, or the phenomenon wasn't applicable to real life situation. Just because you're dead set on it 'has-to-be!' a miniature game doesn't mean much logic can't be applied on proper terms and situations.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that Warmahorde/infinity/what ever doesn't have any form of meta?
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that Warmahorde/infinity/what ever doesn't have any form of meta?
Not to the same extent that 40k does. There's no broken base pitting the "competitive gamers" against the "fluff gamers" with the lines drawn in the sand. Threads of this nature simply do not exist on WMH's forums.
40k's sub par rules have created this rift in the player base.
Kangodo wrote: The rest of the post was fine, but this part I would like to respond to. It's not really about saying "you are bad and I want to handicap myself". It's an issue, not just with 40k but with most games, that not every unit is competitive enough. I personally own 15.000 points of Necrons and if I want to play competitive, I don't even look at 12.000 of those units.
Don't get me wrong, that's not how I personally feel about these other players- the way I look at it, it just comes down to the units I like happening to be a lot better in the current meta.
But in my experience, most people don't interpret it that way, mostly because they're projecting. Most people are intrinsically good, and feel guilty about dictating other people's fun. So when you've beaten someone multiple times and you offer to make the next fight more fun/fair, I think it kind of hits a nerve in a lot of people that's like "man, he feels the need to limit himself because our lists are so uneven. Damn."
idk.
Zewrath wrote: Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the game's rules were better, my list would be just as powerful in your meta as it would be in any other- thus the point. Asserting that the problem isn't the rules so much as it's the player-base is incorrect because the problems with the player-base is symptomatic of the problem with the rules.
Your comparison of 40K to games like LoL and Starcraft is a false one for a couple of reasons.
1. Players in those games aren't spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for the army that they're using- thus there isn't nearly as much of a sting from repeatedly losing. The 50 bucks or whatever that it costs for the game doesn't require nearly as much of a financial and emotional investment as jumping into 40K does.
2. SC and LoL have a globally-connected community that is automatically regulated via the game's ELO/ranking systems. That means that you will always be able to find players that are around your level, and can choose to surround yourself with equally skilled players. By comparison, with 40K unless you're willing to drive a long time, the meta you're with is the one you're stuck with. I'm in that situation (though I play online). I'm kind of a big fish in a small pond.
3. SC and LoL have metas, but what separates metas in those games is the skill of the individual player. The Protoss as an army functions exactly the same and with the same level of effectiveness in Masters as it does in bronze league, the only thing that's different is the skill between the two players at using it. Likewise, Blizzard has gone through pain-staking effort to balance all three of the factions against one another. So if you're playing Zerg and you get crushed by a Terran, it's not because Terran just happens to be the rock to your Zerg scissors, it's because he outplayed you. In 40K, simply playing as a certain faction can give you an inherent disadvantage against an opponent- and taking the sub-optimal units in that faction will make the gap even larger. So there are many instances in 40K where the game basically becomes robotic and plays itself, as your opponent's list is just so mathematically superior to yours that there's nothing you can really do to win.
Those three things combined make 40K very different from most competitive strategy video games. Unlike SC and LoL, 40K requires a massive amount of financial, emotional and time investment into your army, and unlike those games your army might just be inherently weaker than other peoples' despite all that investment, and if it is weaker there's not a whole lot you can do because you're more or less locked in to the meta around you.
MTG? Yes. Gods, yes. Even WotC admitted this when they started rolling out with their lists of restrictions, cycling through what deck-series can and can not be played. WotC figured out that they'd created a monster with the way some of their cards were written, and has taken steps to addressing this problem.
LoL's meta is fairly universal. It has to be, it's a MMOG. You don't play it with locals, you play it with people from around the world. This has a way of making every meta the same meta. Once a playstyle with a give character is proven to be most-effective, that build/playstyle becomes the expected norm. This, in essence, is "netlisting".
The same is true in a number of MMORPGs that permit "skill building". That is, each class has access to a range of skills, but is given only so many points to spend in them. Certain builds are demonstrated to be most-effective at certain tasks (Raid DPS, PVE AOE DPS, Raid Healer, PVP Healer, etc). Even in PUGs, you're expected to be aware of these most-efficient builds, and to be following them, rather than spending your points however you like. If you don't, and you PUG a lot, you get the reputation of being a bad tank/healer/dps/whatever and find your PUG options getting rather limited.
Starcraft is the same way. There are ways to play each army, and each style is generally whatever Korea is demonstrating as winning their tournaments. Outside of that? What the home user is playing on a LAN or with a guy on Battle-Net doesn't really matter... they're basically just throwing models onto the table. The "meta" of Starcraft is, again, basically netlisting. It's following a demonstrated, effective playstyle that permits most-efficient use of resources and units to win.
Do SC's rules suck? No, but then Blizzard has had fifteen years to perfect the game. They've made some fairly significant changes to the "rules" of the game (that is, the mechanics by which units operate, by which units/tech builds, the statlines of units, etc.)... because in the early days, some of their rules *did* suck! Of course, being that SC can be played over a LAN, that doesn't prevent someone from hexediting their unit profiles to give their units some pretty crazy advantages (like Siege Tanks with map-wide range), but the core game is now pretty much balanced, and where wins/losses depend more on tactics and player skill than choosing the "right army".
The "meta" of Starcraft is whatever is being done in South Korea. That's the tourney scene that determines what "netlists" are seen on the maps of everyone else in the world. The variances in the playstyles for each faction is less a "this is more effective than this" and more a "this is one very good way to play this faction". What random scrubs are doing in their local LAN parties doesn't really enter into the discussion.
ramman2004 wrote: Deleted. i can't even post a list LoL screw this game!!!
Wow. You tend to go off the handle don't you. If you're like that in real life, what positives do you bring to a game such that other human beings would find it fun to play against you?
There are more competitive systems - warmachine having been mentioned. Strangely and EPIC and BFG are much more balanced as well, and competitive players will play them enjoyably.
40K can be very compeitive. It depends on the local metagame and if you're a tourney player. The secret is playing against opponents who want to do that, and not scenario based gamers who are trying to re-enact something a from a fluff book, their head, or a movie/real life event.
Now if you really wanted to broaden your horizons you would do both, play competitive and scenerio based.*
*Not the stupid GW victory conditions, real scenarios. For example: -Play a bog standard Marine company (by codex) vs. a bog standard similar Tau force. -Play a lopsided game: Your Tau are a pincer on the planet Kursk, trying to drive through the fortified lines of IG. They are in trenches, infantry only with lots of artillery. You are mechanized and have to get through. Oh and they outnumber you 2.5 to one. -Last Stand of General Farsight. some battered, mixed tau forces and a few bunkers, against a "literal" never ending sea of Orks. How glorious can you make your end?
Zewrath wrote: Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the game's rules were better, my list would be just as powerful in your meta as it would be in any other- thus the point. Asserting that the problem isn't the rules so much as it's the player-base is incorrect because the problems with the player-base is symptomatic of the problem with the rules.
Your comparison of 40K to games like LoL and Starcraft is a false one for a couple of reasons.
1. Players in those games aren't spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for the army that they're using- thus there isn't nearly as much of a sting from repeatedly losing. The 50 bucks or whatever that it costs for the game doesn't require nearly as much of a financial and emotional investment as jumping into 40K does.
2. SC and LoL have a globally-connected community that is automatically regulated via the game's ELO/ranking systems. That means that you will always be able to find players that are around your level, and can choose to surround yourself with equally skilled players. By comparison, with 40K unless you're willing to drive a long time, the meta you're with is the one you're stuck with. I'm in that situation (though I play online). I'm kind of a big fish in a small pond.
3. SC and LoL have metas, but what separates metas in those games is the skill of the individual player. The Protoss as an army functions exactly the same and with the same level of effectiveness in Masters as it does in bronze league, the only thing that's different is the skill between the two players at using it. Likewise, Blizzard has gone through pain-staking effort to balance all three of the factions against one another. So if you're playing Zerg and you get crushed by a Terran, it's not because Terran just happens to be the rock to your Zerg scissors, it's because he outplayed you. In 40K, simply playing as a certain faction can give you an inherent disadvantage against an opponent- and taking the sub-optimal units in that faction will make the gap even larger. So there are many instances in 40K where the game basically becomes robotic and plays itself, as your opponent's list is just so mathematically superior to yours that there's nothing you can really do to win.
Those three things combined make 40K very different from most competitive strategy video games. Unlike SC and LoL, 40K requires a massive amount of financial, emotional and time investment into your army, and unlike those games your army might just be inherently weaker than other peoples' despite all that investment, and if it is weaker there's not a whole lot you can do because you're more or less locked in to the meta around you.
1. What you spend is irrelevant to how I'm not contradicting myself.
2. Choosing players online or not, is still not relevant to how I'm contradicting myself, nor is it relevant on how players play vs each other, as you can join forums to setup matches and even go to tournaments, so the fact that finding people requires more effort invalidates nothing about the point.
3. You clearly have no idea on how either game works or you don't understand what meta is. Starcraft has many biased matchups, there's hundreds of build orders/setups/early game to mid transition, all of which have huge variables based on maps, match ups and which side you are on. Those are all things you have to familiarize yourself with, before you can think outside the box in competitive play in Starcraft. LoL has an ever changing meta due to the fact that in-game items, gold flow and champion abilities changes and even though you can be skilled to a near useless champion, you'll have an inferior statistic if compared to a more powerfull champion with better items. Then there are combos and synergies and team setups. Incidentally, Terran actually rocks Zerg's scissors in most matchups.
Still, now you're talking about how much money you're putting into 40k and how you're stuck with local meta and what now, none of that gak is relevant to how the game is fun with like-minded individuals.
Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
We might call for an agreement first. I know some people don't have enough models to play competitively, and some armies like Daemons and Necron are simply broken.
BlaxicanX wrote: Don't get me wrong, that's not how I personally feel about these other players- the way I look at it, it just comes down to the units I like happening to be a lot better in the current meta.
But in my experience, most people don't interpret it that way, mostly because they're projecting. Most people are intrinsically good, and feel guilty about dictating other people's fun. So when you've beaten someone multiple times and you offer to make the next fight more fun/fair, I think it kind of hits a nerve in a lot of people that's like "man, he feels the need to limit himself because our lists are so uneven. Damn."
idk.
Oh yes, it surely depends on the player you have.
The ones I usually play against understands that, since I have 12 times as much models, I can have much more variation and I can optimize to a level that they will never reach.
And it depends on the general attitude: Do you play a game to win or to field your models?
I paid for, assembled and painted a gigantic amount of models that I just cannot field against a competitive list.
Those models include around 30 Lychguard, 30 Scarabs, 3 Spyders, 20 Flayed Ones, two Monoliths, ca. 40 Immortals and 99 Necron Warriors (yes, 99.. I hate it).
I also own every SC except Anrakyr, 7 Crypteks and 8 Lords/Overlords. All of them useless if I have to be 'competitive'.
It's even worse with my Blood Angels, though I don't have as much, with my 10 Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor and my 30 DC with Lemartes.
To me it's not about 'limiting' myself, but about playing the models I paid a lot for and that I love.
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30 models" and the like.
Since you don't know the difference between meta and skill, I'm also going to assume that you think good rules = balance. Let me answer that for you; no, no it doesn't.
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30
Balance stems from the rules. Codices are rules.
Therefore needing like minded players due to balance is a result of the rules.
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30
Balance stems from the rules. Codices are rules.
Therefore needing like minded players due to balance is a result of the rules.
Only to an extent, but good rules =/= good balance. Even though it isn't the case, if Warmahorde made 2 armies with massive advantages and special rules and as such you'd mostly see people play 2 said armies in tournaments while the others would be shelved. This wouldn't be a case of warmahordes having bad rules and the other armies are solid, but it would be a case of a game with good rules and poor balance.
Just skimmed through the topic. Too much mindless arguing and hatred for me.
It just appears that I am a very lucky person. I consider myself a competitive person that always tries to win (but not "no matter what" obviously) AND I have found such a group of people that most of them are into it. Facing Flying Tyranids allied with Imperial Knights, Necrons wth Belakor (back in 6th), Tau with Bunker filled with Broadsides with Buffmander and 2 additional 3-man Crisis teams armed with Missile Pods, Target Lock, Marker drones and a shooty Commander each (Tau allied with Tau) etc. is a "normal" thing in this group. I try never to complain and accept the challenge.
But... but... but you play Eldar so it doesn't count, in:
3.....
2.....
1.....
Go
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
Well, if the OP wasn't just trolling everyone, it's entirely possible that the peeps in this thread caused a player to quit playing the game...
Only to an extent, but good rules =/= good balance. Even though it isn't the case, if Warmahorde made 2 armies with massive advantages and special rules and as such you'd mostly see people play 2 said armies in tournaments while the others would be shelved. This wouldn't be a case of warmahordes having bad rules and the other armies are solid, but it would be a case of a game with good rules and poor balance.
What do you think faction/army rules are? They're rules. Balance is directly pulled from the rules of the game, whether its the core mechanics, or the rules for a specific unit.
Either way, its all rules. Unless you want to make a specific distinction between core rules and army rules.
macexor wrote: Just skimmed through the topic. Too much mindless arguing and hatred for me.
It just appears that I am a very lucky person. I consider myself a competitive person that always tries to win (but not "no matter what" obviously) AND I have found such a group of people that most of them are into it. Facing Flying Tyranids allied with Imperial Knights, Necrons wth Belakor (back in 6th), Tau with Bunker filled with Broadsides with Buffmander and 2 additional 3-man Crisis teams armed with Missile Pods, Target Lock, Marker drones and a shooty Commander each (Tau allied with Tau) etc. is a "normal" thing in this group. I try never to complain and accept the challenge.
But... but... but you play Eldar so it doesn't count, in:
3.....
2.....
1.....
Go
I think your post is actually very relevant to the discussion. Personally, I would love to play with your group- it sounds really fun. Though I arbitrarily limit all my lists anyway (my Eldar list has only a single wave-serpent in it for example (to transport Fire Dragons) and a Wraithlord in place of a Wraithknight), I'm still a very competitive player and wouldn't bat an eye-lash if my opponent set down, like, a Screamer-star with Knight Titan allies.
But this goes back to what's being discussed. The problem is that because the game's poor rules, these different metas exist in the first place when they shouldn't. I should be able to take a White Scars list /w Knights allies list to any40K match, anywhere, and not effortlessly curb everyone who takes a "fluffy" list completely and utterly regardless of their tactics and strategies*. I can do that if I played Starcraft, for example. I can go anywhere in the World and play Terran, and my opponent will never be at an inherent disadvantage simply by virtue of playing Zerg.
*Within reason. Obviously, if I bring a list that has 12 AV14 vehicles in it and my opponent brings his "melee guard" fluffy list, he probably will and should get annihilated. I'm referring more to a TAC environment.
Only to an extent, but good rules =/= good balance. Even though it isn't the case, if Warmahorde made 2 armies with massive advantages and special rules and as such you'd mostly see people play 2 said armies in tournaments while the others would be shelved. This wouldn't be a case of warmahordes having bad rules and the other armies are solid, but it would be a case of a game with good rules and poor balance.
What do you think faction/army rules are? They're rules. Balance is directly pulled from the rules of the game, whether its the core mechanics, or the rules for a specific unit.
Either way, its all rules. Unless you want to make a specific distinction between core rules and army rules.
That's because "rules" in this context is too broad and given my example above I quite frankly can't see how I should otherwise word the difference. As I said in the hypothetical example, the rules of Warmahordes are great, so if they released and army next month that was horribly imbalanced would you still say Warmahordes had poor rules because of 1 army with overpowered rules?
macexor wrote: Just skimmed through the topic. Too much mindless arguing and hatred for me.
It just appears that I am a very lucky person. I consider myself a competitive person that always tries to win (but not "no matter what" obviously) AND I have found such a group of people that most of them are into it. Facing Flying Tyranids allied with Imperial Knights, Necrons wth Belakor (back in 6th), Tau with Bunker filled with Broadsides with Buffmander and 2 additional 3-man Crisis teams armed with Missile Pods, Target Lock, Marker drones and a shooty Commander each (Tau allied with Tau) etc. is a "normal" thing in this group. I try never to complain and accept the challenge.
But... but... but you play Eldar so it doesn't count, in:
3.....
2.....
1.....
Go
I think your post is actually very relevant to the discussion. Personally, I would love to play with your group- it sounds really fun. Though I arbitrarily limit all my lists anyway (my Eldar list has only a single wave-serpent in it for example (to transport Fire Dragons) and a Wraithlord in place of a Wraithknight), I'm still a very competitive player and wouldn't bat an eye-lash if my opponent set down, like, a Screamer-star with Knight Titan allies.
But this goes back to what's being discussed. The problem is that because the game's poor rules, these different metas exist in the first place when they shouldn't. I should be able to take a White Scars list /w Knights allies list to any40K match, anywhere, and not effortlessly curb everyone who takes a "fluffy" list completely and utterly regardless of their tactics and strategies*. I can do that if I played Starcraft, for example. I can go anywhere in the World and play Terran, and my opponent will never be at an inherent disadvantage simply by virtue of playing Zerg.
*Within reason. Obviously, if I bring a list that has 12 AV14 vehicles in it and my opponent brings his "melee guard" fluffy list, he probably will and should get annihilated. I'm referring more to a TAC environment.
Your entire example is about poor balance and not about poor rules. None of your mentioned lists are TAC. I just told you Zerg actually has (for the most part) a bad matchup vs Terran.
Only to an extent, but good rules =/= good balance. Even though it isn't the case, if Warmahorde made 2 armies with massive advantages and special rules and as such you'd mostly see people play 2 said armies in tournaments while the others would be shelved. This wouldn't be a case of warmahordes having bad rules and the other armies are solid, but it would be a case of a game with good rules and poor balance.
What do you think faction/army rules are? They're rules. Balance is directly pulled from the rules of the game, whether its the core mechanics, or the rules for a specific unit.
Either way, its all rules. Unless you want to make a specific distinction between core rules and army rules.
That's because "rules" in this context is too broad and given my example above I quite frankly can't see how I should otherwise word the difference. As I said in the hypothetical example, the rules of Warmahordes are great, so if they released and army next month that was horribly imbalanced would you still say Warmahordes had poor rules because of 1 army with overpowered rules?
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
Well, if the OP wasn't just trolling everyone, it's entirely possible that the peeps in this thread caused a player to quit playing the game...
COnsidering the OP quit the game the third or fourth post in...
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
The player base is dwindling because, in part, of the poor rules. The poor rules are part of the reason why the game is so unbalanced. It's not just about the army books.
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
Well, if the OP wasn't just trolling everyone, it's entirely possible that the peeps in this thread caused a player to quit playing the game...
To be fair, he looked like he was just looking for vindication anyway, like he wanted us to say that it was okay to not care about what your opponent thinks. IMHO, that's up to him.
The bottom line is that a well-written game has enough balance so that there is no "good" and "bad" choices, you can pick approximately what you want and have an equal chance based on how you use it.
40k is the only game that has this big divide and where there's a backlash against competitive players and units that are worlds better than other alternative options to the point where there is zero reason to take the alternative option and taking it actually hinders you. No other wargame has that. In Warmachine you can pick basically what you want and, unless you pick nothing that has any synergy at all, you can do well. I imagine Infinity, Deadzone, Dropzone Commander and other games are all similar to that. 40k is the outlier.
How does the song go? One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong? That thing that doesn't belong is 40k.
Your entire example is about poor balance and not about poor rules. None of your mentioned lists are TAC. I just told you Zerg actually has (for the most part) a bad matchup vs Terran.
The balance is created by the rules, or are we allowed to re-write our unit stats now? If the rules were better (and this includes unit stat-lines, point costs, the whole chebang) then the balance of the game would be better.
I'm really struggling to see how you're making an argument that poor balance =/= poor rules when it is the rules that are 100% responsible for every single aspect of the creation of the game and how it works?
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Because not everyone can afford to by the new ''bestest thing'' or for some other reason, they don't keep up to date with the current power lists and have been using the same kind of army, either because of theme or model limitations, for a long time and have no intention to change them.
In this way, maybe you are fortunate enough to have the money to buy the new vogue army but if you play someone who just happens to be playing his Blood Angles Assault Marine horde because he likes the idea of Vampire Jump Jet Psychos and you instantly wipe out a unit a turn with an ignore cover Ion Accelorator where he gets no saves whatsoever and you only have to roll a 2 to kill him, kinda sucks the fun out of it?
Just saw this and have to say... Sorry.. I faced this Problem a few Times... Got some Friends who dont buy that much stuff but expect to win... Even if i make a rather" nice" list they dont stand a chance... Cause.. In their astra militarum armies..No scions.. No wyverns no psykers no knight... And they expect to Win against a quite new codex...like tau or Grey knights.. How to face a Knight when you have,not updated yourarmy since 4 years?
Sorry... In every competitive hobby you have to invest Money...you cant Beat a mercedes sl amg 2014 with an sl from 1998... Pc games, sports... Its always about updating... Purchasing a new Unit or vehicle is possible for every player
This is what I'm saying. My list isn't even %100 percent perfect. It has holes which I'm working on and I still get complaints cause I run 3 riptides. I have no physkers nor CC ability. So i make that up with Markerlights and Riptides but thats too OP. It makes my laugh and cry at the same time.
Because it is widely acknowledged Tau are broken for the same reason Eldar are. Every army is supposed to have a weakness (no CC ability and fragility, respectively) but these two armies are so well equipped to mitigate those weaknesses compared to other armies that they might as well not have them. Tau have bad melee, but their mobility and shooting is so incredibly powerful that no one will ever make it into melee with them if they are being controlled by a semi competent player, and that forces you to try to outshoot tau, which no one can really do. This makes Tau incredibly frustrating and un-fun to fight. I have a close friend that plays Tau, and its a shame he does because I don't end up playing against him as much as I'd like because Tau are for the most part just not fun to play against. Even when I table him I can almost guarantee I didn't have a shred of fun all game just because fighting Tau isn't really even what I'd consider "challenging." They are just on an entirely different level of gameplay from orks, and I consider myself a relatively competitive player and don't hold back. I don't ever expect my opponent to be holding back either, because a good, tough game, win or lose, is awesome. But Tau basically play themselves, especially if you're running three riptides, dear gork. The problem isn't that people have beef fighting against competitive lists, it's that the power gap between certain lists, and often entire codexes, makes it so that a "Competitive List" from army X doesn't even stand a chance against a "Casual List" from army Y.
Tau don't NEED to take "competitive lists" to win games. A Tau TAC list will beat any other army's (bar Tau and Eldar) TAC list before the game begins, unless the Tau player is incredibly bad or unlucky, or the other person is incredibly good, or lucky, or any combination of those 4. Gork save you if your local tau player list tailors.
Being a competitive player and bringing a soul crushing tournament list are not the same thing. If you're playing at a tournament, by all means bring a soul crushing tournament list, but during Sunday afternoon gaming down at the club, for the most part it's not cool, and people won't play against you after a while because even if you are a nice person, by bringing something on a power level other players dont even HAVE ACCESS TO makes you a dick. A monkey could play a soul crushing tournament list and win against a competitive player not running an optimized list, or heaven forbid, a middle or bottom of the pack army entirely. A competitive player strives to be on equal footing with his opponent so that the better man wins, not the better codex.
This rant also applies to Eldar. I don't begrudge the players of said armies because it's not their fault that GeeDubz elevated them to god-status, but I will not apologize for my temperament around said players who refuse to step down from Olympus (and not spam 3 Riptides, Serpents, Invis Bombs, etc) and fight me on even ground for the sake of a fair, competitive game. We shouldn't have to police ourselves and each other, but because of GW's gakky balancing, we have to, if we're going to have any semblance of fairness or enjoyment in this game.
EDIT: Reading some of the other posts about super competitive metas with knights and seerstars, etc. I have no beef with such things as long as all players are on the same page. If I bring my middleweight, enjoyable 1500 TAC I don't want to be throwing down against Horus and a Warhound Titan. Its on both players to make sure they're on the same page on how competitive the game is going to be, and if one player is outclassed by it either because they are unwilling or unable to play to a certain competitive power level, it is on the other player to tone it down or not play.
If you want a min-max tournament list - there's nothing bad in it. It's just another type of fun. Some people like it, some don't. But there's usually enough players. Though, be prepared to buy lots of new stuff when editions and codexes change to remain at the top if that's what you want from the game. Some people don't watch tabletop games from purely competitive perspective. For example, i know that it's much better to take a biker boss even in footsloggas. But i take a footslogging boss cause i like it this way. He's less effective but pleases my eye.
Different people think differently. Just find other competitive players and you'll be fine. There are usually enough of them. But don't get frustrated to get your ass handled every game for quite some time vs such guyz cause winning is prime for them too and not all in this game is about list-building. You simply won't have enough experience at first.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Because not everyone can afford to by the new ''bestest thing'' or for some other reason, they don't keep up to date with the current power lists and have been using the same kind of army, either because of theme or model limitations, for a long time and have no intention to change them.
In this way, maybe you are fortunate enough to have the money to buy the new vogue army but if you play someone who just happens to be playing his Blood Angles Assault Marine horde because he likes the idea of Vampire Jump Jet Psychos and you instantly wipe out a unit a turn with an ignore cover Ion Accelorator where he gets no saves whatsoever and you only have to roll a 2 to kill him, kinda sucks the fun out of it?
Just saw this and have to say... Sorry.. I faced this Problem a few Times... Got some Friends who dont buy that much stuff but expect to win... Even if i make a rather" nice" list they dont stand a chance... Cause.. In their astra militarum armies..No scions.. No wyverns no psykers no knight... And they expect to Win against a quite new codex...like tau or Grey knights.. How to face a Knight when you have,not updated yourarmy since 4 years?
Sorry... In every competitive hobby you have to invest Money...you cant Beat a mercedes sl amg 2014 with an sl from 1998... Pc games, sports... Its always about updating... Purchasing a new Unit or vehicle is possible for every player
I've seen lots of games vs tournament tau lists won by footslogging guards + conscripts. Priests and comissars are amazing. And, in all fairness, guard blobs are doing extremely well vs riptides. Missile pods are brutal though, but possible to overcome if most stuff is invested in riptides.
Sometimes regular lists have great chances vs competitive ones. For example, my footslogging ork horde fares well vs imperial knights and csm spawn deathstars alike. They also do good vs riptide-spam tau. A TAC tau list with firewarriors, transports and some crysis suits is much harder for me than min-max riptide + broadside spam. However, my local meta is now full of tournament-oriented players that are not used to facing footslogging hordes. That's why common footslogging orkses that are considered a fairly mediocre list do amazing for me The great part is that i collected footslogging orkses cause i like them. And than they unexpectedly happened to be viable! So, i'm double happy
One of the reasons people suggest going fluffy is cause rules change. If you go heavy on one uber-unit, it's quite possible that in a year or so rules will change and your uber-guyz will be worse than mediocre. But when you have a bunch of these and those, some get better, some worse, and you're somewhere around the same fine level.
Besides, the more different stuff you have, the more variative your tactix can be.
Your entire example is about poor balance and not about poor rules. None of your mentioned lists are TAC. I just told you Zerg actually has (for the most part) a bad matchup vs Terran.
The balance is created by the rules, or are we allowed to re-write our unit stats now? If the rules were better (and this includes unit stat-lines, point costs, the whole chebang) then the balance of the game would be better.
Fleet is a rule that isn't OP, as is Relentless, Rage, Rampage and Fearless. They are balanced rules but becomes unbalanced when all of those things stack into 1 unit or other shenanigans. Still doesn't make the individual rules unbalanced.
An army is created by the rules of the BRB, but the haven't been costed properly or adjusted equally, so the mentioned mono slaneesh list is thrice as powerfull as a mono khorne list, but that's not the fault of the rules of 40k, it's the fault of balancing 1 unit vs another. The rules are used as a tool to create armies, but when the codex creator makes a unit lackluster, it's usually a combination of between overcosted points, lack of giving the unit a meaningfull rule from the BRB or the exact opposite.
If I give you all the correct tools to build a car and you built a gakky car, that doesn't mean that you didn't had the right tools for the job, you just sucked at using the correct tools for the job.
I think balance is one of the issues for 40k. Comparing it to say X-Wing, doesn't so much matter what ship you have, anything fielded can damage another ship. Tantive being the biggest is still limited to firing at 1 or 2 ships a turn which in turn have a chance of surviving, any other ships you have still have a chance of firing on the Tantive and doing damage. The 'weakest' and 'slowest' ships still get a chance in the game to do something.
40k has a semi balance. troops vs troops pretty much anyone has a chance. Certain tank vs troops, the chance remains that troops can damage the tank. Blob of Guardians can shoot and assault Marine's even though they will be getting shot up quicker with their lower range. So there's a kind of balance and chance there.
Those same troops vs certain other things though, no chance. Nothing they have can damage it and they have no way of surviving if they are attacked. The costing of certain choices can make it hard for certain armies to counter. An 1850 point game where one side has access to a formerly Apocalypse game tank is certainly unbalanced when it comes to playing an army that hasn't got access to things that can damage it at the same points cost. Some of this has changed with the bound/unbound rules but when players are restricted because of the price it can put that disadvantage a bit higher. $150 for a Wraithknight. $100 for a Fire Prism. $65 for Dire Avengers.
I think people like playing against the big stuff some times, its something different and you get to see how it works. But when the balance is so bad that you can lose a game in 2 turns, thats not much fun for anyone and then GW removes stuff from your codex which is one of the only things that actually can combat certain things it makes it worse.
Not that they always get it wrong, look at Space Hulk, pretty balanced. Either side can win out of the box.
Neither Space Hulk or X-wing is perfectly balanced. But the chance to win is still kinda 50/50 regardless of the builds. Thats where 40k sorta doesn't have it. Its a bit like the Assassin Creed games, they went from kinda balanced to "Oh man, this is cool, so is this oh and this, put all the stuff in there. All of it." And there is a mess. That skewed thing is where competitive gaming goes out, we all start with kinda balanced stuff on the table top and then all of a sudden everything you have is sticks and you're fighting guys armed with laser guns. You might take a few down but there is no hope in hell you will win, and that unbalancing robs you of epic moments in the game. Sure watching your opponents army die to a single shot is fun for you, but for the other guy thats pretty hard to take and then they stop playing because all they'll ever be facing until they can afford to upgrade is the same kind of defeat regardless of what they can build from what they come into the game with.
I personally thought X-Wing was going to be terrible with only 2 TIE's and a single X-Wing in the box, I mean how can one ship beat 2? But then about 30mins later you realise its got a balance there, not perfect but its enough, you have a chance. It comes down to strategy. Paper, Rock, Scissors one is able to take another. But add in a Nuke and the one with the nuke wins. Then everyone takes nukes. And it gets less fun.
"Competitive player" is too broad of a term. In general people do NOT hate them.
Now, when you break that broad group down into subgroups, you might find some ofthose subgroups are hated. Usually, it is members of those specific subgroups who coin the term competative player in order to lump themselves in with the groups who are not hated and try to make the "haters" look bad
It comes down to attitude of the player more so that the competitiveness. I've seen players who play purely for fun be total jerks.
It someone hates you and you think its because your competitive, it isnt for that reason, its because of your attitude and how you treat them.
I can understand the rules being off. I just find that frustrating but live with it. I dont take it out on the players who live within them. Now those who scrutinize it searching for something to exploit.... then we are going back into attitudes.
Fleet is a rule that isn't OP, as is Relentless, Rage, Rampage and Fearless. They are balanced rules but becomes unbalanced when all of those things stack into 1 unit or other shenanigans. Still doesn't make the individual rules unbalanced.
An army is created by the rules of the BRB, but the haven't been costed properly or adjusted equally, so the mentioned mono slaneesh list is thrice as powerfull as a mono khorne list, but that's not the fault of the rules of 40k, it's the fault of balancing 1 unit vs another. The rules are used as a tool to create armies, but when the codex creator makes a unit lackluster, it's usually a combination of between overcosted points, lack of giving the unit a meaningfull rule from the BRB or the exact opposite.
If I give you all the correct tools to build a car and you built a gakky car, that doesn't mean that you didn't had the right tools for the job, you just sucked at using the correct tools for the job.
Yeah, those are all rules issues that happen to create issues in balance.
The two are not separate, but are heavily intertwined, where on affects the other. You can't separate the rules from balance, and indeed having a game with strong core rules and incredibly poor balance means the game has poor rules overall.
Unit profiles, stats, rules, and wargear are all created using the rules for the game. Any issues with balance between created units is a reflection of the rules, how they're implemented, and how they all function together. Trying to separate rules from balance is, well, odd and not a little confusing.
Is there a specific point you plan on making by drawing a line between these two things you've created? Because everyone else seems to agree that rules are rules, whether they're the rules for how to move a model or the rules for the weapon on the model, they all come together in the end to create a game with factions you can use.
You can discuss balance as an aspect of the rules, but stating they're two separate entities is a pretty big logical stretch.
The problem with w40k right now is that its a game build around skirmish mechanics played with a non skirmish armies.
we once tried to see what would happen, if warmachine was played with big 100+ model armies. Took 4 casters each side and we quit after 3 times. The side that started always won. The games were stupid and stuff like over laping feats was close to what a ++2inv is in w40k.
IMO w40k will never be fixed, it will never be a good game until GW decides to restart the whole thing and make rules for a mass combat system and not try to make a 2ed played with 150+models per side.
i can understand that. GW seems to be all about selling masses of models. Epic was the game for HUGE armies and normal games should be for smaller actions.
The issue is not the rules though, it is about the attitudes of the players and how they treat other players. THAT is where the hate comes in.
I've played TOTALLY competative players and really enjoyed the game and their company even though I got my butt handed to me on a platter. I would gladly play them again.
I have played "just for fun" guys who were total jerks and handed them their butt and not enjoyed the game at all and will not play them again.
Makumba wrote: The problem with w40k right now is that its a game build around skirmish mechanics played with a non skirmish armies.
Not the only problem, but this is definitely up there.
The thing is, even as the model-count increases, the rules seem to be becoming even more 'skirmishy'.
e.g. In 4th and 5th you just allocated wounds to members of a squad as you pleased - it was generally assumed that they were moving around etc.
Now though, we have to micro-manage every sodding model in every sodding unit to keep the characters, special weapons etc. safe. And, because of it, we've had to add a whole new mechanic in the form of LoS. Why is this necessary? If we're getting away from a skirmish game (and we are), then the emphasis should be on the units not the models.
Makumba wrote: The problem with w40k right now is that its a game build around skirmish mechanics played with a non skirmish armies.
Not the only problem, but this is definitely up there.
The thing is, even as the model-count increases, the rules seem to be becoming even more 'skirmishy'.
e.g. In 4th and 5th you just allocated wounds to members of a squad as you pleased - it was generally assumed that they were moving around etc.
Now though, we have to micro-manage every sodding model in every sodding unit to keep the characters, special weapons etc. safe. And, because of it, we've had to add a whole new mechanic in the form of LoS. Why is this necessary? If we're getting away from a skirmish game (and we are), then the emphasis should be on the units not the models.
Exactly. In a large-scale game you don't care about the individual models of the unit, just that it's a unit with say a Plasma Gun and a Missile Launcher. That's it. 40k has that stupid closest model stuff which requires basically metagaming the models so you don't lose your Sergeant/Special/Heavy weapons guy first, and serves absolutely no purpose.
Fleet is a rule that isn't OP, as is Relentless, Rage, Rampage and Fearless. They are balanced rules but becomes unbalanced when all of those things stack into 1 unit or other shenanigans. Still doesn't make the individual rules unbalanced.
An army is created by the rules of the BRB, but the haven't been costed properly or adjusted equally, so the mentioned mono slaneesh list is thrice as powerfull as a mono khorne list, but that's not the fault of the rules of 40k, it's the fault of balancing 1 unit vs another. The rules are used as a tool to create armies, but when the codex creator makes a unit lackluster, it's usually a combination of between overcosted points, lack of giving the unit a meaningfull rule from the BRB or the exact opposite.
If I give you all the correct tools to build a car and you built a gakky car, that doesn't mean that you didn't had the right tools for the job, you just sucked at using the correct tools for the job.
Yeah, those are all rules issues that happen to create issues in balance.
The two are not separate, but are heavily intertwined, where on affects the other. You can't separate the rules from balance, and indeed having a game with strong core rules and incredibly poor balance means the game has poor rules overall.
Unit profiles, stats, rules, and wargear are all created using the rules for the game. Any issues with balance between created units is a reflection of the rules, how they're implemented, and how they all function together. Trying to separate rules from balance is, well, odd and not a little confusing.
Is there a specific point you plan on making by drawing a line between these two things you've created? Because everyone else seems to agree that rules are rules, whether they're the rules for how to move a model or the rules for the weapon on the model, they all come together in the end to create a game with factions you can use.
You can discuss balance as an aspect of the rules, but stating they're two separate entities is a pretty big logical stretch.
*Edit* Words are hard.
It isn't a logical stretch, it's a fact. You're just too narrow minded to see that, which quite frankly doesn't surprise me, given some of my provided examples are invalided (according to you) because you fail to apply logic across the games with the pathetic excuse that war games are more complex, even though you are provably wrong. The fact that you think rules exists in only one dimension and fail to grasp my post above, explaining the difference is enough for me to see that I'm either talking to a dense or stubborn person.
I could care less what you think and others in the forum believe. The color green, is still green, no matter how matter people thinks it's red.
The point in in drawing the line? Again, this makes me wonder if you're dense or not. You said I contradicted myself by saying the problem wasn't in the rules. I told you I didn't, said why I didn't, said that the problem lies in balance.
Makumba wrote: The problem with w40k right now is that its a game build around skirmish mechanics played with a non skirmish armies.
we once tried to see what would happen, if warmachine was played with big 100+ model armies. Took 4 casters each side and we quit after 3 times. The side that started always won. The games were stupid and stuff like over laping feats was close to what a ++2inv is in w40k.
IMO w40k will never be fixed, it will never be a good game until GW decides to restart the whole thing and make rules for a mass combat system and not try to make a 2ed played with 150+models per side.
This.
Kill Team or sub 1000 point games are currently, IMO, the best way to play 40K nearly all the balance issues disappear, nobody really has access to anything that other factions have no answer to and in-game decision making seems to be relevant again.
Fleet is a rule that isn't OP, as is Relentless, Rage, Rampage and Fearless. They are balanced rules but becomes unbalanced when all of those things stack into 1 unit or other shenanigans. Still doesn't make the individual rules unbalanced.
An army is created by the rules of the BRB, but the haven't been costed properly or adjusted equally, so the mentioned mono slaneesh list is thrice as powerfull as a mono khorne list, but that's not the fault of the rules of 40k, it's the fault of balancing 1 unit vs another. The rules are used as a tool to create armies, but when the codex creator makes a unit lackluster, it's usually a combination of between overcosted points, lack of giving the unit a meaningfull rule from the BRB or the exact opposite.
If I give you all the correct tools to build a car and you built a gakky car, that doesn't mean that you didn't had the right tools for the job, you just sucked at using the correct tools for the job.
Yeah, those are all rules issues that happen to create issues in balance.
The two are not separate, but are heavily intertwined, where on affects the other. You can't separate the rules from balance, and indeed having a game with strong core rules and incredibly poor balance means the game has poor rules overall.
Unit profiles, stats, rules, and wargear are all created using the rules for the game. Any issues with balance between created units is a reflection of the rules, how they're implemented, and how they all function together. Trying to separate rules from balance is, well, odd and not a little confusing.
Is there a specific point you plan on making by drawing a line between these two things you've created? Because everyone else seems to agree that rules are rules, whether they're the rules for how to move a model or the rules for the weapon on the model, they all come together in the end to create a game with factions you can use.
You can discuss balance as an aspect of the rules, but stating they're two separate entities is a pretty big logical stretch.
*Edit* Words are hard.
It isn't a logical stretch, it's a fact. You're just too narrow minded to see that, which quite frankly doesn't surprise me, given some of my provided examples are invalided (according to you) because you fail to apply logic across the games with the pathetic excuse that war games are more complex, even though you are provably wrong. The fact that you think rules exists in only one dimension and fail to grasp my post above, explaining the difference is enough for me to see that I'm either talking to a dense or stubborn person.
I could care less what you think and others in the forum believe. The color green, is still green, no matter how matter people thinks it's red.
The point in in drawing the line? Again, this makes me wonder if you're dense or not. You said I contradicted myself by saying the problem wasn't in the rules. I told you I didn't, said why I didn't, said that the problem lies in balance.
It isn't a failure to grasp your post, it is your failure to make a salient point.
Although I suppose, in theory, we could have a Schroedinger's Wargame, in that a game that hasn't had any rules written yet is theoretically perfectly balanced and hideously unbalanced simultaneously. However, once rules are created, this situation must resolve.
Zewrath, take a breath, you make sense but I guess differentiating between unit rules and BRB I have to ask: "to what purpose?" Differing ways of looking at things.
Blacksails is agreeing to a certain extent it is just the specific meaning of "rules". Rules determine balance, balance is an outcome.
Rules make a structure to hang a game on.
The combination of those rules for units and point structures are an "expression" of those rules and ARE rules because they are determined by the author not the player.
Differentiating between codex author and BRB author is pointless: it is controlled by GW and determines gameplay good or bad.
You can have a fantastic rule-set and have game-balance that sucks. Why else is there such an outcry with each FAQ, Codex, DataSlate release? Gameplay is changed by each of these documents, would they not be by definition rules?
Balance: Getting the appropriate amount of unit "capability" for points cost. Adding other forms of limitation (squadron selection vs 0-1 selection, Unique can only have one, etc). There are a few tools out there to try to address inequity of cost in armies. The Allies list was once a tool for that, it seems not very limiting as of late and the unbound, unhinged, method just adds to the fun... they seem to have washed their hands of managing the complexity of balance.
In that post alone, you have made three personal attacks, not counting the other ones from previous posts.
People might take you seriously if you could argue a point without insulting and acting condescending.
I have no desire to argue with someone like yourself. You may think you're right, or more right, but it doesn't give you the right to act like an ass to other posters.
First- No I wasn't trolling when I asked the Original question. I was genuinely frustrated with Warhammer 40k players in my area and the rules. I never received so much hate playing a game for wanting to win and building a good list.
Second- I have decided on selling my second army of Grey Knights with Assassin detachment and just keeping my Tau list. I will not be buying anymore armies and only updating my Tau list if new CODEX models come out. I will try to play in Local tourney only or with like minded players.
Third- I have learner games set up for Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War this weekend. Talk is armies for these games cost only 200 bucks to make. I will take my knight budget and build a army for one of these games depending how I like them.
Fourth- I'm really disappointed in myself mostly cause I didn't listen to the warnings about 40k when I entered the hobby. The lore and models are so amazing but when you take the HORRIBLY WRITTEN RULES, LACK OF WORK ETHIC ATGW and PLAYER attitude. it doesn't make up for it and doesn't make it a hobby I want to keep spending time and money on.
Final - Thanks everyone for the post on this thread. It gave me incredible insight and helped shape my final decision.
In that post alone, you have made three personal attacks, not counting the other ones from previous posts.
People might take you seriously if you could argue a point without insulting and acting condescending.
I have no desire to argue with someone like yourself. You may think you're right, or more right, but it doesn't give you the right to act like an ass to other posters.
Okay, you know what, I'll admit that I had a very stressful and bad day, coupled with the stupid posts from Morgoth. I shouldn't be posting in a forum until I calm down. Even though our posts have been hectic, I'll complement you for listening and making sound arguments, even if I failed to deliver on the listening part. I'll post more in this discussion when I'm less stressed out.
First- No I wasn't trolling when I asked the Original question. I was genuinely frustrated with Warhammer 40k players in my area and the rules. I never received so much hate playing a game for wanting to win and building a good list.
Second- I have decided on selling my second army of Grey Knights with Assassin detachment and just keeping my Tau list. I will not be buying anymore armies and only updating my Tau list if new CODEX models come out. I will try to play in Local tourney only or with like minded players.
Third- I have learner games set up for Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War this weekend. Talk is armies for these games cost only 200 bucks to make. I will take my knight budget and build a army for one of these games depending how I like them.
Fourth- I'm really disappointed in myself mostly cause I didn't listen to the warnings about 40k when I entered the hobby. The lore and models are so amazing but when you take the HORRIBLY WRITTEN RULES, LACK OF WORK ETHIC ATGW and PLAYER attitude. it doesn't make up for it and doesn't make it a hobby I want to keep spending time and money on.
Final - Thanks everyone for the post on this thread. It gave me incredible insight and helped shape my final decision.
I wish you the best of luck and I hope you find a good time in a game that more suits your style of play.
(I hope you go Warmachine because I happen to love that game.)
No problem. Many posters are purposely mixing rules with competitiveness in order to create a smoke screen and give themselves the opportunity to climb on their unrelated pet soapboxes.
The fact remains, it is not the "competitive player" but rather the "jerk" players that are hated.
Okay, you know what, I'll admit that I had a very stressful and bad day, coupled with the stupid posts from Morgoth. I shouldn't be posting in a forum until I calm down. Even though our posts have been hectic, I'll complement you for listening and making sound arguments, even if I failed to deliver on the listening part. I'll post more in this discussion when I'm less stressed out.
Appreciated.
We all have those days. Crack a beer, hug the puppy, roll some dice.
I feel the issue isnt competitive player hate but one of 2 things.
1.) Blaming the other player as "too competitive" as a way of scapegoating because you arent good enough to beat them.
2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I've played competative players who took cheesy armies and handed my butt to me and yet i still enjoyed the game and their company. Likewise, I've played just for fun guys and not enjoyed it a bit. I think its the attitude of the player and how they treat others that is hated.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
This goes back to the rules not matterin when you hate a player. You can hate the rules and you can hate the player. Those are two seperate issues. You dont hate the player because of the rules. You hate him because of his actions and attitudes.
Too many are purposely mixing the two in order to drag their pet soapboxes into a thread where they dont belong. Personally, I would stop complaining and work on learning new skills, strategies and tactics instead of hating the guy I lose to just because they are convenient.
First- No I wasn't trolling when I asked the Original question. I was genuinely frustrated with Warhammer 40k players in my area and the rules. I never received so much hate playing a game for wanting to win and building a good list.
Second- I have decided on selling my second army of Grey Knights with Assassin detachment and just keeping my Tau list. I will not be buying anymore armies and only updating my Tau list if new CODEX models come out. I will try to play in Local tourney only or with like minded players.
Third- I have learner games set up for Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War this weekend. Talk is armies for these games cost only 200 bucks to make. I will take my knight budget and build a army for one of these games depending how I like them.
Fourth- I'm really disappointed in myself mostly cause I didn't listen to the warnings about 40k when I entered the hobby. The lore and models are so amazing but when you take the HORRIBLY WRITTEN RULES, LACK OF WORK ETHIC ATGW and PLAYER attitude. it doesn't make up for it and doesn't make it a hobby I want to keep spending time and money on.
Final - Thanks everyone for the post on this thread. It gave me incredible insight and helped shape my final decision.
Congrats, its a good call on your part. You can see from this topic how fractured the 40k community is.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Yes and no, If I play chess against a relative beginner, chances are I don't want to just play and mate that player as quickly as possible and expect that we will both enjoy the game. Same with other board games, I might play differently against a beginner than against a seasoned vet. The big difference in 40k/fantasy, is that this is not always a matter of player skill, and 2 similarly skilled players can end up in a complete mismatch. So the difference in these games is that the "type of game" changes what you bring to the game, rather than simply how you play the game.
ramman2004 wrote: Final - Thanks everyone for the post on this thread. It gave me incredible insight and helped shape my final decision.
Great.
We scared him off...
He gained "incredible insight" to the dark places the players of 40k go.
Yeah, it takes real stubbornness and a thick skin to play this game, it is not for everyone.
If you stick with it for years at a time you will be rewarded with not caring who you play, you have your awesome miniatures to keep you company at night.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Yes and no, If I play chess against a relative beginner, chances are I don't want to just play and mate that player as quickly as possible and expect that we will both enjoy the game. Same with other board games, I might play differently against a beginner than against a seasoned vet. The big difference in 40k/fantasy, is that this is not always a matter of player skill, and 2 similarly skilled players can end up in a complete mismatch. So the difference in these games is that the "type of game" changes what you bring to the game, rather than simply how you play the game.
There's a clear delineation between taking it easy on someone as a choice and an inherent mismatch in the abilities of two forces. Any argument about balance presupposes an approximate equivalency in player skill that the scenarios you're talking about do not.
EDIT
Except they do, because I fails at readin an' that.
And again, that does not justify hating the person. The rules and the person are two separate issues. We are not discussing the rules or the balance or effectiveness of units or anything of that nature in the thread. The thread is about the competativ PLAYER, and we have already established that the only reason to hate the players would be because of his or her actions and attitudes. The game itself is unrelated.
Which was my point, but that does not mean in any 2 player game "any 2 players" should be able to just sit down and play with no idea about the "type of game" going to be played. But just to look at wargaming, no game exists where we can each take whatever we want, and always get a balanced game. The issue with GW games, is that there exist models that essentially are good under no circumstance which is less true in other systems.
To put my intial point differently if I play a beginner in chess, and fools mate him on move 3, then he will end up feeling the game is every bit as crappy as a GW game. The difference with GW games, is that they take things that were good and make them crap, and vice versa, and so I can show up with an army and be completely mismatched inspite of player skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: And again, that does not justify hating the person. The rules and the person are two separate issues. We are not discussing the rules or the balance or effectiveness of units or anything of that nature in the thread. The thread is about the competativ PLAYER, and we have already established that the only reason to hate the players would be because of his or her actions and attitudes. The game itself is unrelated.
Correct it does not justify hating a player, assuming that the competitive player does not rub in the victory, or continually bring a high tier list against lesser opponents, and play to crush them. If I were to do that I could expect people to at least hate playing against me.
Which again brings us back to the player. You can lose a totally mismatched game and still have fun. I have done so before and would gladly play the same player again. Likewise, I have totally trounced players and will refuse to play them again because of how they acted.
The player and the rules remain seperat issues and separate discussions. This thread is about hating the player.
Whoops sorry thought you were replying to me. We are actually on the same page.
The thread is about hating the player, but that hate stems from the rules/game. I don't see threads about hating competitive players on the Privateer Press forums, because the game tries to balance it. If you play one of the top players, you're likely going to get trounced, but not because they have a better list than you, and even if you lose you're going to walk away with some valuable insight to how the game is played. Almost every game you learn something you didn't know before, or how something interacts with something else.
EVIL INC wrote: And again, that does not justify hating the person. The rules and the person are two separate issues. We are not discussing the rules or the balance or effectiveness of units or anything of that nature in the thread. The thread is about the competativ PLAYER, and we have already established that the only reason to hate the players would be because of his or her actions and attitudes. The game itself is unrelated.
I'm not sure.
If I ask you to play 50 points of WMH, 150 Points of Infinity, 40 Soul Stones of Malifaux, etc, etc, you know exactly what I am asking for. To say 'Only using Prime MKII models' or 'No Paradiso units' or 'Lady Justice is OP, and no Neverborn either' would be out of the norm.
But for some reason, 40k has become so convoluted rules that just asking for a 1500 point game now necessitates half a dozen more questions. LoW? Super Heavy? Forge World? Whateveriscurrentlycompetitive-star? Mission cards?
It appears to me that the game is most certainly a factor.
To expand a bit: Even if you have a game against a great player where he is a lot of fun to play, you're third game getting tabled at the bottom of two is going to be much less enjoyable than the first. It becomes a point where that player who is stomping you is a bad guy JUST for playing the codex/army/models he does. That is where the rub lies.
A donkey cave is a donkey cave in any system. A guy playing a list he likes is only considered a competitive jerk in one.
Fleet is a rule that isn't OP, as is Relentless, Rage, Rampage and Fearless. They are balanced rules but becomes unbalanced when all of those things stack into 1 unit or other shenanigans. Still doesn't make the individual rules unbalanced.
An army is created by the rules of the BRB, but the haven't been costed properly or adjusted equally, so the mentioned mono slaneesh list is thrice as powerfull as a mono khorne list, but that's not the fault of the rules of 40k, it's the fault of balancing 1 unit vs another. The rules are used as a tool to create armies, but when the codex creator makes a unit lackluster, it's usually a combination of between overcosted points, lack of giving the unit a meaningfull rule from the BRB or the exact opposite.
If I give you all the correct tools to build a car and you built a gakky car, that doesn't mean that you didn't had the right tools for the job, you just sucked at using the correct tools for the job.
Yeah, those are all rules issues that happen to create issues in balance.
The two are not separate, but are heavily intertwined, where on affects the other. You can't separate the rules from balance, and indeed having a game with strong core rules and incredibly poor balance means the game has poor rules overall.
No, it means the game has poor balance overall. The balance in 40k isn't horrible - I won't defend units like the Pyrovore, but they're more the outlier than the norm.
The rules are horrible. The fact is that some units are created (yes, using rules) that the designers either didn't understand their own rules, or didn't take them into account when designing the unit - and that resulted in poor balance.
Change the rules, balance is restored. Change balance, rules don't have to change. Do you understand the distinction?
Unit profiles, stats, rules, and wargear are all created using the rules for the game. Any issues with balance between created units is a reflection of the rules, how they're implemented, and how they all function together. Trying to separate rules from balance is, well, odd and not a little confusing.
It's really not. When designing a game, do you start with Army books and units, or rules like "How do you move?"
Is there a specific point you plan on making by drawing a line between these two things you've created? Because everyone else seems to agree that rules are rules, whether they're the rules for how to move a model or the rules for the weapon on the model, they all come together in the end to create a game with factions you can use.
You can discuss balance as an aspect of the rules, but stating they're two separate entities is a pretty big logical stretch.
It's really not. In fact, it makes more sense to discuss them separately because it allows you to look at things like Invisibility and say "Nope, no matter what unit uses that it's not a balanced power." (Invisibility discussion can happen elsewhere). You can then look at things like Vespids and say "Those rules are fine, but the point value is too high - let's lower that."
Saying "EVERYTHING ARE RULEZ" is technically correct, but a poor statement. Just like saying everything in my fridge is food - while technically correct, I'd rather not eat raw ground beef.
EVIL INC wrote: And again, that does not justify hating the person. The rules and the person are two separate issues. We are not discussing the rules or the balance or effectiveness of units or anything of that nature in the thread. The thread is about the competativ PLAYER, and we have already established that the only reason to hate the players would be because of his or her actions and attitudes. The game itself is unrelated.
I'm not sure.
If I ask you to play 50 points of WMH, 150 Points of Infinity, 40 Soul Stones of Malifaux, etc, etc, you know exactly what I am asking for. To say 'Only using Prime MKII models' or 'No Paradiso units' or 'Lady Justice is OP, and no Neverborn either' would be out of the norm.
But for some reason, 40k has become so convoluted rules that just asking for a 1500 point game now necessitates half a dozen more questions. LoW? Super Heavy? Forge World? Whateveriscurrentlycompetitive-star? Mission cards?
It appears to me that the game is most certainly a factor.
This is a really good point that most people are overlooking. It's not a player issue (overall) - it's a rules and balance issue.
Even if 40k's ruleset was balanced, the rules would suck. Look at the Psychic phase - ask 10 people if a Librarian attached to a Purifier squad can hast Hammerhand after the squad has and you'll get 5 yes's and 5 no's. That has literally nothing to do with balance and everything to do with rules.
Change the rules, balance is restored. Change balance, rules don't have to change.
Not sure you could have the latter without the former. Not without something like "You get 750 points of OPCheesenessMarines and I get 1500 points of NerfBattedBaddies"... which is still changing the rules.
It's really not. When designing a game, do you start with Army books and units, or rules like "How do you move?"
This is GW we're talking about. While you or I might start with the "how do you move?" bit, they seem to have started with "Wouldn't it be awesome if..." bit.
Even if 40k's ruleset was balanced, the rules would suck. Look at the Psychic phase - ask 10 people if a Librarian attached to a Purifier squad can hast Hammerhand after the squad has and you'll get 5 yes's and 5 no's. That has literally nothing to do with balance and everything to do with rules.
I'm not sure where those yes's would be getting that idea. No unit may cast the same psychic power more than once, and Independent characters who join up with a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. (BRB p.166)
Guyz, when will you get over the "poor rules". 7-th ed and late 6-th ed codexes are showing an extremely good power ballance. Please, be honest, when was the last time you've actually played the game/
Even if 40k's ruleset was balanced, the rules would suck. Look at the Psychic phase - ask 10 people if a Librarian attached to a Purifier squad can hast Hammerhand after the squad has and you'll get 5 yes's and 5 no's. That has literally nothing to do with balance and everything to do with rules.
I'm not sure where those yes's would be getting that idea. No unit may cast the same psychic power more than once, and Independent characters who join up with a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. (BRB p.166)
Because of how a psychic unit is defined. Hence the overall issue I'm pointing out - thanks for making my point.
Psienesis wrote:
Change the rules, balance is restored. Change balance, rules don't have to change.
Not sure you could have the latter without the former. Not without something like "You get 750 points of OPCheesenessMarines and I get 1500 points of NerfBattedBaddies"... which is still changing the rules.
Because you've equated unit entries with rules. Like I said - while that's technically correct, it's an irrelevant statement when it comes to things like "fixing balance".
You don't fix "rules" except in the very general sense. Changing the point value of a single unit isn't changing the rules, it's changing the point value of a single unit.
Even if 40k's ruleset was balanced, the rules would suck. Look at the Psychic phase - ask 10 people if a Librarian attached to a Purifier squad can hast Hammerhand after the squad has and you'll get 5 yes's and 5 no's. That has literally nothing to do with balance and everything to do with rules.
I'm not sure where those yes's would be getting that idea. No unit may cast the same psychic power more than once, and Independent characters who join up with a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. (BRB p.166)
Because of how a psychic unit is defined. Hence the overall issue I'm pointing out - thanks for making my point.
I'm still not seeing the confusion, there's no special rules outside of the psychic phase for psykers and how they interact with other units/models.
koooaei wrote: Guyz, when will you get over the "poor rules". 7-th ed and late 6-th ed codexes are showing an extremely good power ballance.
Doesn't stop the core rules from being a broken, schizophrenic mess of a game.
example, pls.
How many warp charges does an IC with the Psyker USR generate if attached to a unit?
How many powers can a Psyker cast each turn?
Just for starters.
RAW the Psychic phase is literally unplayable because there is no explicit answer to the second question and two equally viable interpretations of the first.
grimtough, for a person who refuses to have anything to do with 40k and hate everything about GW, you spend an AWFULL lot of time in 40k forums dwelling on it. If it stresses you that much, why not just remove that stress and move on? I ask for your benefit and health.
Again, the rules and the player are two seperate issues altogether. hating the player because you dont like the rules just does not make sense to me.
Can you explain to me how you can have such an all consuming hatred for a total stranger (or your "best bud", because they enjoy winning because you dont like the rules? If it were me, I would just hate the rules and discuss them in a thread where it is relevent.
To me, I never actually "hate" the player but just to use that figure of speach, it would have to be because of something THEY did. For example, insult my GF or break up my models or annoy me with constant whining or bragging, take fooooevvvvvverrrr to take turns or something like that. If they are pleasant and fun to play against, I wont care if they stomp on my 500 points of infantry guardsmen with their knight. I would just know to choose different units next time.
Even if 40k's ruleset was balanced, the rules would suck. Look at the Psychic phase - ask 10 people if a Librarian attached to a Purifier squad can hast Hammerhand after the squad has and you'll get 5 yes's and 5 no's. That has literally nothing to do with balance and everything to do with rules.
I'm not sure where those yes's would be getting that idea. No unit may cast the same psychic power more than once, and Independent characters who join up with a unit count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. (BRB p.166)
Because of how a psychic unit is defined. Hence the overall issue I'm pointing out - thanks for making my point.
I'm still not seeing the confusion, there's no special rules outside of the psychic phase for psykers and how they interact with other units/models.
Spoiler:
For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.
Spoiler:
To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase.
Spoiler:
If, after attempting to manifest a psychic power, you still have Warp Charge points left, you can attempt to manifest another psychic power with the same unit, or select another of your Psyker units and attempt to manifest a power the new unit knows. Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase.
Given these quotes, an IC attached to a unit can never, ever, manifest powers (or manifest warp charges, etc) - regardless of what he attempts to manifest vs what the unit does. This is because the rules deal with a Psychic unit as a whole, and the IC is part of the unit.
Or, you go with the assumption that Psychic unit doesn't apply to the unit as a whole and that ICs can manifest powers (and generate warp charges, etc) which means that the IC can indeed manifest Hammerhand after the Purifiers did.
The psychic phase rules are a mess, horribly written, inconsistent with the rest of the rulebook, and - if it wouldn't case numerous other problems - really should just be thrown out.
EVIL INC wrote: grimtough, for a person who refuses to have anything to do with 40k and hate everything about GW, you spend an AWFULL lot of time in 40k forums dwelling on it. If it stresses you that much, why not just remove that stress and move on? I ask for your benefit and health.
Again, the rules and the player are two seperate issues altogether. hating the player because you dont like the rules just does not make sense to me.
Can you explain to me how you can have such an all consuming hatred for a total stranger (or your "best bud", because they enjoy winning because you dont like the rules? If it were me, I would just hate the rules and discuss them in a thread where it is relevent.
To me, I never actually "hate" the player but just to use that figure of speach, it would have to be because of something THEY did. For example, insult my GF or break up my models or annoy me with constant whining or bragging, take fooooevvvvvverrrr to take turns or something like that. If they are pleasant and fun to play against, I wont care if they stomp on my 500 points of infantry guardsmen with their knight. I would just know to choose different units next time.
Nearly everyone in this thread who seems to "hate" GW are former customers who want the game to be improved so they can (presumably?) come back to the game. it's not some anti-40k club trying to push an agenda, we're all disgruntled customers who have basically been told to go feth ourselves we aren't wanted.
Given these quotes, an IC attached to a unit can never, ever, manifest powers (or manifest warp charges, etc) - regardless of what he attempts to manifest vs what the unit does. This is because the rules deal with a Psychic unit as a whole, and the IC is part of the unit.
Or, you go with the assumption that Psychic unit doesn't apply to the unit as a whole and that ICs can manifest powers (and generate warp charges, etc) which means that the IC can indeed manifest Hammerhand after the Purifiers did.
The psychic phase rules are a mess, horribly written, inconsistent with the rest of the rulebook, and - if it wouldn't case numerous other problems - really should just be thrown out.
You could still have the IC manifest powers since Psyker special rule doesn't conform to and from the unit and attached IC, so both special rules granting mastery levels would still be in effect.
As for the casting, I guess I see where the confusion comes from. I'll stick to my position of not allowed, based on the way unit is used throughout the other phases. Particularly the shooting phase which is mentioned specifically in the Designer note at the beginning of the section asking that readers be familiar with those mechanics first.
crcovar wrote: You could still have the IC manifest powers since Psyker special rule doesn't conform to and from the unit and attached IC, so both special rules granting mastery levels would still be in effect.
Not true. It only ever refers to "psyker unit" when manifesting, generating mastery levels, etc. If the IC is a separate "psyker unit" then it can also manifest the same power as the parent unit. Can't have it both ways.
As for the casting, I guess I see where the confusion comes from. I'll stick to my position of not allowed, based on the way unit is used throughout the other phases. Particularly the shooting phase which is mentioned specifically in the Designer note at the beginning of the section asking that readers be familiar with those mechanics first.
And how is that consistent with how it's used even inside the Psychic phase?
Spoiler:
Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked on Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.
Psyker unit.
Spoiler:
To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units.
Psyker unit.
Spoiler:
Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase.
The rule in question. The "no unit" must be read as "no Psyker unit" because of how the sentence is structured. IE - if you're counting all ICs regardless of what unit they've joined as a Psyker unit, then they're a separate Psyker unit for manifesting powers.
It's irrelevant to me how you decide to rule it, but please be consistent and understand that the rules for the phase are horribly written and require a lot of work to make sense of.
The thread is not GW hate. It is PLAYER hate. We are talking about hating the player. That is the poor guy standing on the other side of the table from you. Not the GW company, not the poorly written rules or the book they are printed in. We are talking about the actual person. the living breathing person standing across from you. This could be your 12 year old brother, your mom or the guy who lives down the street. Why the unthinking, unreasoning hate rage towards tthat particuler person? it doesnt matter if they brought the pizza and beer/soda to the game. It doesnt matter if they are letting you use their models because you are wanting to try out a new army or are trying to learn the game. It doesnt matter if they coach you or laugh as hard as you when you kill their commander. it doesnt even matter if you mop the floor with them and they are a good sport with nary a complaint who happily shakes your hand afterwards. Just the mere fact that they consider themselves a competative player means you HAVE to hate them for that sole reason.
I disagree with that. Call me names, make fun of me whatever you like, I just cant find it in myself to hate someone just because they say they are a competative player.I feel that you should not hate the person unless they do something more to deserve it. All the rest, rules, GW and so on are simply not part of this equation.
EVIL INC wrote: The thread is not GW hate. It is PLAYER hate. We are talking about hating the player. That is the poor guy standing on the other side of the table from you. Not the GW company, not the poorly written rules or the book they are printed in. We are talking about the actual person. the living breathing person standing across from you. This could be your 12 year old brother, your mom or the guy who lives down the street. Why the unthinking, unreasoning hate rage towards tthat particuler person? it doesnt matter if they brought the pizza and beer/soda to the game. It doesnt matter if they are letting you use their models because you are wanting to try out a new army or are trying to learn the game. It doesnt matter if they coach you or laugh as hard as you when you kill their commander. it doesnt even matter if you mop the floor with them and they are a good sport with nary a complaint who happily shakes your hand afterwards. Just the mere fact that they consider themselves a competative player means you HAVE to hate them for that sole reason.
I disagree with that. Call me names, make fun of me whatever you like, I just cant find it in myself to hate someone just because they say they are a competative player.I feel that you should not hate the person unless they do something more to deserve it. All the rest, rules, GW and so on are simply not part of this equation.
What part of the rules being the CAUSE for player hate aren't you understanding? If the rules were good, there wouldn't be a REASON to hate the player.
EVIL INC wrote: The thread is not GW hate. It is PLAYER hate. We are talking about hating the player. That is the poor guy standing on the other side of the table from you. Not the GW company, not the poorly written rules or the book they are printed in. We are talking about the actual person. the living breathing person standing across from you. This could be your 12 year old brother, your mom or the guy who lives down the street. Why the unthinking, unreasoning hate rage towards tthat particuler person? it doesnt matter if they brought the pizza and beer/soda to the game. It doesnt matter if they are letting you use their models because you are wanting to try out a new army or are trying to learn the game. It doesnt matter if they coach you or laugh as hard as you when you kill their commander. it doesnt even matter if you mop the floor with them and they are a good sport with nary a complaint who happily shakes your hand afterwards. Just the mere fact that they consider themselves a competative player means you HAVE to hate them for that sole reason.
I disagree with that. Call me names, make fun of me whatever you like, I just cant find it in myself to hate someone just because they say they are a competative player.I feel that you should not hate the person unless they do something more to deserve it. All the rest, rules, GW and so on are simply not part of this equation.
But GW is the root of the player hate problem. It's their ridiculous rules that create these artificial divides. You can't talk about one problem without talking about the other because they're one and the same.
- Models can move in every phase of the game. Why can't all movement be done in the movement phase? I'd have thought that would be the point of having a movement phase in the first place.
- Models that stop to fight can cover considerably more distance than models which simply run.
- Stupid mess of different unit types
- Snap Shot rules can die in a ditch somewhere
- TLoS. "Ok men, I'm going to strike an overly-dramatic pose, spray myself with several cans of starch, then glide around the battlefield on rocket skates. I expect you all to do the same."
I think your misunderstanding me.
I'll give a few extreme examples with the understanding you know the majority of it is a greyer area.
I play two games.
Game one- Guy is a total jerk loudly claims he only plays for fun. Smells of 3 month old dirty swetsocks and dirty underwear. spills soda across the table knocks over my models ect ect. i totally trounce him.
I will not play this person again
Game two- guy brings soda/pizza, is socially adept has amazing painted models, give me some good tactical tips as the game progresses and even reminds me of an assault I almost miss making. He wins. He tells me he is a compative player.
I will gladly play him again. Because I enjoyed the game and want to learn more tips.
The actual rules are not part of the equation.
That being said... there ARE players who will exploit the rules and search for loopholes and so on and so forth. However, that is the rules assisting a behavior that is already there. Not every competative player does that. SOME do, likely a LOT do. But not ALL do. To broadly brushstroke ALL ompetative players like that and hate them on principle is doing them an injustice.
Then there are the greyer areas. Say your father plays and declares himself a competative player. Does this mean you HAVE to automatically hate him? I would say no.
This is why I hate the behaviors and actions of a player. Maybe your confusing a competative player with a WAAC player? (waits for the flames fo using that term to describe the sorts of actions that would cause me to hate a player lol)
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.
Those games don't have nearly the same balance issues as 40k. You can take pretty much whatever you want in Warmachine and still have a decent chance of winning a game if you use them right. The same cannot be said of 40k where you can take all the "bad" units and have little or no chance of winning against someone who took all the "good" units. That's the kind of balance people are talking about, and 40k doesn't have it.
EVIL INC wrote: The actual rules are not part of the equation.
Except they are.
That being said... there ARE players who will exploit the rules and search for loopholes and so on and so forth. However, that is the rules assisting a behavior that is already there. Not every competative player does that. SOME do, likely a LOT do. But not ALL do. To broadly brushstroke ALL ompetative players like that and hate them on principle is doing them an injustice.
Which... is what was being discussed. Thanks for ... agreeing?
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.
Please, tell me the last time in Malifaux, WM/H, LoL, or any game you've had to do more than "Want to play?" or "Want to play at XX level? (soulstones, points, whatever)"
With 40k, not only do you need to agree on points, but you need to agree on LoW, what houserules you'll use to manage the psychic phase, any other house rules that you may want to bring up, how to deal with Ruins in 7th edition...
EVIL INC wrote: The actual rules are not part of the equation.
Except they are.
That being said... there ARE players who will exploit the rules and search for loopholes and so on and so forth. However, that is the rules assisting a behavior that is already there. Not every competative player does that. SOME do, likely a LOT do. But not ALL do. To broadly brushstroke ALL ompetative players like that and hate them on principle is doing them an injustice.
Which... is what was being discussed. Thanks for ... agreeing?
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.
Please, tell me the last time in Malifaux, WM/H, LoL, or any game you've had to do more than "Want to play?" or "Want to play at XX level? (soulstones, points, whatever)"
With 40k, not only do you need to agree on points, but you need to agree on LoW, what houserules you'll use to manage the psychic phase, any other house rules that you may want to bring up, how to deal with Ruins in 7th edition...
Not to mention whether you want a casual/friendly game or a competitive one, since that determines what units you should take.
So yeah, only 40k has you agree on a bunch of things with a prospective opponent before you sit down to play. When I want a Warmachine game I ask someone A) if they want a game, and B) How many points they want, and sometimes C) What scenario to use. That's it. Not if we should allow Collossals, or Light Cav or Battle Engines or if he wants to field an epic caster because that matters.
I'm agreeing that the rules are broken. I'm NOT agreeing that the broken rules are a good reason to have such an all consuming killing hatred for a person just because they say the words "im a competitive player" regardless of whether or not they exploit those rules. The thread is about hating any and all players who so much as say those words out of principle. I would like to at least give them the chance to show me they are a nice guy before making those sorts of assumptions.
Just because ther are broken rules does not mean that all competative players will exploit them. I prefer to base my hatreds on behaviors attitude and actions not on words printed in a book.
I'll be the FIRST to say the rules are broken. I blame GW for that not the poor guy on the other side of the table. If I'm going to hate him, I'll do it because of something he has actually done and saying the words "I'm a competative player" just doesnt cut it for me. If he says those words and acts like a jerk, it would be that the two co-inside. Being competative does not equal jerk.
EVIL INC wrote: The thread is about hating any and all players who so much as say those words out of principle. I would like to at least give them the chance to show me they are a nice guy before making those sorts of assumptions.
Um. No? The thread is about the fact that many people hate competitive players, and wondering why. "The rules." is a perfectly fine answer.
Your confusing competitive players with WAAC players. Saying that you hate competative players because of the rules is like saying you hate non-competative players because of the rules. Players are players. people are people. Unless your saying non-competative players dont play by the rules.
Do you have children who play? parents. If your son told you "Dad, I want to play a competative game", would you suddenly hate him? How deep would this hatred go? Would you kick him out of the house? disown him? corporal punishment? or would you teach him how to not be a jerk and always take min/max the cheesy units and not mathhammer? Would you teach him to respect other's models? Respect other players?
The rules are simply a tool used by jerks. It would not matter how perfect the rules are, how balanced they are, a jerk would still find ways to cause you to hate them. Likewise, a truly nice guy will find ways to be a truly nice guy no matter how broken a rule set is.
I still prefer to base my hatreds on bahaviors and actions.
EVIL INC wrote: Your confusing competitive players with WAAC players.
No, no I'm not. First of all, I don't hate anyone. Second of all, the OP is receiving hate simply because of the army he plays and what the rules allow him to do.
It's the rules and balance that create that perception (incorrect as it is), so it's the rules that are at fault - and not (always) the person.
EVIL INC wrote: Your confusing competitive players with WAAC players.
Not hard considering neither has a proper definition.
At the very least, I imagine many people have a different idea as to what constitutes a 'competitive' player, and whether or not it's an intrinsically bad thing.
EVIL INC wrote: Your confusing competitive players with WAAC players.
No, no I'm not. First of all, I don't hate anyone. Second of all, the OP is receiving hate simply because of the army he plays and what the rules allow him to do.
It's the rules and balance that create that perception (incorrect as it is), so it's the rules that are at fault - and not (always) the person.
You just proved my point for me. Thank you. Because of the army he plays. Did he give full details of said army? is it a min/max cheesefest? Does he play it again even the most new person to the game who is trying to learn? Does he trash talk during games? Does he pick up models and put them back in different spots? He leaves a LOT out.
You never answered my question about you "son" (if you had one). What would you do?
To deserve that kind of hatred someone needs to actually perform some sort of action or exhibit some sort of behavior to warent it besides saying those 4 words.
I see your from the U.S. Do you do sports or follow them? How about basketball. The rules arent all that great and it is possible to break them. What is your favorite team. Do you hate the players on it because they are competitive (how could ANYONE hate Shaq?! He is such a nice guy)? OR do you hate the competative players who display behaviors that warrent it such as running dogfights, beating their wives or taking cheap shots at guys who are down? It is the same thing. Players who just happen to want to win and players who display behaviors and attitudes that are unacceptable.
EVIL INC wrote: Your confusing competitive players with WAAC players.
No, no I'm not. First of all, I don't hate anyone. Second of all, the OP is receiving hate simply because of the army he plays and what the rules allow him to do.
It's the rules and balance that create that perception (incorrect as it is), so it's the rules that are at fault - and not (always) the person.
You just proved my point for me. Thank you. Because of the army he plays. Did he give full details of said army? is it a min/max cheesefest?
He said he plays Tau with 6 misslesides and a few Riptides. So - yes. And I didn't prove your point at all, unless I'm absolutely confused as to what your point is.
Does he play it again even the most new person to the game who is trying to learn? Does he trash talk during games?
Who knows - and it's irrelevant. He receives hate before people even play games with him. It happens a lot. 2 people locally hated Tau without ever playing a single game against them. It's not an uncommon thing.
You never answered my question about you "son" (if you had one). What would you do?
I have a son. He wouldn't ever play Tau because then he'd stray from the Hive Mind and have to be executed.
And no, I wouldn't hate him - because I don't hate anyone. This thread isn't about me hating someone for being competitive so please stop trying to make it that.
To deserve that kind of hatred someone needs to actually perform some sort of action or exhibit some sort of behavior to warent it besides saying those 4 words.
Agreed. But it seems that (and I've seen) people do receive hatred simply for playing Tau/Eldar/whatever unit is deemed "overpowered". I'm not trying to justify it. I'm saying it does happen, and it happens because the rules and balance cause it to happen. Not simply because that person is deserving of it.
Not all competative players play tau. Likewise, why should YOU hate someone for saying those 4 words? By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.
I can tell you I have YET to see even a single person be hated because they say the 4 words" I'm a competetive player".
I HAVE seen ones be avoided with the phrase, Oh good lord. It's HIM again and he's bringing the cheesed out list. He never uses anything else".
Again, Just because a player is competative and likes to win I refuse to follow your guidance and hate them for that reason. I will wait until they actually do some sort of action to warrent it.
maybe I'm just wierd that way. I dont hate for something that small.
You obviously hate me. Likeely it is because I enjoy winning and have played in a few tournies. I play guard without the min/maxing. I just take whatever list I happen to slap together on the fly with units that catch my eye and i have handy. I dont act like a jerk in game, dont use exploits and usually just give over any questions to avoid any conflict and usually lose out. But even if you did not hate me before, you would hate me simply because I said I like to win or i played in tournies because that automatically made me into some sort of waac monster that is all that is evil in the world (pun intended with the moniker lol)
EVIL INC wrote: Not all competative players play tau. Likewise, why should YOU hate someone for saying those 4 words? By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.
I can tell you I have YET to see even a single person be hated because they say the 4 words" I'm a competetive player".
I HAVE seen ones be avoided with the phrase, Oh good lord. It's HIM again and he's bringing the cheesed out list. He never uses anything else".
Again, Just because a player is competative and likes to win I refuse to follow your guidance and hate them for that reason. I will wait until they actually do some sort of action to warrent it.
maybe I'm just wierd that way. I dont hate for something that small.
You obviously hate me. Likeely it is because I enjoy winning and have played in a few tournies. I play guard without the min/maxing. I just take whatever list I happen to slap together on the fly with units that catch my eye and i have handy. I dont act like a jerk in game, dont use exploits and usually just give over any questions to avoid any conflict and usually lose out. But even if you did not hate me before, you would hate me simply because I said I like to win or i played in tournies because that automatically made me into some sort of waac monster that is all that is evil in the world (pun intended with the moniker lol)
You are not understanding. Nobody is hating anyone who says "I'm a competitive player", people are hating the fact that there is a divide between competitive players and casual players in the first place.
EVIL INC wrote: By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.
This graphic is an apt description of how this night has been going across those various threads
But yeah, I never blame a player for being competitive, I also never blame a player for exploiting rules (unless he's being a dick about it, but then that's a different topic, I'm blaming him for being a dick not for exploiting the rules).
I place the blame squarely where it belongs on the writers of the rules that have done such a poor job and charge top dollar for them.
But none the less, it can be frustrating when you show up with a knife to a gunfight... I mean Pyrovores to a Wave Serpent fight.
that is true. it's easy to get frustrated trying to get a point across and that does tend to make the brain explode. Good advice. I'll take a breather to re-organize.
When in doubt, read through some long thread of two other people's armies. There are some REAL doozies of examples of cognitive dissonance over in YMDC. Gate of Infinity always being popular.
Likewise, why should YOU hate someone for saying those 4 words? By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.
Um. No? I don't hate anyone. And I explained why the perception exists.
I can tell you I have YET to see even a single person be hated because they say the 4 words" I'm a competetive player".
You live in a special corner of the world then.
I HAVE seen ones be avoided with the phrase, Oh good lord. It's HIM again and he's bringing the cheesed out list. He never uses anything else".
Wait - it's not that he is rude or abusive or stinky, it's simply the list? And that's not a rules/balance reason?
Again, Just because a player is competative and likes to win I refuse to follow your guidance and hate them for that reason. I will wait until they actually do some sort of action to warrent it.
I've never given you that guidance. In fact, I've advocated against that.
You obviously hate me.
... wat.
Likeely it is because I enjoy winning and have played in a few tournies. I play guard without the min/maxing. I just take whatever list I happen to slap together on the fly with units that catch my eye and i have handy. I dont act like a jerk in game, dont use exploits and usually just give over any questions to avoid any conflict and usually lose out. But even if you did not hate me before, you would hate me simply because I said I like to win or i played in tournies because that automatically made me into some sort of waac monster that is all that is evil in the world (pun intended with the moniker lol)
So ... you haven't read my responses at all? What are you actually replying to?
I'd like to address this again:
You obviously hate me.
I've never said that. I've never advocated that. I have gone so far as to say, multiple times, that I don't hate anyone.
I'd appreciate you actually reading my posts and responding to what I type instead of assuming anything. That's the polite thing to do.
Game one- Guy is a total jerk loudly claims he only plays fotr fun. Smells of 3 month old dirty swetsocks and dirty underwear. spills soda across the table knocks over my models ect ect. i totally trounce him.
I will not play this person again
Game two- guy brings soda/pizza, is socially adept has amazing painted models, give me some good tactical tips as the game progresses and even reminds me of an assault I almost miss making. He wins. He tells me he is a compative player.
I will gladly play him again. Because I enjoyed the game and want to learn more tips.
Ok, I agree that the player being a dick is one of the biggest things that will affect my game, and nobody wants to play a dick. But most players aren't dicks. I'd say, the following two games are much more realistic situations:
Game 1: Guy is a nice guy. Friendly, helpful, reminds you of things you forgot. Plays the absolute best top-tier list. The game is fun, but you have no chance of winning at all. You lose by turn 2, but had a laugh at least.
Game 2: Also a nice guy. Also friendly and helpful. Plays a list of a similar balance to yours, the game is close and fun and you both have a good chance of winning. Whichever way the game goes, you enjoy it.
Both those games were fun, right? Everything is fun because of good players. Wanna do the same next week? What about the week after? Wanna play Game 1 every single time? Probably not. Game 1 is fine occasionally, but Game 2 is much more fun.
The player attitude is massively important. But the fact that both those sorts of games are a possibility in 40k and not as much in other systems (and that this can be due to what toys you own rather than player skill) points to game balance being a big problem too.
When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level. However I am a Competitive player (my entire store is pretty competitive) but that does not mean I am a WAAC player. Im going to break down some things for EVERYONE:
-Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!
-Attitude is everything, though I am a competitive player for the most part that doesn't mean I am a total jerk. In ALL of my armies I have the ability to tone it down and bring a more game friendly list, I suggest for ALL Competitive players that you do this for the sole purpose of not soul crushing a newer player or someone who plays for fluff. Now that being said I still bring a semi-strong list (I will never HAND) my opponent the win, but if its a friendly game and against a newer player I am always sure to point out advice and tactics that he could utilize to help improve his game. If its against a fluff opponent I will do something silly fun to mix things up (Farsight Crisis Suits charging an Ork Boyz horde? YES PLEASE! One thing I cant stand is a good player curb stomping a noob or a fluff player and acting like they are God, guess what if you keep doing that SEE how long you have until people stop refusing you games.
Small rant but basically feel that these are some of the big issues, there is nothing wrong with being a competitive player and bringing what you want, just realize and be willing to dumb down your list a little for friendly games against newer players/fluff players. Not saying completely neuter your list but dumb it down a little at least.
I can see where the rules can assist someone who s a jerk competetive player be a jerk. That is not an issue and I said that literally years ago in earlier editions and have maintained that stance.
MY point is that not ALL competetive players fall into the same category and the lines become fuzzy. The OP is saying that all players hate all competative players. This is simply not true. Some players make the claim offhand but when it comes down to actual practice, you'll find that they "hate" the jerk players more so than the "cool guy" competative players. It is an act of lumping all "competative players together.
Along with my point is that I am seeing posters here suggest that we SHOULD hate all competitive players. Not that it is a common occurrence or anything like that but because the rules are bad that we HAVE to hate the players.
Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.
EVIL INC wrote: Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.
I concur, I also feel it should be extended towards the models they want to play with or how they design their army. Not everyone who takes an Imperial Knight, LoW, Riptide or Wraithknight is doing it to be TFG. For example, I grew up watching Gundam and love the idea of Mech Suits, hence my love for Crisis Suits and Riptides. People just need to have a great attitude and be willing to change up their list to make the game more fun depending on your opponent.
gmaleron wrote: When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level.
-
Neither of those parties is 'at fault'.
People are perfectly entitled to only want to play the game the way they like to play it. The key is to find like-minded opponents, rather than playing against people with a different mindset and then complaining that they don't enjoy the game the way you do. That's like buying a Pepsi and then complaining that it doesn't taste like Coke.
EVIL INC wrote: Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.
I concur, I also feel it should be extended towards the models they want to play with or how they design their army. Not everyone who takes an Imperial Knight, LoW, Riptide or Wraithknight is doing it to be TFG. For example, I grew up watching Gundam and love the idea of Mech Suits, hence my love for Crisis Suits and Riptides.
I agree. Despite holding many critical opinions about GW and 40K in general, I make no apologies for being a massive fanboy when it comes to Knights. The models are awesome, I have three and plan on adding at least two of the FW variants once I'm happy they're not going to release a new version which I go gaga over minutes after I order it/them.
Make no mistake, should I decide to give them an outing on the table, it will be in a pre-arranged game against a willing and prepared opponent.
The trouble is, by doing this I ensure I will not be a jerk by ambushing my oppo with an army that is near impossible to tackle if you're ambushed by it, but I then put the onus on my opponent to not be a jerk by list tailoring and taking exclusively anti armour, thus potentially skewing the game massively in his favour, and ruining my fun. I couldn't even blame someone for doing this, why waste points on anti infantry options/units when you know they'll be useless?
Were the game better put together, I wouldn't have to warn someone ahead of time to use an army comprised of models I'm collecting because of no reason other than I genuinely love them, I could just turn up and play without being considered a jerk - neither would my opponent have to resist the temptations of list tailoring by being warned ahead of time.
People just need to have a great attitude and be willing to change up their list to make the game more fun depending on your opponent.
I disagree. People should try and put pressure on GW to make a product which makes this behaviour irrelevant. Except the good attitude. One should always have a good attitude.
gmaleron wrote: When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level.
-
Neither of those parties is 'at fault'.
People are perfectly entitled to only want to play the game the way they like to play it. The key is to find like-minded opponents, rather than playing against people with a different mindset and then complaining that they don't enjoy the game the way you do. That's like buying a Pepsi and then complaining that it doesn't taste like Coke.
They are both at fault because they have the wrong attitude about it, I totally agree people have the right to play the game they want to, however having a good attitude and being flexible in regards to both ways I have found helps out, especially if the player base in your area is limited.
-Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!
Why would I want to waste my time and yours setting up a game that I know is going to end by Turn 2 because of what you, or I, is fielding?
You can "adapt" by dropping another $600-$1000 dollars on a new army (GW would love that), or you can look at the game and its design and say "Feth that" and go to a game where any two players can pretty much set down any models they have and both have a pretty good chance of winning.
Also, incidentally, saying that a competitive player has to "dumb down" their list to play against a fluff player is... incredibly insulting. There's not much brainpower behind Riptide or WS spam, after all.
Why not play two games? After the first one, exchange lists and play the same game. Give both players the same shot at winning?
of course, I still maintain that I have the right to "hate a player" based on their actual behavior, actions and attitudes and how they treat me as a human being rather than what words are printed on a piece of paper in a book despite how many people in this thread tell me to hate them based on the words on the piece of paper in a book alone.
of course, I still maintain that I have the right to "hate a player" based on their actual behavior, actions and attitudes and how they treat me as a human being rather than what words are printed on a piece of paper in a book despite how many people in this thread tell me to hate them based on the words on the piece of paper in a book alone.
I'm somewhat confused as to who exactly has been telling you to do that. Most of the people so far have been arguing the opposite, even, that it's not the player at fault but the rules. If the rules are set up so that two people can each build an army, and one has a massive advantage just because of what codex they chose, that's an issue. If a player happens to love giant stompy robots and builds an almost all riptide army, how much does it suck when he shows up to play and ends up either not getting a game in, having to listen to people complain about his army, or winning by turn two? Not one of those things sounds fun to me, but I love the look of the riptide, but I'd feel horrible bringing an army of them. The same thing can be said of most of the "Super Competitive Lists". Is it really fun for the IK army players to have a good half of their opponents army essentially useless, because it's designed to handle infantry that simply isn't on the table? Great big stompy robots are awesome, it'd be nice to be able to throw them onto the table against someone and have the outcome not be decided immediately based on whether or not they brought craptons of anti-armor. At that point you may as well flip a coin, then go play a different game.
I think that most players would prefer a game that has an unknown outcome. I mean, isn't that the whole point? Would you really want to play chess if playing white conferred such an advantage that it won ninety-nine times out of a hundred, regardless of player skill? The fact that there are such horribly balanced matchups in this game is fairly sad, especially given the price GW puts on their rule books. Don't get me wrong, I love modeling and painting, I love playing wargames, and I even love playing 40K. When me and my friends hash out ahead of time what our lists are, when we ignore or alter more than a few rules, and when we come up with our own scenario. Which again, is somewhat sad. When I go to the shop on the weekend to get a game or two in, it's an awful lot like gambling and all I can do is hope that it turns out well.
Why would I want to waste my time and yours setting up a game that I know is going to end by Turn 2 because of what you, or I, is fielding?
You can "adapt" by dropping another $600-$1000 dollars on a new army (GW would love that), or you can look at the game and its design and say "Feth that" and go to a game where any two players can pretty much set down any models they have and both have a pretty good chance of winning.
Also, incidentally, saying that a competitive player has to "dumb down" their list to play against a fluff player is... incredibly insulting. There's not much brainpower behind Riptide or WS spam, after all.
You are taking this WAY to literally man, let me answer these:
-Then you don't play them? Go find another game that is on you or your opponents level? If you know you or your opponent will lose then play another game, never said you HAD to play the person.
-Then why are you even playing the game if you have so much issue with it? And since when would you have to change your entire army? You run the army you want but just purchase items to change things up, why I field 2500pts. gives me options.
-It is a turn of phrase, it is not literally saying "your list is bad and dumb, let me make it easier for you". You are being way to sensitive to what I am saying, all I said was if you know your army is much better it does not hurt to change things up to make things more even.
Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken. We have ALL wanted to win a game or tried to win a game at one point in time or another. That means that unless we ve intentionall tried to lose every game we have ever played we are or have been a competetive player at one point in time or another. Therefore we should hate all players including ourselves.
I just refuse to let someone coerce me into unreasoning hatred of another human being (as is being suggested, nay demanded we do in this thread) for something that small. I think we SHOULD reserve our"hatred" for those players who do more then desire or try to win a game. I feel we should base it on their attitudes actions and behaviors instead. I seem to be alone in this.
That being said, I can see how some players who may deserve that "hatred" can abuse the poorly written rules of the game to their own ends. I'd rather wait until the player actually do something like that before "hating" that player.
gmaleron, you have it. it doesnt even have to be to make it more "even. You can take the opportunity to experiment and try out different combos you want to give a shot. Pull out and use models you dont use often. Heck, you can even use it as a training excersize to play as an underdog to hone tactics and strategies.
No one is asking you to "dumb down". You can even keep your uber list (if it is even an uber list and not just any old run of the mill one as is usually the case), Play two games, trade lists after the first one so both players get the same chances of winning/losing.
Play in a friendly fashion where both play in a civil atmosphere and after the first game the "non-competetive player (no such animal) will know what to expect for future games and react/list build themselves accordingly
To me, it comes down to how nice and friendly of a guy the player is MUCH more so than their army list or the rules in the main book when it comes to disliking that player on a personal level..
How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.
So its not the that the thief stole your car, is that you feel bad about it?.
Problem with this game is that it has way to many and way to unevenly distributed, over the top units. Right now you can field armies that blow each other up by turn 2, couple that with the fact that not all armies have the access to the same potential and you have a recipe for disaster.
I am a long time magic player. I know what cut through gaming is, and have done it for a while. The problem with that and 40k are the following:
1- Lore MATTERS. GWs answer to its inherent and willing incompetence for balancing the armies was to "Magic UP" 40k, aka allies. Problem is 90% of the players out there seem to HATE IT because as i said before, lore MATTERS.
2- This to a lesser extent, in Magic, shorter games are welcome even desired, the exact oposite is true for 40k. In fact i can say that most people wont even bother to set up a game if they know its going to be over by turn 3.
3- 2 directly clashes with 1 and exacerbates it. the more over the top units there are, the more units get removed, the shorter the game is.
Ideally i think most people would be happier if something like 40 to 50% of their armies, made it to turn 4 in a functional state (not like 3 marines left of a unit of 10). So that the game would actually be decided in the later turns (weird huh?).
To the op, like they said before, current 40k direction is not what you are looking for. Go with Warmachine, is basically magic with miniatures.
EVIL INC wrote: Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken.
No, it hasn't.
It's been suggested that people do hate competitive players because the rules are broken.
I can see why SOME would hate because of the rules. I would not agree with them though. It is likely, they are looking at all competitive players based on their personal experience with a few extreme examples. Whatever the case, Not ALL people who play and enjoy winning or try to win twist and exploit rules. Likewise, not everyone who doesnt are great guys. I've met total jerks who werent worried about winning and I've met players who enjoy winning be great guys. Perhaps I'm the one seeing the rare exceptions but even if I am, those exceptions show that not EVERYONE falls into the class of player i would declare "hatable". perhaps, I should not say that people are wrong in this unreasoning hatred for that reason. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong on that. Perhaps, I should have said that I personally feel that they are wrong to do so. Likewise, they may not be wrong in demanding that i do as well but my heart is just not hard enough to do so without more reason than poorly written rules the player did not write.
Edit: Never mind. I see what your saying. They are not saying that EVERYONE should hate for that sole reason (although I believe a few are or they wouldnt argue/support it so vehemently but I'll take yer word for it). Good thing because I am not going to. However, they are saying that it is justified. To me, this is supporting that hatred for that sole reaso which to me is almost as bad. Even using that justification, I feel each "competetive player" should be "judged" on their own merits and actuions rather than the possibility of what someone thinks they MIGHT do.
EVIL INC wrote: Why not play two games? After the first one, exchange lists and play the same game.
Because I want to play with my army, not my opponent's army? Because I don't want anyone but me to touch my obscenely expensive DKoK army that I've spent countless hours painting? Because I only have time for one game in an evening? There are lots of reasons why "exchange lists" isn't a solution to poor balance.
I can understand your situastion and totally agree with it. You will admit of course, that your situation is not everyones. I did not declare it as the end all be all solution as you are aware. I only suggested that as one of many possibilities that players can come up with if they put in a modicum of effort.
Edit, nicely painted models BTW. Was expecting more infantry but with all those tanks, they dont need a lotta foot schloggers. lol My compliments, Id be afraid to put them in another's hands as well.
Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.
Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.
Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.
It's the players, not the game.
Like how in World of Warcraft, Demonology Warlocks get laughed at, insulted, and booted from groups the moment anyone notices their class specialization, even if they do the most damage, are highly adept at following the mechanics, and haven't been a pain in the posterior.
I don't think everyone hates competitive players. It s just annoying to listen to some of them soap box up and say that this is the only way to play or get the feth out.
Vash108 wrote: I don't think everyone hates competitive players. It s just annoying to listen to some of them soap box up and say that this is the only way to play or get the feth out.
This. Yeah, you may win your way, but if I'm winning using a different army/tactics, who cares?
The 40kYMDC forum has more threads than the others, and has a lot more long threads than the others. This tells us that a lot of people have rule questions about 40k, and when they ask those questions there is often a long argument about how the rules are supposed to work.
The WHFBYMDC forum looks a lot like the 40k one, but with fewer threads. Given that this is a 40k-heavy site and WHFB in general is in decline this suggests that WHFB's rules are just as bad as 40k's (no surprise since they're both GW games) but the WHFB forum just gets less traffic.
The Warmachine and Infinity YMDC forums have a lot fewer threads and very few of them have more than a handful of replies. This tells us that there are fewer questions, which isn't necessarily a decisive argument since there are probably fewer Warmachine and Infinity players than 40k players here. But it also tells us something very important: when people do post questions in those forums they are usually answered quickly with a single clear answer and there is no room for argument about it. A player asks a question, someone says "page X, {explanation}", the player says thank you, and that's the end of the discussion.
Conclusion: GW's rules are a mess compared to other wargames, and there's no excuse for it.
I acknowledge the rule enterpretation problem and don't even try to state that WH40K rules are 100% clear all the time. Yep, i'm unhappy that they don't release faq's on the problematic ones to solve it once and for all.
But there are not too many of these things in your average game and nothing that can't be resolved. If you don't go rule-lawher, you're gona be completely fine. Besides, note that if you're competitive and aiming for tourneys, most cases are allready taken care of by TO.
koooaei wrote: But there are not too many of these things in your average game and nothing that can't be resolved. If you don't go rule-lawher, you're gona be completely fine.
I strongly disagree with this. Even when nobody is being a rules lawyer these arguments happen in games. Most, if not all, of my games have some kind of rule "discussion", and most of the games around me seem to have the same kind of problems. And when it isn't a problem with agreeing on how the game is supposed to work it's spending time digging through the bloated mess of rules to figure out what that obscure thing we just forgot is supposed to do. I would only be exaggerating slightly if I said that most 40k players seem to spend more time flipping through rulebooks than playing the game.
The worst game I ever played was against a "fluff bunny" type of player who rarely gets games in. He spends most of his time making conversions, which are cool, and talks about his army's background story quite often. All that's well and good, but when it took him FOREVER to take his turn because he didn't know any of the rules for his army (necrons) and even when I tried to help him (I also play necrons) he would STILL look up the rule (just to make sure I wasn't trying to cheat him I suppose?), it became pretty annoying.
Add on the fact that he was easily distracted by conversations in the game store and just seemed disinterested in actually finishing the game, and it became unbearable. I quit the game after turn 3...and it took us over 4 hours to get there.
Just goes to show that one could love the game, love it's models, not care at all about rules or actually winning, and still be a pain in the arse opponent. I'm fully in the "it's the players that ruin games" camp.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: 2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.
I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.
Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.
Those games don't have nearly the same balance issues as 40k. You can take pretty much whatever you want in Warmachine and still have a decent chance of winning a game if you use them right. The same cannot be said of 40k where you can take all the "bad" units and have little or no chance of winning against someone who took all the "good" units. That's the kind of balance people are talking about, and 40k doesn't have it.
Malifaux had hamelin and pandora. I dont know m2e that well but go ask a classic player about those 2. As for wm/h have you never seen the threads bitchibg about cryx? Plus with LoL there ARE pregame arrangements. You get to trafe BANS bef9re the game. Everyone likes to hate GW i get it but to say 40k is the "ONLY" one, and then say maybe fantasy, is just wrong and to me seems like youre railing agains5 GW not just 40k. Im not saying GW is perfect, and 40k does have balance issues, I'm saying a simple pregame discussion can make rhe game, any game, more enjoyable.
Well... knowing that the lists and codex's fall short of proper balance, (unless they're playing in a tournament) most experienced players will build a more "realistic" or flavourful list, rather than the "Must-Win" list-kiddies - in the interest of having a good time. It's a game, after all.
Now you say that the community hates "competitive players" - but I don't think that's true.
Everyone who enters a game of 40K will try to win - it's not a hate of competition - people just don't like douche-bags.
Take stock, and adjust your attitude if you find you might be in that camp. I don't know you - but judging on your comments here - I wouldn't play with you, either.
GW games have never been designed for competitive play. I can appreciate if the game isn't for you - but in my experience - people who have invested heavily in the hobby already (your claim of 3 Riptides) don't usually just abandon it because someone asked them not to post a full point-breakdown.
7 pages and not ONE reference to Ice-T. I'm ashamed. I'm still glad OP is giving WM/H a shot.
Voidwraith, as one of those fluff bunny players, I can say it's frustrating on both ends. I tend to flip back and forth to check rules even if a seasoned player tells me what the rule is, mostly to cement that rule in my mind but also to make sure they aren't just telling me whatever so they win.
I am still baffled as to how people can memorize their armies' rules and stats and not even bring a rulebook. It sounds like your opponent was much more annoying than I typically am though, so I feel a little better about that.
gmaleron wrote: -Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."
Do you see the problem here?
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."
Do you see the problem here?
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
Which is why people have been saying that were it not for the rules, the gap between these people would not be so vast, and therefore there would be less debate (about this particular topic, anyway).
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."
Do you see the problem here?
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
In most "balanced" games the different models would have different applications based on circumstance and would have a game cost accordingly.
Artillery / long range, Cavalry / Fast Attack, Heavy / Mechanized / Armor, Troop / Main force, Command / HQ.
These are all the normal choices in any era of gaming.
Each have their strengths and weaknesses.
As soon as units have combined capabilities with few of the weaknesses and at a cheap points cost: games get imbalanced.
Wave serpents, Riptides, Nightscythes have few weaknesses when faced with a variety of foes they must answer to.
I should focus on the models that are "not worth considering" where points to capability is so bad the models are basically shelved until the next update / rules change.
Bulgryn /Ogryn, Centurion Assault Squad, Helbrute, Mutilators... I am sure there is more but this is from my own experience of being something I would not typically use.
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.
For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.
EVIL INC wrote: Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken.
Who has suggested that? You keep repeating it, even accused me of it, but it just don't see it. Quote the post.
(as is being suggested, nay demanded we do in this thread)
No, it's not.
I seem to be alone in this.
No, you're not. This isn't a failure to articulate - you're literally saying things have been said that haven't been. You're reading posts that don't exist.
To me, it comes down to how nice and friendly of a guy the player is MUCH more so than their army list or the rules in the main book when it comes to disliking that player on a personal level..
"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."
That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.
I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.
For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.
In some ways I don't really understand why we separate fluff and competitiveness at all, because to me what a unit can do on the table is vitally important to how I view them in fluff terms.
If I had to describe myself, I'd say I'm a fluff player... but I think the way people on this forum would describe me it would be more as a competitive player because I really struggle to take units that are terrible. But the reason I struggle to take units that are terrible is because it disrupts my fluffy suspension of disbelief when my fluffy army gets blown off the table by the end of turn 2.
How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.
A couple of my friends and I used to (they've now quit 40k and WHFB) try and make more fluffy battles, basically be completely ignoring the points values of units. Instead of constructing armies to points, we'd construct a fluffy army, then start constructing a fluffy army that would compete with it, going through, unit by unit, trying to get an idea of what unit in army B would be a fair table top equivalent for army A.
It was a fun way to play the game, sometimes we were off by miles sometimes we actually got some really close fought battles... probably more often than when we just constructed armies to specific points values, but the whole concept is not practical for pick up games, which is 99% of what I play these days because all those friends have long since quit What we were doing was closer to a role playing game than a balanced wargame since 40k was not a balanced wargame to start with
well, it seems that i have finally gotten some support. lol I dont care if my models are weak, I use them because I like them. Does that mean I lose? No, I still often with. Usually through strategy and tactics.
Of course, even when I play someone with a tooled up list, I dont mind playing because its a challenge to me and I often learn something from the game to help me in future ones. I base my "hatred" for those who are jerks and deserving of it.
Even then, it is not a hatred. They just become someone I'm not fond of or refuse to play against. Before I ACTUALLY hate someonee going to have to do a LOT more than tooled up tournament list ad a good bit more than be a jerk ing a single game of 40k.
And yes, I'm a fluff playe that enjoys winning using my fluffy armies. So I suppose I am a "hated one' (obvious through reading the thread and the vitriol aimed at me because of my stance) but also one of the ones who are supposed to hate. So feel free to hate me because I enjoy winning all you like, but I refuse to hate for that reason personally.
For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.
I have similar problems. I'm trying to make a themed IG army, but it seems at every turn I'm having to make bad decisions with regard to my army's overall strength.
Possibly the worst one is that I'm trying to kit out my leader appropriately, but forcing myself to buy the overcosted garbage the book calls 'wargear' is pretty damn painful.
How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.
I think it depends on why the unit isn't competitive.
For example, many units aren't competitive simply because they're overcosted. They might still fit their fluff quite well, but they're just not an efficient choice.
Conversely, you have units like Wyches - which are supposed to be elite combat units... yet suck in combat. In this case, there's a definite gap between their rules and their fluff.
For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.
I have similar problems. I'm trying to make a themed IG army, but it seems at every turn I'm having to make bad decisions with regard to my army's overall strength.
Possibly the worst one is that I'm trying to kit out my leader appropriately, but forcing myself to buy the overcosted garbage the book calls 'wargear' is pretty damn painful.
How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.
I think it depends on why the unit isn't competitive.
For example, many units aren't competitive simply because they're overcosted. They might still fit their fluff quite well, but they're just not an efficient choice.
Conversely, you have units like Wyches - which are supposed to be elite combat units... yet suck in combat. In this case, there's a definite gap between their rules and their fluff.
Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.
I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.
What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.
Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.
But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.
Azreal13 wrote: I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.
What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.
Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.
But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.
I totally agree with this and its a good example. It also points out specifically that the blame lies on GW. Why should I be forced to hate the player across the table with a teeth knashing uncontrollable murderous hatredbecause he just happens to have a unit of bloodcrushers on the table because he thinks the models look cool? (heck, I have 3 of them for that very reason). When as you pointed out, GW made the rules and in a vacuem with no input from us players. Wouldnt it make sense to put that hatred where it belongs?
Not saying your the one telling to hate the players. I'm just using your post to exhibit my point.
Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.
That one is nice, but sadly doesn't really fit the flavour my my commander.
Unfortunately, the most flavourful items seem to be The Death Mask of Ollanius (Sorry, I pay how much for IWND on a T3 model? ), and a Power Fist (Do these really need to be 25pts on S3 guys?).
It's just frustrating because I don't want to sacrifice the flavour of my commander, but at the same time I don't like feeling that I'm throwing a ton of points down the drain.
Azreal13 wrote: I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.
What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.
Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.
But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.
I totally agree with this and its a good example. It also points out specifically that the blame lies on GW. Why should I be forced to hate the player across the table with a teeth knashing uncontrollable murderous hatredbecause he just happens to have a unit of bloodcrushers on the table because he thinks the models look cool? (heck, I have 3 of them for that very reason). When as you pointed out, GW made the rules and in a vacuem with no input from us players. Wouldnt it make sense to put that hatred where it belongs?
Not saying your the one telling to hate the players. I'm just using your post to exhibit my point.
Your point isn't clear, and doesn't seem to actually use A13's post much, if at all.
As for wm/h have you never seen the threads bitchibg about cryx?
Yup. And the majority is from noobs who have been rough housed by them. Then people get advice and learn how to actually deal with them.
Cryx is annoying, but the stats don't put them out of whack at all. Cryx can be dealt with. They're not broken by any stretch of the imagination. Cryx are dangerous in the hands of an experienced player, but that is true for pretty much every faction.
It is clear to me. In other systems there are either no such things as screamer stars, eldar from various editions or everything is on the level of those . So people in other systems aren't hating armies or people like they do in w40k or WFB.
Makumba wrote: It is clear to me. In other systems there are either no such things as screamer stars, eldar from various editions or everything is on the level of those . So people in other systems aren't hating armies or people like they do in w40k or WFB.
It has nothing to do with that, it's that other games are approximately fair despite what you take; it might not be straight 50/50 but it's relatively close. In WM/H Cryx and Legion are pretty strong armies, but they aren't invincible. A powerhouse Cryx army can be defeated with good tactics, while the list can factor in (if you aren't prepared for example) it's nowhere near the discrepancy in 40k. However, that's also why WM/H is balanced around scenarios and multiple lists (or at least it appears that way) , so you minimize the chance of a bad matchup because you have two lists so presumably one of them can deal with those problem matches and the other is more generic. Also the fact is that almost anything is viable in a list. Even units that are considered "bad" (e.g. Man o War Shocktroopers, Exemplar Cinerators) have a place in lists and can see success if you use them correctly. Almost nothing is so bad that you're punished for taking it, even if there's a mathematically better choice.
The issue with 40k though is that certain units are just bad, while others are just too good. Look at CSM for example; basically you have to go Nurgle in order to really be "competitive", because the regular choices are bad. If I want a fluffy Iron Warriors army that's basically footslogging with some mobile units (for after the breach) I'm at a disadvantage right out of the gate for not taking Plague Marines, Nurgle Bikers and Nurgle Oblits even though none of those fit the army I want to do. Or if I really like Raptors and Warp Talons (which I do), neither are very good so I'm hurting myself by taking them even if I like how they look or how they fit my army.
Or another, more relevant example: I very recently had the idea to do an all Terminator army, not Deathwing or Grey Knights, just standard Terminators from a chapter I was going to make up as I went along. I had a cool army theme that was basically an elite strike team sent to capture a key objective or eliminate a prime target where only the best of the best could suffice; in this imaginary scenario achieving this objective would turn the tide of the battle, so failure was not an option and the 1st Company of my chapter was dispatched to do it, because if they can't do it then nobody can. I even had some ideas to expand the army with a Tempestus force and an Imperial Knight, making it an elite vanguard army. It was cool and fluffy. But Terminators suck. I would likely lose every game through no fault of my own just because I picked the wrong units because I had a cool concept for them.
That's the kind of crap we're talking about. Things like that should not ever happen in a game. If I want an all Terminator army it should at least be approximately viable with any other choice in the Codex; I shouldn't be punished because I like the idea of a small but elite strike team instead of taking all Drop Pods or all Bikers. Instead, I would get the "privilege" of spending hundreds on a cool but ultimately worthless force, and who the hell wants that?
Alpharius, The point is one of the things I have been saying. GW made the rules. We players did not.it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.
His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.
I agree, the rules are poorly written, we have never had a perfect set of rules. There have been sets worse than the current set (or at least one). We players did not write ANY of them.
Makumba your right. wait 20 years/5 editions or so and you'll have newer players of those games complaining about the good old days and how their current rules are trash while the veteran players try to explain that their game has never had a perfect set of rules. Then the newer players will refer to the perfect rules of Battle Hog (or whatever fly by night new game is out) and the cycle will continue.
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.
It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.
Voidwraith wrote: I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
If that were the case, 40k would have grown following 6th and several of the codices released in that time.
As we saw, GW experienced a decline, and most forums and anecdotal evidence suggests that 40k's popularity is shrinking in some part due to the quality of the rules, while other games with much greater balance have experienced steady growth in the same time frame.
All the unfairness and imbalance does is divide the community and get players to look elsewhere for a game who's rules are worth the price tag.
Voidwraith wrote: I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.
It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.
Actually I think it's a combination of the fluff and the investment, because 40k is one of the worst written tabletop games I've ever seen, and I've read some 30 year old Napoleonic wargaming rules that required you to like track logistics and basically felt closer to an old Nintendo strategic simulation game than a tabletop game.
40k is popular IMO because of the rich fluff/backstory, the good looking (for the most part) figures and the fact that for 20 some years it was virtually the only real game in town so it's the one most of us got involved with unless you are a real grognard and cut your teeth on historical gaming in the olden days. It's kind of like with D&D, there's a lot of history that people remember fondly so it's the "go-to" choice, but if you look at that comparison Pathfinder has equaled (or surpassed?) D&D in everything but brand name because subjectively during 4th edition it was a better game and more familiar.
Voidwraith wrote: I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.
It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.
That is an interesting idea. I wouldnt say the constant argueing but rather the constant horse race of who is ahead by a nose and how to beat the odds. I still think the fluff,modeling aspect plays a large part. The game has been growing for decades and has never had a decline always getting bigger and more popular. That may indeed be part of the reason.
EVIL INC wrote: Alpharius, The point is one of the things I have been saying. GW made the rules. We players did not.it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.
His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.
I agree, the rules are poorly written, we have never had a perfect set of rules. There have been sets worse than the current set (or at least one). We players did not write ANY of them.
Makumba your right. wait 20 years/5 editions or so and you'll have newer players of those games complaining about the good old days and how their current rules are trash while the veteran players try to explain that their game has never had a perfect set of rules. Then the newer players will refer to the perfect rules of Battle Hog (or whatever fly by night new game is out) and the cycle will continue.
No, you've taken my example and hammered it to fit your argument, but not really honoured the intent - I should have quoted Skink's post a little further up for clarity as it was that which I was responding to, I was providing a specific example where GW have got it nearly right on a couple of occasions but have so far failed to nail it to try and illustrate that it is within the realms of possibility to close the gap between competitive and fluffy to something much more manageable for many players.
To address your points that you seem to be taking my post in support of..
Firstly, where on earth are you getting the idea that anyone is forcing anyone to do anything? I really do think you're reading a different thread to the rest of us.
Secondly, GW do indeed hold the ultimate responsibility of publishing the rules we use, but while they continue to be hamfisted and barely competent about it, the onus is on us as a playing community to be responsible in our gaming choices and to respect our opponent sufficiently to make choices that won't ruin their enjoyment of the game.
The issue with competitive players arises when they choose to disregard this gentleman's agreement in environments where it isn't appropriate.
If 40K were a better game, a player's intentions would be irrelevant, one could turn up with "an army" and classing it as fluffy or competitive or somewhere on some arbitrary scale wouldn't be necessary.
Sadly, modern 40K is not that game.
Now, if one plays where everyone brings their hardest list, this is not a problem. If the environment is less about hard lists and more about fun, variety and fluff, and one plays according to those criteria, not a problem.
Issues arise when a player is new to a playing environment and gets it wrong, or when they place their somewhat questionable need to win what is ultimately a meaningless game intended to pass some time in an enjoyable manner ahead of respecting their opponents right to enjoy the game too.
It is this latter element that causes the bad blood and gives "competitive" a bad name in some parts of the 40K community.
EVIL INC wrote: it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.
No. No it's not. Please stop making things up.
His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.
Voidwraith wrote: I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.
It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.
The constant UPDATES definitely helps their popularity, the imbalance? No. I don't think so, not at all.
They are (or have been in the past) good at snaring new players. The good fluff. The expansive range. The frequent new releases. The fact that once you've bought a 40k army you are financially and emotionally invested.
Those are the things that help the popularity of 40k, not the junky rules and imbalance.
Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.
That one is nice, but sadly doesn't really fit the flavour my my commander.
Unfortunately, the most flavourful items seem to be The Death Mask of Ollanius (Sorry, I pay how much for IWND on a T3 model? ), and a Power Fist (Do these really need to be 25pts on S3 guys?).
It's just frustrating because I don't want to sacrifice the flavour of my commander, but at the same time I don't like feeling that I'm throwing a ton of points down the drain.
I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same. A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.
Voidwraith wrote: I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.
As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.
It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.
That is an interesting idea. I wouldnt say the constant argueing but rather the constant horse race of who is ahead by a nose and how to beat the odds. I still think the fluff,modeling aspect plays a large part. The game has been growing for decades and has never had a decline always getting bigger and more popular. That may indeed be part of the reason.
That's the singularly most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Frustrating old players and new ones alike isn't good for the game. And given that GW's hemorrhaging players and losing business, I'll say that what they're doing, isn't working.
I'd say that 40k was popular *in spite of* the amateurish imbalances. It was that frustrating imbalance that drove me and several others I know away.
And yes, it can be the fluff that keeps people on.
Also, 40k was the first big one, so it has more players and its easier to find a game. It limps along due to its own inertia, but right now it's like an animal that's falling forward and doesn't know it's already dead.
Yes, the back and forth arguing is good for the game, but not when its about horrible rules, OP and useless units. It should be about tactics, strategies and such. Not "The Mutilators I bought are useless? Any way to make them somewhat viable?" "LOL, sorry bro, they suck."
The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it. Other members are supporting that notion and are trying to convince s all to support it too. Your post stated that GW is responsible for writing the rules and that IS the point.
SOME players dont hold to the gentleman's agreement of fair play. That is perfectly understanable. However, I dont support hating those who do just because GW poorly wrote the rules.
My stance is
1. If you hate the rules and want to hate someone for them, hen you should hate the people who wrote them instead of the poor guy across from you.
2. If you want to hate those who do not support a "gentlemans agreement" of fair play in list building then hate those specific individuals. Dont hate everyone because of those few.
3. If you want to hate, than hate. Allow everyone else the right to hate who they choose and why they choose.
If you disagree with my stance as many here obviously do, than disagree. Just try to do it in a polite manner. I treat everyone with respect and dignity, I expect the same in return. It is only fair in my opinion.
MWHistorian, I was only saying that it was an interesting view and posted a few random ideas to go with it. I was not validating it or agreeing with it. My comment was that IF it was a part of why, that it would not be the argueing part that was doing it but that rather it would be more likely to be the "horse race aspect and playing the odds to get ahead by a nose. The reason for y comment in that direction is because i refuse to take all the cheese. I play fluffy balanced armies yet still try to win, thus trying to beat the odds. Again, I was not agrreing with him, just saying it was an interesting idea. My apologies if you misread.
40k and fantasy are cyclic in different areas worldwide. It rises and falls. It may indeed be in decline where you live. Overall? I believe it has beenadvancing overall worldwide. Often slower at times of course. Just curious, where did you find the stats for that and what were the groups, geographical locations? NM, that would be a different topic for a different thread.
I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same.
Sorry, but I don't.
Maybe if melee weapons weren't so insanely expensive in the first place, but I just don't see why armies who don't get as much out of their melee weapons should still pay as much as marines for them.
Zewrath wrote: A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.
The problem is, you're neglecting the other aspect - which is the cost ratio of the model to its upgrades. i.e. it's far easier to justify a 10pt upgrade on a 100pt model, than on a 10pt model - since the former only need provide a minor bonus, whilst the latter has to double the model's effectiveness to be worth considering.
Let's take power weapons. A Marine Sergeant costs ~15pts, and can take a power sword for the same amount. So, for a 100% increase in cost, his attacks become AP3, making him a reasonable threat to MEQ models.
For a IG sergeant to get AP3 attacks, he has to fork out 300% of his cost. And yet, WS3 and S3 means he's still barely a threat to MEQ. Thing is, in order for this upgrade to be justifiable in cost, it would have to make him 4 times as effective in combat.
Even in a single book, you have similar problems. A Rhino pays about 28% of its cost for Extra Armour, whilst a Land Raider pays a measly 4% of its cost for the same upgrade. Is the Rhino going to get 7 times the benefit from that Extra Armour? I highly doubt it.
"Hate" is probably an inappropriate word for the actual feelings involved.
"feel frustrated by", "annoyed", those are probably more fitting terms than "hate". There's very few people in this world I "hate", there's a whole bunch that piss me right the feth off.
EVIL INC wrote: The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.
No there aren't.
There ARE people who hold players responsible for choosing to abuse poor rules writing and therefore making a game not fun, but I very much doubt there's much hate involved.
Plus, I know you've copped flack for spelling and grammar already, but "competitive" is in the fething thread title man, you don't need to know how to spell it, just how to match letters on the keys.
Yes, there are. That is why I am disagreeing with them. See the 3 points I made.
Is your grammar perfect? have you never even once made a grammatical error. I make an effort and my grammar is not the best. Making fun of others because of shortcomings like that is unbecoming. Should I ridicule you because you are shorter than I am? No. I make an effort.
I agree with AllSeeingSkink on this last. Hate should be too strong a word. However, thats the word and meaning thats being used. I would say that its only a game and no matter how poorly the rules are written or who wrote them, it is still only a game and not worthy of the all consuming teeth gnashing murderous hatred that is present and being proposed. The worst I've had towards one of "those" players is frustration and annoyance. Never hatred.
EVIL INC wrote: The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it. Other members are supporting that notion and are trying to convince s all to support it too.
No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that.
SOME players dont hold to the gentleman's agreement of fair play. That is perfectly understanable. However, I dont support hating those who do just because GW poorly wrote the rules.
Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that.
I treat everyone with respect and dignity, I expect the same in return. It is only fair in my opinion.
Quoting who you're replying to would go a long way to showing some respect. Right now people just need to assume.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Yes, there are. That is why I am disagreeing with them.
Who? Who is supporting that notion?
Is your grammar perfect? have you never even once made a grammatical error. I make an effort and my grammar is not the best. Making fun of others because of shortcomings like that is unbecoming. Should I ridicule you because you are shorter than I am? No. I make an effort.
You do understand that even if you don't reach perfection that you can point out mistakes, right?
I mean, I'm not an architect but a design of a 500' tall tower with a 1" mounting point and no guy wires is just a bad idea. Since I've never designed a building though either a) all my designs are perfect and I can feel free to point out mistakes or b) obvious flaws should be pointed out. If you're truly making an effort you'd progress over time, not stay stagnant.
"No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that. "
Untrue statement.
"Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that. "
You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.
Even if you do not realize it, that is the message you are sending.
It is a message i just do not agree with. It is a GAME. I see no reason to hate ANYONE responsible for the rules or not to that extent without having a dern good reason. As a matter of fact, i dont think I hate anyone in the entire world to that extent. Taking a cheesy list wont do it, writing bad rules wont do it. Heck, even breaking a few of my models and ridiculing me in an online forum wont do it. maybe my heart just isnt hard enough.
My apologies for not being an architect and having a lower income. I may work for peanuts and have a current menial labor job but I take pride in my work and the knowledge that I do it to the best of my abilities.
EVIL INC wrote: "No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that. "
Untrue statement.
Quote the post where I've supported that notion. Or anyone else in the thread has.
"Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that. "
You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.
Even if you do not realize it, that is the message you are sending.
I didn't say it was valid. Anywhere. And no, helping you to understand why is not the same as trying to change your opinion. I can explain why people believe in Allah without attempting to convert you.
My apologies for not being an architect and having a lower income. I may work for peanuts and have a current menial labor job but I take pride in my work and the knowledge that I do it to the best of my abilities.
Where the hell did I bring up income?!?! I don't care about your job, I never brought up your job (nor mine). This isn't about anyone attacking you - this is about your misstatements.
EVIL INC wrote: You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.
That's not really true. People are pointing out why something exists, that doesn't mean they are supporting it. You can point out the reasons why Nazi's were convinced to hate Jewish folk... that doesn't mean you support it or are trying to convince other people they should hate Jewish folk as well.
A few questions for you. Did you or did you not say that the reason for the hate was the rules?
Did you or did you not say that they had good reason because the rules were poorly written?
Did you or did you not try to convince me to agree with you that the rules were poorly written?
Saying they had good reason to hate because of the poorly written rules IS supporting that hate. Trying to convince me the rules are poorly written is trying to convince me in turn to agree with that hate as well.
I agreed with you in the poorly written rules. Heck, I said that years ago. I just dont feel that HATE is the emothion we should be feeling and I feel we should hold each party responsible for their own actions. poor rules writers for poorly written rules and cheesy players for being cheesy players.
EVIL INC wrote: A few questions for you. Did you or did you not say that the reason for the hate was the rules?
Did you or did you not say that they had good reason because the rules were poorly written?
Did you or did you not try to convince me to agree with you that the rules were poorly written?
Saying they had good reason to hate because of the poorly written rules IS supporting that hate. Trying to convince me the rules are poorly written is trying to convince me in turn to agree with that hate as well.
I agreed with you in the poorly written rules. Heck, I said that years ago. I just dont feel that HATE is the emothion we should be feeling and I feel we should hold each party responsible for their own actions. poor rules writers for poorly written rules and cheesy players for being cheesy players.
That's a whole lot of logical fallacy right there.
Explaining why some people do things is not the same as agreeing or endorsing those things.
Trying to get you to agree that the rules are poorly written is not endorsing hate. I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.
What we're saying is that the poor rules foster a division of play styles within the community and this causes friction when two people want drastically different things from the same game.
EVIL INC wrote: The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.
\
No, that is not the issue.
Nobody holds competitive players responsible for the poorly written rules. What they are holding competitive players responsible for is using those poorly written rules to allow them to bring a gun to a knife fight.
You're railing against an idea that simply isn't being presented anywhere in this thread. And have used up your quota of the word 'hate'. Please remove the 'h', 'a', 't' and 'e' keys from your keyboard until further notice.
I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same.
Sorry, but I don't.
Maybe if melee weapons weren't so insanely expensive in the first place, but I just don't see why armies who don't get as much out of their melee weapons should still pay as much as marines for them.
Zewrath wrote: A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.
The problem is, you're neglecting the other aspect - which is the cost ratio of the model to its upgrades. i.e. it's far easier to justify a 10pt upgrade on a 100pt model, than on a 10pt model - since the former only need provide a minor bonus, whilst the latter has to double the model's effectiveness to be worth considering.
Let's take power weapons. A Marine Sergeant costs ~15pts, and can take a power sword for the same amount. So, for a 100% increase in cost, his attacks become AP3, making him a reasonable threat to MEQ models.
For a IG sergeant to get AP3 attacks, he has to fork out 300% of his cost. And yet, WS3 and S3 means he's still barely a threat to MEQ. Thing is, in order for this upgrade to be justifiable in cost, it would have to make him 4 times as effective in combat.
Even in a single book, you have similar problems. A Rhino pays about 28% of its cost for Extra Armour, whilst a Land Raider pays a measly 4% of its cost for the same upgrade. Is the Rhino going to get 7 times the benefit from that Extra Armour? I highly doubt it.
Fair point, but I think the problem lies within the fact that GW thinks that melee is like 4th edition and assault is the most dangerous a unit can do. I've never understood the cost for Vanguard Veterans and gearing them for the role there suppose to be good at, or even now with DE. They nerf Wyches and their weapons/haywire and somehow still think that 10 ppm is a reasonable price for the Wych.
Your comparison of how much more they cost in % falls a bit short because it leaves out a very big factor, which is the potential to earn back the cost of the unit. A veteran HWT on the company command squad has much greater potential earning back their cost when killing units than high cost elites. Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?
It isn't all based on numbers alone though. I would gladly pay a 10 point upgrade for a 10 point model, if he was optimized to always deliver his points back. Paying for recovery gear and hunter killer missile on an immobile manticore that hides out of LoS isn't expensive % wise but would still be a total waste. A better example would be the humble IG sergeant; 5 points for a melta bomb doesn't make him 100% better but he can earn back his points over a tenfold in assault. Overall though, I do agree that this all simply gets ludicrous as soon as we talk CC. IMOCC needs a complete overhaul; WS and S, let alone the weapons that grants decent combat bonuses are all immensely over costed. Especially WS, I could care less if a model is WS 5 or 10, the extra benefit is abysmal to the point where it gets insulting, especially when you see the benefits of BS 4 and up. The cost of CC units is the worst offender though.. You know there's something wrong when you look at the Warp Talons and realize that they're actually cheap by GW standards, because they cost the same as 2 lightning claws + free model with marine stats and a daemon save, yet is universally hated due to their absurd cost (and lack of grenades).
EVIL INC wrote: The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.
\
No, that is not the issue.
Nobody holds competitive players responsible for the poorly written rules. What they are holding competitive players responsible for is using those poorly written rules to allow them to bring a gun to a knife fight.
You're railing against an idea that simply isn't being presented anywhere in this thread. And have used up your quota of the word 'hate'. Please remove the 'h', 'a', 't' and 'e' keys from your keyboard until further notice.
I don't think I exalt you nearly as much as I should some times, insaniak. But today, I have.
OnT- I think a real push for the closing of the fluff-competitive gap would have to happen at the player base level. And is already happening in one way or another.
Fair point, but I think the problem lies within the fact that GW thinks that melee is like 4th edition and assault is the most dangerous a unit can do. I've never understood the cost for Vanguard Veterans and gearing them of for the role there suppose to be good at, or even now with DE. They nerf Wyches and their weapons/haywire and somehow still think that 10 ppm is a reasonable price for the Wych.
Your comparison of how much more they cost in % falls a bit short because it leaves out a very big factor, which is the potential to earn back the cost of the unit. A veteran HWT on the company command squad has much greater potential earning back their cost when killing units than high cost elites.
True.
But, this is why I don't generally have a problem with special/heavy weapon prices. Aside from a few oddities (Heavy Bolters costing as much as Autocannons), they seem pretty reasonable. I guess the difference is that they tend to be a more 'direct' increase in a model's offensive ability. For example, a Lascannon only cares about a model's BS, but is otherwise equally effective on all models.
In contrast, a melee weapon depends on a models WS, S, I and Attacks, *and* you need to get to combat *and* the model's defence is important for actually surviving to strike. There's a *lot* more dependence on the model's base stats than with shooting weapons.
Zewrath wrote: Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?
I get what you're saying, but at the same time would it be reasonable for a conscript to pay 15pts for a power weapon that barely makes a difference in his combat potential?
It isn't all based on numbers alone though. I would gladly pay a 10 point upgrade for a 10 point model, if he was optimized to always deliver his points back. Paying for recovery gear and hunter killer missile on an immobile manticore that hides out of LoS isn't expensive % wise but would still be a total waste. A better example would be the humble IG sergeant; 5 points for a melta bomb doesn't make him 100% better but he can earn back his points over a tenfold in assault. Overall though,
Oh, indeed.
Zewrath wrote: I do agree that this all simply gets ludicrous as soon as we talk CC. IMOCC needs a complete overhaul; WS and S, let alone the weapons that grants decent combat bonuses are all immensely over costed. Especially WS, I could care less if a model is WS 5 or 10, the extra benefit is abysmal to the point where it gets insulting, especially when you see the benefits of BS 4 and up. The cost of CC units is the worst offender though.. You know there's something wrong when you look at the Warp Talons and realize that they're actually cheap by GW standards, because they cost the same as 2 lightning claws + free model with marine stats and a daemon save, yet is universally hated due to their absurd cost (and lack of grenades).
But, this is why I don't generally have a problem with special/heavy weapon prices. Aside from a few oddities (Heavy Bolters costing as much as Autocannons), they seem pretty reasonable. I guess the difference is that they tend to be a more 'direct' increase in a model's offensive ability. For example, a Lascannon only cares about a model's BS, but is otherwise equally effective on all models.
In contrast, a melee weapon depends on a models WS, S, I and Attacks, *and* you need to get to combat *and* the model's defence is important for actually surviving to strike. There's a *lot* more dependence on the model's base stats than with shooting weapons.
Zewrath wrote: Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?
I get what you're saying, but at the same time would it be reasonable for a conscript to pay 15pts for a power weapon that barely makes a difference in his combat potential?
I guess not, but I think there's little point in discussing this though as it looks like we're entirely on the same page and the above quotes really just recaps it. Assault and the pricing in assault is horrendous.
Actually, now that you mention HWT's it made me look at a lot of units, and the potential to earn back their cost (excluding special units) is actually not very unbalanced and most shooting comes with a decent price. The curve just seems to shatter when it comes to CC units, who more often than not are waaaaay more easy to kill at range than the points invested in the unit that kills it.
Edit: incidentally, I find the pricing on the honor guard most hilarious. They're actually stupid cheap and durable for the price you pay. They pay just above 28 for artificer armor, + 1A, a bolter & bolt pistol and a power weapon of their choice. The vanguard veteran pays 34 points for worse armor, no bolter and if he wants to be a jump pack unit (you know, his signature wargear), he'll have to bump his cost to 37 points. So the Vanguard Veteran gets the privilege of paying ~ 32% more in order to be inferior to the honor guard.. This example is what bothers me the most about 6th and 7th editions way of handling assault; the point cost of assault units is entirely arbitrary and doesn't follow the same pattern of how you can balance most (most, not all) shooting units vs each other and come to the conclusion that the point cost is as fine as you could ever expect GW to make it.
I guess not, but I think there's little point in discussing this though as it looks like we're entirely on the same page and the above quotes really just recaps it. Assault and the pricing in assault is horrendous.
Actually, now that you mention HWT's it made me look at a lot of units, and the potential to earn back their cost (excluding special units) is actually not very unbalanced and most shooting comes with a decent price. The curve just seems to shatter when it comes to CC units, who more often than not are waaaaay more easy to kill at range than the points invested in the unit that kills it.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of over-valuing of assault units, and weapons for that matter.
The thing is, assault for most units/armies has become less necessary, less reliable, harder to pull off and many melee weapons have been nerefed... yet the cost of melee weapons has remained unchanged. Hell, IG now pay more for their melee weapons than they did when assault was meaningful.
It's one of those really weird disconnects between how GW seems to think units work, and how they actually work.
Edit: incidentally, I find the pricing on the honor guard most hilarious. They're actually stupid cheap and durable for the price you pay. They pay just above 28 for artificer armor, + 1A, a bolter & bolt pistol and a power weapon of their choice. The vanguard veteran pays 34 points for worse armor, no bolter and if he wants to be a jump pack unit (you know, his signature wargear), he'll have to bump his cost to 37 points. So the Vanguard Veteran gets the privilege of paying ~ 32% more in order to be inferior to the honor guard.. This example is what bothers me the most about 6th and 7th editions way of handling assault; the point cost of assault units is entirely arbitrary and doesn't follow the same pattern of how you can balance most (most, not all) shooting units vs each other and come to the conclusion that the point cost is as fine as you could ever expect GW to make it.
Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.
Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.
The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.
Based on their BatReps, they put together fluffy lists. Exclusively. That's it.
So, for example, they will build a SOB list that includes 2 PEngines, no priests, 1 block of Repentia and 2 blocks of BSS. With maybe a Rhino, no Exorcist.
Why? Because it's fluffy. The Sisterhood is an elite group with fewer members in the galaxy than there are Space Marines. There are fewer Repentia than regular Battle Sisters. Their vehicles are few and far between. And it's the Sororitas, they don't always have Ecclesiarchal members (liek Priests) along with them, but the PEngine is an iconic part of their image (even though fielding even one is actively reducing your chances to win).
And to head off the debate about numbers:
Spoiler:
6 Orders Major, capped at 10,000 women each, with uncounted Orders Minor, that cap at a maximum of 1000 women, but many have only a single Sister. Mathematically speaking, you'd need over 900 of them to be at maximum size to reach even 1 million Sisters, and we know this is not the case, as there aren't enough planets in the Imperium to support that many Orders Minor, as we know that most planets don't have even 1 Sister on them. There are maybe a thousand Orders Minor in total, and of those thousand, the majority have less than 1000 members, some as few as 1.
The Sisters aren't getting to 1+ million members with those numbers, their recruitment standards are too strict and the pool of potential recruits too small.
Take it to Background if you want to discuss the Sororitas.
Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.
The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.
The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains.
Let that sink in.
rigeld2 wrote: The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains.
Let that sink in.
I had wondered why one of the most popular HQs in 5th got a massive point drop.
Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.
The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.
Based on their BatReps, they put together fluffy lists. Exclusively. That's it.
So, for example, they will build a SOB list that includes 2 PEngines, no priests, 1 block of Repentia and 2 blocks of BSS. With maybe a Rhino, no Exorcist.
Why? Because it's fluffy. The Sisterhood is an elite group with fewer members in the galaxy than there are Space Marines. There are fewer Repentia than regular Battle Sisters. Their vehicles are few and far between. And it's the Sororitas, they don't always have Ecclesiarchal members (liek Priests) along with them, but the PEngine is an iconic part of their image (even though fielding even one is actively reducing your chances to win).
And to head off the debate about numbers:
Spoiler:
6 Orders Major, capped at 10,000 women each, with uncounted Orders Minor, that cap at a maximum of 1000 women, but many have only a single Sister. Mathematically speaking, you'd need over 900 of them to be at maximum size to reach even 1 million Sisters, and we know this is not the case, as there aren't enough planets in the Imperium to support that many Orders Minor, as we know that most planets don't have even 1 Sister on them. There are maybe a thousand Orders Minor in total, and of those thousand, the majority have less than 1000 members, some as few as 1.
The Sisters aren't getting to 1+ million members with those numbers, their recruitment standards are too strict and the pool of potential recruits too small.
Take it to Background if you want to discuss the Sororitas.
At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.
Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.
The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.
The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains. Let that sink in.
To be fair I think that mentality was ingrained from older editions where a Chappy was one of the best cheap HQs because he had a power weapon and +4 Invul save for like.. I want to say in 3rd edition a Chaplain was like 80 points or so. So it's likely that they themselves continued with that trend.
But yeah, they basically write the game that they play with their mates, not something that's universal. So they always play fluffy armies versus fluffy armies, or I think on the offchance they don't play a fluffy army they play stupidly (e.g. taking 3 Riptides and assaulting with them; I think that happened in the final real WD batrep) because it's something cool/cinematic and "forge the narrative".
IMO the best stuff in the game came from Alessio Cavatore, who was IIRC the Italian Grand Champion before he joined the studio, so he brought that competitive "How does this affect the tournament scene" kind of knowledge that everyone else in GW sorely lacks.
At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.
Though, it makes you wonder why the Studio that creates the game doesn't have, like, 500 of every model for every army available to actually, you know, playtest rules with.
Oh, that's right, because they don't play-test. They create broken rules that permit things like Deathstars with 2++ rerollables, and then say "well, you shouldn't ever play like that, it's not sporting".
At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.
Though, it makes you wonder why the Studio that creates the game doesn't have, like, 500 of every model for every army available to actually, you know, playtest rules with.
Oh, that's right, because they don't play-test. They create broken rules that permit things like Deathstars with 2++ rerollables, and then say "well, you shouldn't ever play like that, it's not sporting".
I don't think it's that they don't playtest, it's that they don't even think of things from a competitive standpoint because of 20+ years of "spirit of the game" nonsense being drilled in. I remember actual multi-page White Dwarf articles talking about the "spirit of the game" and how your opponent is a bad person who's playing wrong if they took say minimum troops and maxed out Elite/Fast/Heavy because that's not how an army should be designed.
I really think they don't even acknowledge that things like Deathstars and 2++ Rerollable saves exist, because they'd never in a million years think of doing a combo like that and assume that nobody else will. They basically assume everyone playing is an idiot who will only play fluffy armies because it's the right thing to do. Which, arguably, wouldn't be a bad thing, but people aren't like that.
I recall something similar in D&D 3.x. WotC would never playtest new books with the entire gamut of new books, only with the new book and the PHB/DMG. This led to some prestige classes that were complete garbage and actually worse than sticking with a base class, several that were just outright broken when combined with other prestige classes, and some that were actually illegal by their own rules. It used to be a running joke that the WotC designers didn't even play their own game because they got rules wrong so many times or just built illegal builds that they showcased in Dragon magazine as the proper way to build out a concept.
At least with D&D you have a DM who can rein things in if you have a fluffy/RP type of group that doesn't powergame, so they can still get enjoyment out of crazy underpowered builds without just getting steamrolled by encounters. The same can't be said about 40k.
I recall something similar in D&D 3.x. WotC would never playtest new books with the entire gamut of new books, only with the new book and the PHB/DMG. This led to some prestige classes that were complete garbage and actually worse than sticking with a base class, several that were just outright broken when combined with other prestige classes, and some that were actually illegal by their own rules. It used to be a running joke that the WotC designers didn't even play their own game because they got rules wrong so many times or just built illegal builds that they showcased in Dragon magazine as the proper way to build out a concept.
Man, the stories I could tell you about broken class-builds in D&D 3/3.5...
Let me just summarize by saying that you can kill anything in any book with 2 characters as a party:
One being a Frenzied Berzerker, the other being a Sorcerer-based Mystic Theurge.
I backed out of mtg after playing against someone with a "perfect" list. I lost every game to him without even making a scratch on him. Eventually I realized the only lesson I was learning from losing to him was to buy more cards. As I met more and more "competitive" mtg players I started to feel like I was playing "who has more disposable income: the game." At least if someone beats me in 40k I have the satisfaction of knowing that my models looked good while getting slaughtered.Even against waac people I at least learn something from them and they usually aren't jerks about it. I have met plenty of nice people who play mtg but some of the worst people I have ever met play competitive mtg.
That's a whole lot of logical fallacy right there.
Explaining why some people do things is not the same as agreeing or endorsing those things.
Trying to get you to agree that the rules are poorly written is not endorsing hate. I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.
What we're saying is that the poor rules foster a division of play styles within the community and this causes friction when two people want drastically different things from the same game.
I'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him slide on that to make peace. Regardless, poorly written rules is hardly a reason for these haters (whoever they are) to have that hard of an emotion towards other human beings. These haters have misplaced their hate as I have been saying. they should hate the rule makers for the rules and the power gamers for the power gaming. Those are two seperate issues. Either way, That all comsuming murderous hatred is a little too much for my taste. Allseeingskink and I seem to have a similer view in that that is too strong of an emotion to have for a game. Frustration, annoyance or something like that would be far more appropriate. Games are for fun and to enjoy, If we experience that sort of hatred towards other human beings over a game of little toy army men we are simply not living healthily (yes that is likely not a real word grammar police)When you see these mysterious haters, maybe pass that along to them.
I've been saying the rules are poorly written for years. Likely for longer than most of the posters in this thread have even been playing the game. That is a given and your preaching to the choir when you say they are poorly written.
The OP just sounds extremely negative and like a big troll. He obviously just had intentions to come here and talk trash about the game.
He can't seriously expect this game to be about constantly changing lists and adapting. It's an expensive hobby and most people can't afford to buy the newest baddest stuff all the time to fix holes in their lists.
This isn't magic the gathering or a simple board game. This is wargaming, it has almost always been like this. There are some systems that have tighter rules, yes, but even those have "optimal" lists where playing competitively with anything else would just net you losses.
If he is here because he likes to play competitively, then he can do that. There are other players that love to play 40k competitively as well, and those wonky lists can play each other all day. But gaking on the rest of the hobby goers for how they play is pretty much, and I use this term lightly.....slowed.
One of the first lists I played against was a fairly competitive Necron list. My marines got walloped pretty hard. Rather than get pissed at the other player (who was more than happy to play without flyers), I realized I have a lot to learn still and need to work on strategy better. That and I really hate Jink.
On the earlier discussion about play-testing, GW does indeed do play-testing for most of their products- the play-testers are listed on the table-of-contents pages.
The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.
I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.
Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.
BlaxicanX wrote: On the earlier discussion about play-testing, GW does indeed do play-testing for most of their products- the play-testers are listed on the table-of-contents pages.
The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.
I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.
Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.
It's their mentality that's the biggest issue. A GW designer would take a bad unit if they thought it looked cool or if it fit the bit of fluff they whipped up for the battle report (even to the point of in the past making "illegal" armies or creating their own rules just to have a cool battle report); for instance one of the early 3rd edition batreps was White Scars vs. Chaos and Paul Sawyer got the studio to make up some quick special rules for White Scars for him to use), regardless of how it performs. So they can't accurately playtest because I doubt they're acknowledging styles beyond "forge the narrative", so they're essentially trying one way of playing, and saying everything works without trying any other ways. A crappy army versus another crappy army can balance out in a sense because neither is good, and that's what GW tends to do.
They could balance with 6-8 playtesters, but something tells me those 6-8 playtesters aren't even considering that Wave Serpent spam makes Eldar super good, or that Mutilators are bad units, because they play what they like against others who play what they like; I also think they play stupidly if it fits the fluff, so dumb play balances out the situation where the units someone likes are also the good ones. If everyone played like that it might not be a big deal, but different people play different ways and that's where the discrepancy comes in.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Hate" is probably an inappropriate word for the actual feelings involved.
"feel frustrated by", "annoyed", those are probably more fitting terms than "hate". There's very few people in this world I "hate", there's a whole bunch that piss me right the feth off.
I'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him slide on that to make peace. Regardless, poorly written rules is hardly a reason for these haters (whoever they are) to have that hard of an emotion towards other human beings. These haters have misplaced their hate as I have been saying. they should hate the rule makers for the rules and the power gamers for the power gaming. Those are two seperate issues. Either way, That all comsuming murderous hatred is a little too much for my taste. Allseeingskink and I seem to have a similer view in that that is too strong of an emotion to have for a game. Frustration, annoyance or something like that would be far more appropriate. Games are for fun and to enjoy, If we experience that sort of hatred towards other human beings over a game of little toy army men we are simply not living healthily (yes that is likely not a real word grammar police)When you see these mysterious haters, maybe pass that along to them.
I've been saying the rules are poorly written for years. Likely for longer than most of the posters in this thread have even been playing the game. That is a given and your preaching to the choir when you say they are poorly written.
If you actually read AllSeeingSkink's comment, it was about your misuse of the word "hate". Not about the players feeling too strongly.
I've been reading this thread for a while and resisted the urge to jump in, mainly because it's slowly going to some dark places.
But seriously, EVIL INC. You are repeatedly making false assumptions and accusing people of hating, which you seem to be doing yourself.
And I'm repeating the numerous people who have said this before me when I say that literally no-one has supported the so-called hating of competitive players and no-one has claimed that the players themselves are responsible for the rules.
If you have opinions you wish to share, by all means do so. But don't come here and present opinions like "there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it" as a fact.
And if you do, back it with data, don't just yell at people who don't agree with you.
BlaxicanX wrote: On the earlier discussion about play-testing, GW does indeed do play-testing for most of their products- the play-testers are listed on the table-of-contents pages.
The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.
I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.
Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.
It's their mentality that's the biggest issue. A GW designer would take a bad unit if they thought it looked cool or if it fit the bit of fluff they whipped up for the battle report (even to the point of in the past making "illegal" armies or creating their own rules just to have a cool battle report); for instance one of the early 3rd edition batreps was White Scars vs. Chaos and Paul Sawyer got the studio to make up some quick special rules for White Scars for him to use), regardless of how it performs. So they can't accurately playtest because I doubt they're acknowledging styles beyond "forge the narrative", so they're essentially trying one way of playing, and saying everything works without trying any other ways. A crappy army versus another crappy army can balance out in a sense because neither is good, and that's what GW tends to do.
They could balance with 6-8 playtesters, but something tells me those 6-8 playtesters aren't even considering that Wave Serpent spam makes Eldar super good, or that Mutilators are bad units, because they play what they like against others who play what they like; I also think they play stupidly if it fits the fluff, so dumb play balances out the situation where the units someone likes are also the good ones. If everyone played like that it might not be a big deal, but different people play different ways and that's where the discrepancy comes in.
So, one could say that the game is made for casual players but optimal for competitive ones... huh.
A bit streamlined maybe. But just a tought I had from this discussion.
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
I'm confused - are you opposed to well written rules? To balanced units?
The problem as far as I can tell is that A)as noted, GW plays the game differently from like... all the rest of us. And B) they don't seem to put a whole lot of logistical effort into their quality-control.
I mean, case in point: the Space Marine codex is the single largest codex they have realeased thus far, in terms of scale of number of units, rules and characters etc. It has 7 play-testers. Taking a quick glance at all the codices I have, the number of play-testers ranges from 6-8 guys.
Compare that to the Warmachine's Khador rulebook, which has... 21 playtesters.
Thing is, it's not just the number of playtesters, it's the mindset.
I mean, however GW's likes to play their game, the goal of any playtester should be the same - try to break the game.
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm
But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.
Not competitive players, but the overly competitive power gamer who brings 3 riptides and 6 missle broadsides to a 2k game. the guy who ignores strategy and fun just to win. that's who most people hate.
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm
But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.
But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.
Out of curiosity, can you provide some sort of source for the companies you used as examples if they've stated that they're a game company first and a model company second?
Regardless, its a poor excuse on GW's part, and nothing can justify charging the money they do for their rules for such low quality in rules writing.
But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting.
I'd have fewer problems with that mindset if:
a) Their rules were cheap or free. As it is, they're charging premium rates for poor quality rules.
b) They actually produced models for their rules, as opposed to just removing the rules that don't have models. For a company trying to sell itself as a 'model company', this just seems backwards to me.
Brennonjw wrote: Not competitive players, but the overly competitive power gamer who brings 3 riptides and 6 missle broadsides to a 2k game. the guy who ignores strategy and fun just to win. that's who most people hate.
There is weird logic here. Just pointing it out because a lot of people on this forum seem to share your logic.
If the most competitive list involves bringing 3 riptides and 6 missile broadsides then a good competitive player brings that list. It makes no sense for hating a player who is just playing competitively when the agreement beforehand is to play a competitive game. [Bringing a competitive list to a fluffy game is a different matter altogether]
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm
But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.
But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.
No, GW claims to be a model company so they can write whatever crap they want in the game and handwave issues as "We aren't a games company". They can repeat that until the cows come home but it won't make it true.
As others have said, a model company wouldn't charge an arm and a leg for rules. A model company wouldn't remove choices because they don't make a certain model, have no plans to make a certain model, and are afraid that a third party will make said model.
What they claim is a fabrication to justify their actions, a lie told enough times that they believe it.
soomemafia, Hate was the term they use and the term used in the title of the thread and in the original post. Therefore, that is the emotion addressed and discussed.
It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.
We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though. The "frustration" people have is that I have found that people expect others to do as they themselves would do in a situation.
Take for example you have a player who plays "non-competetively" and has a fluffy guard list and find themselves playing against some guy who has a tau/eldar army. They think of the many possibilities that they could come up with and expect their opponent to do the same thing. Much as a girlfriend or boyfriend who accuses their significant other of cheating on them all the time, because if the roles were reversed they themselves would have done so. Before hounding and flaming me, understand this is only a hypothesis using psychology and would not apply to EVERYONE.
Another reason for the "frustraion" (see how much nicer this term is and how more appropriate? Well at least in my case it is closer to the true emotion than hate) would be not because of the rules themselves (that would have a different target and thus be different frustration) but because I knew this particuler player from previous experience or reputation. that reputation might be that they are a mathhammerer who always takes the min/max units no matter the situation. Who always tries to table an opponent so that they can loudly gloat to all who will listen and so on and so forth. In this situation, People you would be frustrated at the person because of their actions and gaming mentality. Then, you would have the separate frustration that the rules allowed them to "get away with it". Not to say the OP is fully in this camp or even partially but going from the post they made and the itle of the thread, it appears to me that they are confusing a "hate towards them and presenting it as something else here in order to try to gain support. Of course, that is just my guess and not to be taken as any slight towards them.
I can see where these two frustrations could tarnish the view of one another
The jerk player causing you to turn away from GW because "it always seems you get stucking playing this sort of guy" and the game tarnishing the player because "the rules let this guy abuse them so he doesnt have to change".
EVIL INC wrote: soomemafia, Hate was the term they use and the term used in the title of the thread and in the original post. Therefore, that is the emotion addressed and discussed. It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.
We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though. The "frustration" people have is that I have found that people expect others to do as they themselves would do in a situation. Take for example you have a player who plays "non-competetively" and has a fluffy guard list and find themselves playing against some guy who has a tau/eldar army. They think of the many possibilities that they could come up with and expect their opponent to do the same thing. Much as a girlfriend or boyfriend who accuses their significant other of cheating on them all the time, because if the roles were reversed they themselves would have done so. Before hounding and flaming me, understand this is only a hypothesis using psychology and would not apply to EVERYONE.
Another reason for the "frustraion" (see how much nicer this term is and how more appropriate? Well at least in my case it is closer to the true emotion than hate) would be not because of the rules themselves (that would have a different target and thus be different frustration) but because I knew this particuler player from previous experience or reputation. that reputation might be that they are a mathhammerer who always takes the min/max units no matter the situation. Who always tries to table an opponent so that they can loudly gloat to all who will listen and so on and so forth. In this situation, People you would be frustrated at the person because of their actions and gaming mentality. Then, you would have the separate frustration that the rules allowed them to "get away with it". Not to say the OP is fully in this camp or even partially but going from the post they made and the itle of the thread, it appears to me that they are confusing a "hate towards them and presenting it as something else here in order to try to gain support. Of course, that is just my guess and not to be taken as any slight towards them.
I can see where these two frustrations could tarnish the view of one another The jerk player causing you to turn away from GW because "it always seems you get stucking playing this sort of guy" and the game tarnishing the player because "the rules let this guy abuse them so he doesnt have to change".
What part of the rules are the reason for player hate are you not getting? Lack of playtesting, lack of good rules, lack of balance, all of these things is the reason why there appears to be any kind of "hate" towards a player because those things empower the gulf between playing what you want and playing what wins. You would not see half as much "hate" if the gulf was relatively small.
We seem to have gone WAYYY off topic though in discussing playtesting and such though.
Not really. If GW produced balanced rules, then there wouldn't be this mess of competitive vs non-competitive players.
A good game might have small gaps between units, such that a tournament list may be a little stronger than a fluffy one. However, 40k has chasms between its units in terms of power level. To the point where matches can effectively be won in the list building stage.
What I do mind are competitive players who insist the game should be built to their standards, and that the game should be played to their standards. There are games that are built for and played by competitive players - not every game needs to be that way, and 40k is one of the ones that isn't.
Yeah, those terrible players actually expecting well written rules for the hundreds of dollars they've spent, yeesh, what are they thinking. /sarcasm
But really... there's no downside to well written rules. You can be the most non-competitive player ever and well written competitive rules will not harm you at all. It boggles my mind how 7th edition has some of the exact same poorly worded rules as 6th and they have the audacity to charge such a huge price for it.
But GW are not a games company that makes models (Privateer press, wyrd) they're a models company that also make a game. It may seem weird to most people but that shows where their prorities lie. They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting. I'm ot saying it's right I'm saying that is their logic behind it. Hell I'd rather they do what wyrd does & just do open beta tests where anyone can download a trial pdf & make comments. it has worked well enough for wyrd and more testers is never a bad thing. It will drive hype & get the community more involved.
£50 for the core rules and £20-£30 for most expansions somewhat undermines that assumption. Nearly every other significant competitor makes some incarnation of it's rules available for free, and I think I'm right in saying that one can purchase the core rules and relevant faction book at RRP for less than the RRP of just the 40K core book. At least, those that don't simply give all the rules away for free.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: They would rather pay out 100 hrs of sculpting than 100 hours of playtesting.
Except GW charge huge prices for both models and rules. If they were selling the models for X dollars and the rules were either free or very cheap (thus the cost of the models subsidises the cost of the rules) you would have a point. But in GW's case, the cost of the 100 hours of sculpting should be covered by the cost of the models and the cost of 100 hours of playtesting should be covered by the cost of the rules (roughly, I'm sure there's some subsidisation one way or the other).
With the amount GW charge and how long 40k has been around, there's really very little excuse.
You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.
EVIL INC wrote: It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.
I think you might have misinterpreted what I said on the previous page.
I said "hate" is probably an inappropriate word... but the reason it's an inappropriate word is because I really don't think there is anyone at all who genuinely has a personal hatred for someone else simply because they are competitive. It just doesn't happen. There's no point arguing about a deep personal hatred of another person because no one actually has a deep personal hatred of another person for being competitive.
EVIL INC wrote: It is simply too strong of an emotion to be used against human beings over a simple game in my opinion. Disagree with that if you will but your not going to change my mind on it.
I think you might have misinterpreted what I said on the previous page.
I said "hate" is probably an inappropriate word... but the reason it's an inappropriate word is because I really don't think there is anyone at all who genuinely has a personal hatred for someone else simply because they are competitive. It just doesn't happen. There's no point arguing about a deep personal hatred of another person because no one actually has a deep personal hatred of another person for being competitive.
Thats why I am agreing with you on it. It SHOULD not happen although evidently it does. I'm seeing hatred just talking about the game.
Mayhaps my last post was not read properly...
What I was trying to say is that to me, it is two seperate frustrations. One is at the player because of their actions and one is at the rules. The two overlap in many casesand in these cases the frustration is multiplied.
I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.
Examples?
Would you be opposed to balancing things if all/overwhelming majority of options remained/were rejigged?
I find that the 40k rule-set attracts a certain kind of player.
Ones that live in "the grey zone", take a rule, abuse it and make an army around it. So they can say "look how clever I am!!!" Who then confuse using a gimmick for being a great tactician.
With the constantly evolving rules and heavy reliance on meta, it is a game favored for those who like to stroke their ego with little effort needed to get skilled at the game. It is so heavily randomized that some skills are rather pointless to develop.
It really is not Competitive player hate, they are fine. It is the WAAC players that they get confused with being an issue.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm opposed to balance when it comes at the cost of options. Most balancing proposals I've seen reduce the number of options available to narrative players.
And what would the alternative be? The crap we have now where narrative players are screwed because some options are better than others? Besides half of the "options" aren't really options.
EVIL INC wrote: You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.
Competitive 40K players who don't exploit the rule imbalances won't be very successful.
Not all competitive players are jerks, not all jerks are competitive players, but the two things are often found near one another.
I do not consider myself a competitive player, but if given free choice between winning or losing I would, of course, choose to win. If given the choice between losing a fun game, or winning a game that is no fun for either myself, my opponent, or possibly both? Then call me a loser.
I like to think I'm a fun opponent, but that isn't ultimately for me to say, I do my best to win the game with my list, but I try to avoid lists which would be overwhelming for my opponents. My mantra is strong units are ok, but avoid cheesy lists. (I'll run 20 Fleshounds and a Herald in my Daemons for instance, but would baulk at running three of them) which given my record is roughly 50/50 seems to be about right for my local environment.
Contrast that to players who min/max Dire Avengers in Waveserpents week in, week out, despite requests to tone things down a bit for the fun of everybody else.
EVIL INC wrote: You have competetive players you do not like to play in ANY game. This is chess, checkers, warmachine or any other game. Many of these games have much better rule that are more balanced. Thats my point of them being two seperate "hates" that interact with one other. By focusing 100% of your attention and totally ignoring that it is a person making the lists and playing the game, doing the trash talking, spilling soda across the table and fingering your models with greasy fingers ect I feel you are making a mistake.
I feel you are doing a disservice to the good and decent players who like to win and DONT exploit the rules and are decent and respectful folks.
Should I say "What part of not all players DONT exploit or abuse the rules dare you not getting?" but that would be highly rude and impolite breaking the rules of the forum so I will not say it. Instead, only typing it up as an example.
Competitive 40K players who don't exploit the rule imbalances won't be very successful.
Not all competitive players are jerks, not all jerks are competitive players, but the two things are often found near one another.
I do not consider myself a competitive player, but if given free choice between winning or losing I would, of course, choose to win. If given the choice between losing a fun game, or winning a game that is no fun for either myself, my opponent, or possibly both? Then call me a loser.
I like to think I'm a fun opponent, but that isn't ultimately for me to say, I do my best to win the game with my list, but I try to avoid lists which would be overwhelming for my opponents. My mantra is strong units are ok, but avoid cheesy lists. (I'll run 20 Fleshounds and a Herald in my Daemons for instance, but would baulk at running three of them) which given my record is roughly 50/50 seems to be about right for my local environment.
Contrast that to players who min/max Dire Avengers in Waveserpents week in, week out, despite requests to tone things down a bit for the fun of everybody else.
Who would you suppose is more well thought of?
Exactly. I'm firmly in the unsuccessful competetive player camp. Of course, that makes me a "hated one". Not because I used armies that are no min/maxed or because id rather lose a game because Id rather we both have fun and so forth but just because of the rules.
You self identify as a "competitive player" and despite many people outlining what the term is generally a short form for (someone who exploits the rules and doesn't care about their opponent having fun, regardless of context) and that doesn't really describe you, you've still been waving your standard in defence of those players.
Time to put down that sword and pick up a ploughshare my friend, for you, the war is over.
Talizvar wrote: I find that the 40k rule-set attracts a certain kind of player.
Ones that live in "the grey zone", take a rule, abuse it and make an army around it. So they can say "look how clever I am!!!" Who then confuse using a gimmick for being a great tactician.
With the constantly evolving rules and heavy reliance on meta, it is a game favored for those who like to stroke their ego with little effort needed to get skilled at the game. It is so heavily randomized that some skills are rather pointless to develop.
It really is not Competitive player hate, they are fine. It is the WAAC players that they get confused with being an issue.
To me a competative player is someone who sets out to win games. perhaps it is a matter of definition? I know how much WAAC players despise the term WAAC, but to me at least, those WAAC players and competative players are two seperate groups and in this thread, they are being lumped together as one and the same. I do not defend the actions of the players that fall into the WAAC camp but rather those of us who do not.
And yes, the WAAC players ARE an area where the rules DO come into play as it is an area where the two seperate "hates" overlap.
The great part is that i collected footslogging orkses cause i like them. And than they unexpectedly happened to be viable! So, i'm double happy 
What we were doing was closer to a role playing game than a balanced wargame since 
), and a Power Fist (Do these really need to be 25pts on S3 guys?).
