With all this talk about the eldar codex, and discussions about what would happen to the tau one, I thought I'd throw my $0.02 out there.
The easiest way to fix this within your gaming groups is to not be horrible to each other. Agree with each other not to run "broken" lists. The point of this game is for the enjoyment of all, so lets make it that way.
I play tau, always have. With the advent of the 6th addition codex, I saw a lot of anti-tau hate, especially once the more broken combos were discovered (riptide+buffmander, taudar, ect.), but that never really happened with my group. Because we realized as a group that those sorts of lists make the games less fun for everybody. The person who is playing them and the person who is against them.
We've do this with MTG all the time. Some of the people who play with my group go to big tounements, and have some decks that can kill you in 3 turns, but they don't use them against people who's decks aren't as good. There are some extremely broken rules in MTG (a good dredge deck is practically unstoppable in the right hands), but that is fun for no one.
Having no chance at winning is just as boring as having no chance at loosing. If we, as a community, just don't build these borken lists, than we can all enjoy this game we love so much.
And there you have it. My probably poorly thought out, possibly too rational to ever be accepted, answer.
People have rather wildly differing definitions of "reasonable".
Unfortunately, with 40k, it's also not as easy to adjust armies as it is a deck with MTG. With Magic, most cards are a few cents, maybe a couple of bucks. With 40k, units are $25-150 each and have an intensive investment of time and effort in painting, and swapping units and list builds isn't super easy for everyone.
Vaktathi wrote: People have rather wildly differing definitions of "reasonable".
I think this is the crux of matter. Is it reasonable if your army has a 95% chance of winning? 92%? 87%? Obviously this is tough to calculate, but self-nerfing doesn't do much good unless the OP codex player has a good chance of losing. IMHO, the stronger army should only have a 67% chance of winning, or less.
The biggest problem with this concept is forgetting two factors; firstly the average human being isn't always that decent, but more over the power players who jump for this kind of codex don't always release what they are doing to their opposition, because they find sole enjoyment in the hoppy by winning, and someone else crippling there capabilites to hinder this is the one being inconsiderate
Vaktathi wrote: People have rather wildly differing definitions of "reasonable".
This.
OP, your post is not too rational, but then again, understanding different people enjoy things differently is probably too rational for you.
Sure, but there is no need to be rude
If you're referring specifically to my comment, then understand that its literally the exact same thing you put at the end of your post.
If its about the general attitude of be nice to your opponent, then sure, but its such a vague thing to define that so long as both players agree, then you're good. The problem, however, is getting to that agreement if both players have a different understanding of what fluffy, fun, or casual means.
In other words, its all well and good to post online and say 'Just be nice!' as a way to work around the broken codices/units, but the reality is that many people will either be turning down games, or playing one sided games where one of the players is not happy.
The gray area of 'rational' and 'irrational' is too wide and the power levels between codexes are too large.
That's why if the codexes were better balanced, the gray area wouldn't be so wide and there wouldn't be so many problems. "Close enough" is often good enough. But that's hard to do now.
Rippy wrote: Unfortunately, not everyone is reasonable in pick up games.
Pretty much. Not everyone has a stable group of cool people to play with. Never mind competitive play, clear rules and game balance are critical even for casual play between players who aren't familiar with each other. People are pissed at the unbalance that currently exists in 40k because it makes for very one-sided pickup games. If I show up at my FLGS with my fluffy Saim-Hann list, I can just effortlessly stomp players. If I show up with my fluffy Thousand Sons list, I get stomped right back. That's a problem even for a Beer & Pretzels game.
What's with the super preachy mood on Dakka lately? I've never seen so many people pontificating about the most idiotic stuff. Like there is some sort of moral crisis because an OP codex was released. It's completely off-putting. Sign of the times, I guess.
Silverthorne wrote: What's with the super preachy mood on Dakka lately? I've never seen so many people pontificating about the most idiotic stuff. Like there is some sort of moral crisis because an OP codex was released. It's completely off-putting. Sign of the times, I guess.
Silverthorne wrote: What's with the super preachy mood on Dakka lately? I've never seen so many people pontificating about the most idiotic stuff. Like there is some sort of moral crisis because an OP codex was released. It's completely off-putting. Sign of the times, I guess.
The only way a game can be "fair, fun, balanced, polite" is by using my superior intellect and making two armies with the understanding my opponent can pick either one he likes.
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to pick models for my opponent so I will never have the game I would want with a GW product.
So we are down to what each person deems "acceptable", it is a bit like herding cats as others have pointed out so well.
OP, I agree with your intent, what others have pointed out is some people like to ratchet up the challenge and tend to get disappointed when their opponent is only looking for a narrative.
Maybe you have better luck, but I HAVE NO IDEA how competitive or how much to nerf my force to play a stranger and try to get a close game.
The pushy little voice in me says "Shoot for a win! " while the nice "why can't we get along?" voice says "Make it fun! Winning is not that important! ".
This is about when Peregrine can step in and say it should not be up to us if GW can make decent rules... which they are too "inept" to do.
DanielBeaver wrote: . Never mind competitive play, clear rules and game balance are critical even for casual play between players who aren't familiar with each other.
Moreso, IMO.
At least in competitive play, you have an impartial adjudicator to keep things straight, and where things are particularly broken they can potentially be 'fixed' before any models hit the table.
That's not the case in casual pick-up games. You're at the mercy of your opponent's attitude to the game, and that's something that is quite often not apparent until you're already playing. It sucks when you have an otherwise enjoyable game that suddenly takes an unexpected southwards turn when you discover at the bottom of turn 5 that you both have very, very different ideas on how something should work that makes a massive difference to how the game plays out.
Silverthorne wrote: What's with the super preachy mood on Dakka lately? I've never seen so many people pontificating about the most idiotic stuff. Like there is some sort of moral crisis because an OP codex was released. It's completely off-putting. Sign of the times, I guess.
Just wait till the annual report comes out in a few months.
The problem is that with Eldar you can be the nicest guy in the world, make a list that doesn't spam the overly powered units, and still have a better than fair chance of stomping your opponent.
I think you'd have to be spamming Storm Guardians on foot without any support, in other words deliberately throwing the game, in order for some armies to have a chance.
Now I don't play Eldar, but if I did (prior to this Codex) it would have been a Saim Han Windrider host. The imagery of an army so fast is its major selling point. Now, a player would have to deliberately limit themselves in order to not engage in a one sided beatdown.
I play tau, always have. With the advent of the 6th addition codex, I saw a lot of anti-tau hate, especially once the more broken combos were discovered (riptide+buffmander, taudar, ect.), but that never really happened with my group. Because we realized as a group that those sorts of lists make the games less fun for everybody. The person who is playing them and the person who is against them.
This all sounds fine and easy solution for everyone, until you go beyond a cursory glance.
Just bought a model/unit and spent the time painting and modeling it nice and now want to field it? You need permission to use it.
If you tell someone they can't, you'll probably feel like a jerk for ruining their fun. If you tell them they can use it, now you have to face units you don't want to.
With Tau specifically I've seen hate for EVERY staple unit.
So if I want to play a game that will appease someone I can't have a pre made list. I can expect to be told I shouldn't take a buffcommander, Triptide, Riptide, FW Tides, Broadsides, Firewarriors, or Pathfinders/Markerdrones or any combination thereof.
I'm not even joking, look up the threads. You'll see hate for how broken JSJ is and how a psykerless army doesn't deserve buffs to their nearly armywide BS3.
90% of the problems with this or any game can be solved by playing with a good group of likeminded people. I've almost never dealt with any of the flavor of the month queso in my gaming group, and those guys tended to tone it down next time after realizing they were using some overpowered stuff. I've dealt with some of that stuff in tournaments but generally even there I've played against friendly folks who just want to take their favorite army out for a few games, and they're not out to cut any throats.
JimOnMars wrote: I think this is the crux of matter. Is it reasonable if your army has a 95% chance of winning? 92%? 87%? Obviously this is tough to calculate, but self-nerfing doesn't do much good unless the OP codex player has a good chance of losing. IMHO, the stronger army should only have a 67% chance of winning, or less.
It's reasonable if and only if your army has roughly a 50% chance of winning, presupposing that we don't take player skill into account. That's what the points system is supposed to effect.
I'm all for it. I recently sent an email to my gaming group if they wouldn't mind allowing me to run the wraith host detachment with 2 wraithlords instead of lord and knight. I'm an Iyanden player but i also understand how nasty the knight is for the points and don't want to always put him on the table. This gives a reasonable alternative and just happens to hit 1000pts exactly. So now I just need to figure out how to expand to 1500pts with harlequin additions. The games should be more fun and I still get to use my Iyanden formation.
bullyboy wrote: I'm all for it. I recently sent an email to my gaming group if they wouldn't mind allowing me to run the wraith host detachment with 2 wraithlords instead of lord and knight. I'm an Iyanden player but i also understand how nasty the knight is for the points and don't want to always put him on the table. This gives a reasonable alternative and just happens to hit 1000pts exactly. So now I just need to figure out how to expand to 1500pts with harlequin additions. The games should be more fun and I still get to use my Iyanden formation.
An alternative is that you could take the wraithknight, but purposefully run your list at 50 less points (950 instead of 1000), to make up for the undercostedness of the wraithknight.
Crimson Devil wrote: If Humans were capable of being decent to each other on a regular basis, then our history would be written quite differently.
This is how I feel about the matter being discussed. But sadly not everyone that one will meet while gaming is going to be reasonable and willing to take anything but a TFG list
Martel732 wrote: Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?
GW list? I was unaware that they were in the business of making army lists. Would you please point me to a relevent codex entry?
Martel732 wrote: Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?
GW list? I was unaware that they were in the business of making army lists. Would you please point me to a relevent codex entry?
They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?
Martel732 wrote:They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?
That's a completely different issue. I was simply addressing one precise point that you made: "Why not a GW list?" GW doesn't make lists. To speak in culinary terms, they make ingredients with which you can make whatever recipe you want. They're not in the business of making recipes.
Martel732 wrote: Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?
Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.
Martel732 wrote:They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?
That's a completely different issue. I was simply addressing one precise point that you made: "Why not a GW list?" GW doesn't make lists. To speak in culinary terms, they make ingredients with which you can make whatever recipe you want. They're not in the business of making recipes.
But it is their fault that "TFG lists" exist. If there were no "TFG" ingredients, one could not construct a "TFG list".
Martel732 wrote: Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?
Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.
It's like blaming cough syrup manufacturers for the fact that certain persons use them to manufacture illegal narcotics.
Martel732 wrote: Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?
Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.
Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.
Martel732 wrote: Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.
Martel732 wrote: Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.
What games do you have in mind?
Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.
Traditio wrote: They're not in the business of making recipes.
Firebase support Cadre and some formations get very specific about what you bring.
Yes, I expected something like this as an objection. Even so, they're telling you: "Here are your options. You have to pick x, y and z." They don't tell you: "But you have to take this formation and that formation, and in each formation, you must select these particular options."
It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.
I haven't played Land to World in Flames.
But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?
"But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?"
No, I really don't. This is NOT a co-op game. There is a winner and a loser. There is no excuse for GW's poor rules. A group of power gamers could get together and fix it in a week.
Bharring wrote: Even in StarCraft, in an 8-player FFA, rushing in a game that contains newbies was a TFG thing.
The newbies have the tools at their disposal to stop the rush, though. They just need the knowledge. I understand BA and Eldar both very well, but I don't have the tools as BA to stop the Eldar. BIG, BIG difference. There's no Eldar base for me to scout and see what's coming so I can prepare. Eldar just get to flop their carrier equivalents on the map without going through the process of gateway -> cybercore -> stargate -> fleet beacon. I have opportunities to stop the Protoss. The Eldar just get to lay the wood.
If I don't want my opponent to have carriers, I can go marine/marauder/medivac and FORCE him to build units to defend or lose outright. In 40K I have to beg and hope that the Eldar player takes mercy on me. Feth that.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.
Please tell me where I can find this section in the rules. I'd love to figure out what criteria I should make a list by. I find the points thing, the part about using the appropriate models, and the section containing the CAD/allies/formations and so on.
There are so many fluffy OP lists, some that stink on ice, and every flavor in between. How is it the job of the customers to collectively decide on how to balance entire codices against others? I paid a lot of money for a rule book and rules. I spend lots of time making up lists, building and painting models, and don't even want to consider the monetary investment of that. Why should I spend extra time and even money to make a list that isn't what I really want to run to make a fun and balanced game? Didn't I pay enough for a fun and balanced game when I bought the premium rule books?
It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.
Then what company can't justify any activity with this?
Why do we not sell guns as paperweights? Nobody told you that you have to put bullets in it or that it can be used for violence.
In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?
Traditio wrote: They're not in the business of making recipes.
Firebase support Cadre and some formations get very specific about what you bring.
Yes, I expected something like this as an objection. Even so, they're telling you: "Here are your options. You have to pick x, y and z." They don't tell you: "But you have to take this formation and that formation, and in each formation, you must select these particular options."
It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.
GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.
They also decided to include an allies chart, and unbound.
Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged. Try taking life science as a pre-med, or "blue planet". You can, technically, take it...but you won't get into med school.
Martel732 wrote: Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.
I haven't played Land to World in Flames.
But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?
Chess and starcraft have more in common with warhammer then they do each other.
As the Pickup thread proved, people have widely different ideas of what is considered a good unit. Sometimes this comes from incorrect knowledge about the game/rules, sometimes it comes from having a different (eldar) point of view, and sometimes it comes from ignorance of another units abilities/combos/point cost.
I, can't wait for GW to start selling Big Boy pants for people. I really hope they make them cheap.
Seriously, buck up and play the game. Don't like it? There are plenty of great games made by intelligent companies that don't just have your wallet in mind. Otherwise, learn to deal. Play what you want and don't play who you don't want to.
Or take GWs models, and concepts and just use a better rule set. I play 40k all the time with house rules and have a small gaming club to do it in. You couldn't pay me to play stock 40k in some FLGS with TFG. (Ok I'd accept the money and just put my models down and let him shoot them off.)
Savageconvoy wrote:Then what company can't justify any activity with this?
Why do we not sell guns as paperweights? Nobody told you that you have to put bullets in it or that it can be used for violence.
A similar point can be made. I don't think that you can blame a gun manufacturer for the fact that a psychopath goes on a killing spree.
In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?
I don't think that it's reasonable to object to someone using one riptide. I don't think it's reasonable to object to someone using one wraithknight. Spamming riptides, on the other hand...
Again, it's like saying: "But look, the grocery store sells habanero peppers. This is a thing that I can use in a recipe. I think I'll use 20 of them in this one recipe which is intended to serve 4 people! In fact, the store also sells a variety of other extremely spicy peppers. I'll just make a spam recipe of nothing but hot peppers in increments of 5s! Oh...and a starch and a meat. Because I have to serve those."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akiasura wrote:GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.
Can =/= must. What's your point?
Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged.
Not necessarily. Have you read an undergraduate course catalogue? When I was an undergrad, as I recall, it read like the following: "You must take x number of credit hours from one of these lists." Thus the reason I took logic instead of a "required" mathematics course.
Akiasura wrote:GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.
Can =/= must. What's your point?
In this case, can does equal must.
I must take dire avengers for 13 points. I can chose not to take them, but I don't get to take them for 4 points or 45 points.
My point is that GW defines what armies are legal, not I. They are involved in army construction through several means, like unbound being legal and the ally matrix.
Did you have a point?
Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged.
Not necessarily. Have you read an undergraduate course catalogue? When I was an undergrad, as I recall, it read like the following: "You must take x number of credit hours from one of these lists." Thus the reason I took logic instead of a "required" mathematics course.
I'm a science professor at a state university. So, yes? I have?
Did you skip over the part where I mentioned a pre-med? You can't do what you did for that major, you must take calculus and statistics as your math credits.
We must not treat our enemies as humans, for they are not! Foul, alien heretics that they are... in the name of the Emperor they shall be cleansed in the fires of the holy wrath that is MINE!!! DIE, SCUM, DIE!!!!
Oh, mind if we do green peppers and mushrooms on that pepperoni? And no wings this week for me.
Rules schmules. Just have fun. It's a game, man... and about as unlikely a futuristic battlescape as is imaginable
I think GW have always been pretty clear that they make rules with the attitude that they're just writing guidelines for you to use when you're playing with your models, rather than just making models to use in carefully-constructed game. The rulebook even says at one point that using points values is basically optional. They're writing rules with an AD&D mindset rather than a chess or starcraft mindset, so it shouldn't be any surprise that the rules work best among a group of friends.
Having said that, it's possible to go wrong and while I think they've done extremely well with the 7th ed codices so far, it sounds like Eldar is a major misstep. It happens. People mess up. Or maybe they know something we don't. Maybe more armies are going to be getting D weapons and GMCs and eldar are just ahead of the curve, so they'll be temporarily broken until everything else gets updated to match. Maybe D weapons are about to get hit by a nerfbat in an 8th edition next winter. Who knows.
In the meantime, everywhere but tournaments the solution is pretty straightforward. Take a reasonable list, and ask your opponent to do the same. If he/she refuses, find someone else to play with. Houserule the "6" result off the D weapon table. Or find another game to play, and enjoy. Find the thing that's fun for you, and then do that thing. Better than being miserable.
In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?
I don't think that it's reasonable to object to someone using one riptide. I don't think it's reasonable to object to someone using one wraithknight. Spamming riptides, on the other hand...
Again, it's like saying: "But look, the grocery store sells habanero peppers. This is a thing that I can use in a recipe. I think I'll use 20 of them in this one recipe which is intended to serve 4 people! In fact, the store also sells a variety of other extremely spicy peppers. I'll just make a spam recipe of nothing but hot peppers in increments of 5s! Oh...and a starch and a meat. Because I have to serve those."
Yeah, not even close, what you are describing is the "GW list" idea shot down above. A step-by-step guide picking out the units and showing how it all goes together.
GW is like.... "OK for this recipe you need pasta, meat and veggies". And that would be the end of the recipe.
My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.
I'm inclined to agree with you OP. I never really understood the whole argument of, "It's a legal list, so you shouldn't complain if I use it!"
Last time I checked, pretty much everyone agreed that GW wasn't that great at making balanced rules. Last time I checked, 40k was a lot more fun when games are relatively close rather than one-sided. Most people play 40k to have fun, right?
If you know that bringing a smash-face list is going to cause your fellow player to not have fun, why are you bringing the smash-face list? Are you having more fun by making your opponent (whom you theoretically don't hate and can empathize with as a fellow human) have a bad time?
I get that it stinks when a list concept is considered overpowered, but what list are you trying to run that absolutely requires a smash-face lineup? Saim-hann can be responsible when it comes to choosing how many heavy weapons their bikes have. Tau players wanting to use lots of riptides can avoid mixing in buff'mander and ion abuse/missile spam. Iyanden players have it a bit rougher now as they're required to either use wraith knights or else bring a lot of guardians to the table, but I think the above proposal of using 2 wraithlords rather than a wraith lord and wraith knight is one of many elegant fixes to that particular problem.
Wyldhunt wrote: If you know that bringing a smash-face list is going to cause your fellow player to not have fun, why are you bringing the smash-face list?
Because it's very rare that two people can agree on what a "smash-face list" is, and it's very difficult to predict who is going to have fun before the game begins.
Akiasura wrote:In this case, can does equal must.
I must take dire avengers for 13 points. I can chose not to take them, but I don't get to take them for 4 points or 45 points.
The bolded was the only point that I was making. Again, what you're ultimately responding to is my objection to another poster who claimed that there are GW lists. There are no GW lists. They don't make army lists. You disagree? Then show me one. Direct me to the relevent codex. I would love to see that.
My point is that GW defines what armies are legal, not I. They are involved in army construction through several means, like unbound being legal and the ally matrix.
As I said, yes: they provide the ingredients and the general limitations on how you can put those ingredients together. But ultimately, what recipe you come up with is your responsibility, not GW's.
I will, of course, agree with a previous poster: to an extent, it is GW's fault for making it possible to "break the game," so to speak. But the players are even more to blame. They're like that one guy who plays a video game knowing full and well that there is a glitch that will crash the game at x part of the game. He's playing with a group of friends. He activates the glitch. His friends get super annoyed at him: "Hey, don't blame me! Blame the game designers! They made it possible for me to do that!"
His friends, of course, would be perfectly in the right to refuse to play said video game with him ever again.
Did you have a point?
Supra.
I'm a science professor at a state university. So, yes? I have?
Did you skip over the part where I mentioned a pre-med? You can't do what you did for that major, you must take calculus and statistics as your math credits.
I suggest you quote the entire passage.
I skipped over the pre-med thing because it didn't strike me as relevent. Whether or not you get into med school is immaterial to whether or not you are satisfying the general education requirements. At any rate, you're putting too much into my analogy. My only point is that just as general education requirements indicate that you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but do not specify that you must take this or that in particular, so too, the codices indicate that, if you wish to take a formation, you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but not this or that in particular.
I'm pretty sure that there is no formation in the Eldar codex that says that you must spam scat bikes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.
Why does your entire collection consist of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents? Because, I assume, you copy/pasted a cheesy internet tournament list and wanted to get all of the best units that everyone said are brokenly good, that will gaurantee you a victory.
You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.
Traditio wrote: You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.
It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about someone's personality, based on nothing more than how powerful their army list is.
Traditio wrote: You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.
It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about someone's personality, based on nothing more than how powerful their army list is.
He indicated that his entire eldar collection consists of those particular units (i.e., he does not own any other eldar units), and that he plays in a competitive meta. "What need have we of witnesses?"
Traditio wrote: He indicated that his entire eldar collection consists of those particular units (i.e., he does not own any other eldar units), and that he plays in a competitive meta. "What need have we of witnesses?"
Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.
Peregrine wrote:Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.
How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?
Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.
I mean, the person to whom I was initially speaking might not be TFG. But he certainly sounds like him!
And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.
Peregrine wrote:Oh, I see, you're one of the people who defines "TFG" as "anyone who has fun in a way that I don't approve of". Perhaps you should try to understand the fact that playing a game competitively and being TFG are not the same thing? It would save you from making embarrassing posts like that one in the future.
How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?
Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.
I mean, the person to whom I was initially speaking might not be TFG. But he certainly sounds like him!
And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.
Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.
The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.
Noir wrote:Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.
The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.
Oh, yes, of course! He probably just so happens to think that wraithknights, jetbikes (probably with scatter lasers), wave serpents and wraithguard are extremely cool-looking and have amazing fluff. In fact, he probably thinks that they have the coolest color scheme in the game! Why, he was just scrolling through pictures of GW models one day, and he was like: "Wow, what cool looking models! That's the codex that I want! What codex is this...e...eldar? YES! That's what I want!"
And, of course, it just so happens that they're the current most broken units in the game, and it just so happens that his meta is competitive.
It's all a series of massive coincidences! That's clearly the most likely explanation. [/sarcasm]
How do you define TFG? Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what TFG is?
Maybe he purchased thosecthings when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?
Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.
.
And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.
How about I hold your horse while you come down eh?
So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his? That's just arrogance and smug on your part. Trying to define how to play, and trying to tell other people how they should be playing - If anything, that attitude is more defining of tfg.
Noir wrote:Wow just wow, he never said any of that good thing your there to talk for him. It not like he could just you know like thev models and really loved painting them.
The sad part is you can't understand what type of players are killing the future of the game.
Oh, yes, of course! He probably just so happens to think that wraithknights, jetbikes (probably with scatter lasers), wave serpents and wraithguard are extremely cool-looking and have amazing fluff. In fact, he probably thinks that they have the coolest color scheme in the game! Why, he was just scrolling through pictures of GW models one day, and he was like: "Wow, what cool looking models! That's the codex that I want! What codex is this...e...eldar? YES! That's what I want!"
And, of course, it just so happens that they're the current most broken units in the game, and it just so happens that his meta is competitive.
It's all a series of massive coincidences! That's clearly the most likely explanation. [/sarcasm]
And so what if he does. I mean how sore is you backside to go out of your way to be a ass to him? But, like I said you just can't see how is kill the game.
Someone who behaves poorly and is a bad person. Rules lawyering/cheating, refusing to bathe more than once a month, getting unreasonably angry when dice rolls don't go their way, etc. Making good choices in army construction is just having fun in a way that you don't personally like.
Somehow, I find it difficult to think of someone who specifically purchases an army simply because they're broken and will table his opponents as anything other than TFG.
I guess you didn't bother to read the part where they play in a competitive environment and their list is relatively equal in power compared to the people they're playing against?
Seriously, though. Anyone who spends a ton of time and money on "the best and latest and most broken" army (which he probably didn't even have the creativity to think up himself; he probably just got it off the internet, probably from people complaining about how broken it is), just so that he can table his opponents and stroke his ego over the fact that he beat other [probably overweight] adult men [with neckbeards, probably] in a game centered around expensive little toy soldiers? Yeah. He's TFG.
And, again, it's amazing how shameless you are about posting idiotic stereotypes based on nothing more than some examples of army-construction choices a person has made. Here's the equivalent of what you're saying:
Traditio is clearly a TFG. They constantly whine about how other people are better at the game than they are, refuse to learn even basic strategy or tactics, and turn every game they play into a masochistic exercise in deliberately forgetting to move/shoot/assault with units so they won't spend the rest of the night whining to everyone about how their tactical squad died. And, worst of all, they can't stop telling everyone about how they're having fun the wrong way, since that would involve admitting that their One True Way To Play isn't universal truth. And I bet they're also fat, since only a fat loser would complain about how people are having fun the wrong way instead of going to the gym.
Except I'm not going to say that, because it's obviously stupid and offensive. Maybe you could do the same and stop insulting people? After all, it's something the forum rules require you to do.
And say what you want, but I have the support of the 5th ed rulebook (as I recall). GW specifically advised to use the units that you think are cool, not on what you think you "should" be using. So if you want to disagree with "my" notion of fun, you're actually disagreeing with the very makers of the game.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Traditio. If you're supposed to use the units you think are cool then why are you spending so much time complaining about the units another player picked and accusing them of being TFG?
Deadnight wrote:Maybe he purchased those things when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?
Right. Of course. He clearly purchased wraithknights, wave serpents, jet bikes and wraithguard in 5th edition. And no other eldar units! Are you seriously positing this as a real possibility?
So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his?
It's endorsed by the makers of the game that we're playing. QED.
Peregrine wrote:Someone who behaves poorly and is a bad person. Rules lawyering/cheating, refusing to bathe more than once a month, getting unreasonably angry when dice rolls don't go their way, etc.
Oh. Yeah, I'm doing further research on the term. Fair enough. I probably used an inappropriate term.
Making good choices in army construction is just having fun in a way that you don't personally like.
You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."
If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.
I guess you didn't bother to read the part where they play in a competitive environment and their list is relatively equal in power compared to the people they're playing against?
He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.
And, again, it's amazing how shameless you are about posting idiotic stereotypes based on nothing more than some examples of army-construction choices a person has made. Here's the equivalent of what you're saying:
Traditio is clearly a TFG. They constantly whine about how other people are better at the game than they are, refuse to learn even basic strategy or tactics, and turn every game they play into a masochistic exercise in deliberately forgetting to move/shoot/assault with units so they won't spend the rest of the night whining to everyone about how their tactical squad died. And, worst of all, they can't stop telling everyone about how they're having fun the wrong way, since that would involve admitting that their One True Way To Play isn't universal truth. And I bet they're also fat, since only a fat loser would complain about how people are having fun the wrong way instead of going to the gym.
Except I'm not going to say that, because it's obviously stupid and offensive. Maybe you could do the same and stop insulting people?
In all fairness:
1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he isTFG.
2. My assessment wasn't simply based on his list. The entire post just rubbed me the wrong way. I quote:
"My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta."
See the bolded.
After all, it's something the forum rules require you to do.
Fair nuff.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Traditio. If you're supposed to use the units you think are cool then why are you spending so much time complaining about the units another player picked and accusing them of being TFG?
When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"
Wow, lots to catch up on. Other posters did a pretty good job but I'll respond too. First, I'm 6'0" and 175 lbs with 6% body fat, clean shaven and bathe daily. Now that we've cleared that up...
I purchased that list because I regularly play against multiple IK, 2++ re rollable screamer hordes with kairos, 5 flyrants and friends, grav stars, crisis suits and triptides, etc. I also happen to like the models and fluff. I own every eldar novel ever written and plan to buy the Asurmen novel even at the ridiculous price for an LE book. I played nothing but Marines/wolves for 10 years so now that I have eldar built I rarely bring another army with me, just bored of the other stuff and want to play with my new shinies.
How does playing a competitive list make me TFG? I always saw the rules lawyers, poor sports, and those who make ridiculous assumptions about all aspects of someone's life based on their army composition as TFG. Sorry that my group and I are having fun the wrong way. Come to our meeting next Sunday when we discuss rules for the upcoming tournament season so you can explain the one true way to have fun with 40k. I'm sure your insights will be of great help.
Toofast wrote: Wow, lots to catch up on. Other posters did a pretty good job but I'll respond too. First, I'm 6'0" and 175 lbs with 6% body fat, clean shaven and bathe daily. Now that we've cleared that up...
I purchased that list because I regularly play against multiple IK, 2++ re rollable screamer hordes with kairos, 5 flyrants and friends, grav stars, crisis suits and triptides, etc. I also happen to like the models and fluff. I own every eldar novel ever written and plan to buy the Asurmen novel even at the ridiculous price for an LE book. I played nothing but Marines/wolves for 10 years so now that I have eldar built I rarely bring another army with me, just bored of the other stuff and want to play with my new shinies.
How does playing a competitive list make me TFG? I always saw the rules lawyers, poor sports, and those who make ridiculous assumptions about all aspects of someone's life based on their army composition as TFG. Sorry that my group and I are having fun the wrong way. Come to our meeting next Sunday when we discuss rules for the upcoming tournament season so you can explain the one true way to have fun with 40k. I'm sure your insights will be of great help.
Yes, after review of what "TFG" means, I admit that I used the term far too hastily. My apologies.
Deadnight wrote:Maybe he purchased those things when they weren't broken? Happened with gk armies, space wolf armies, tau armies etc. or maybe he plays in a competitive meta with similarly minded folks?
Right. Of course. He clearly purchased wraithknights, wave serpents, jet bikes and wraithguard in 5th edition. And no other eldar units! Are you seriously positing this as a real possibility?
So what if I think they're 'cool' then? What makes your notion of fun righter then mine, or his?
It's endorsed by the makers of the game that we're playing. QED.
Or, you know.
Like a lot of eldar players they where waiting for the newer wraith units that where expected rather than the old wraith guard that where way to expencive.
But like others have said, I think my bikes all painted red are cool, and my yellow wraith units are cool!
I gave away most of my aspect warriors when it stopped being Fun to play that army any more.
GW seems to support my kinda fun since they made my army's better, and made it Easyer to bring more off what I realy liked, in a way I much would prefer to run them.
I would play in a more competive meta, but 40k is dieing out for games that don't have issues like this.
In the end I think TFG often comes down to blaming the player for playing the rules. Don't like the rules, ask for change, but don't tell players they are playing wrong when they are abiding by them.
Traditio wrote: You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."
If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.
Except this isn't a game-breaking glitch, it's a deliberate design choice by GW.
He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.
Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?
Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.
1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he isTFG.
Ok, so if I say that you're only "probably" a fat loser who whines about "casual at all costs" because you suck at the game and can't win otherwise it's ok, and I'm not insulting you? Of course I would be, and trying to hide behind "probably" wouldn't be a very convincing excuse. So why is it ok to say the same kind of thing about someone else?
See the bolded.
What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable. Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.
When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"
Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?
Peregrine wrote:Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?
I suppose it depends upon what meaning we can imply from "competitive meta." At any rate, I admit that I used the term "TFG" too hastily. I should not have done that, and for that, I apologize.
What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable.
Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Hey, you shouldn't run a list like that. It's OP and gamebreaking.
Guy 1: But I paid for it! I even painted it!
You understand why I'm not impressed by this?
Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.
What you are dismissing as unreasonable is precisely what the OP is recommending. If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?
If he wants to play in a "competitive meta" in which everyone agrees to try to break the game as hard as possible, then more power to him! That doesn't make his original point any more compelling, though, especially given the point that the original poster of the thread was making.
Traditio wrote: You say "good choices." I say "copy/paste internet cheese list."
If you can beat your opponent in a game of Mortal Kombat by causing the game to glitch, I wouldn't call that good skill at playing Mortal Kombat.
Except this isn't a game-breaking glitch, it's a deliberate design choice by GW.
He actually didn't say the bolded portion. All that he actually said is that nobody has turned down a game against him. That really doesn't say much.
Perhaps you should read before throwing around insults?
Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.
1. I said "probably." I didn't actually assert that he isTFG.
Ok, so if I say that you're only "probably" a fat loser who whines about "casual at all costs" because you suck at the game and can't win otherwise it's ok, and I'm not insulting you?
See the bolded.
What about it? Expecting people to just stop using the models they paid money for and invested time and effort into painting because GW publishes unbalanced rules for them isn't reasonable. Nor is expecting the players to do all the work of fixing a broken game because GW is too lazy to do it the right way.
When people play like that, it sucks the fun out of the game. "I'll start depl...oh, alright, 'good' game. *checks watch*"
Why are you having so much trouble understanding the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy?
Exactly. I have invested 20 hours building/painting the WK alone. Why should I be punished and told I need to leave my favorite model at home because GW wrote poor rules? This is why my group plays competitive lists. We can all bring our favorite toys, whether that's big stompy robots, FW tanks, whatever, and have fun. One guy is determined to make mono harlequins a competitive army. He doesn't ask us to tone down our lists. He play tests and tweaks his build. 10 games in and the list is already starting to keep up with the big boy armies. Figuring out how to create and beat the best armies is what makes the game fun for us. To me, asking an opponent to leave something out is like playing a video game on easy/medium difficulty because you die a lot on hard. If that's your idea of fun, that's fine, more power to you. Just don't tell me I'm TFG because my idea of fun is turning it on the hardest setting possible and then playing until I beat it.
Toofast wrote:Exactly. I have invested 20 hours building/painting the WK alone. Why should I be punished and told I need to leave my favorite model at home because GW wrote poor rules?
I'm just going to point out:
1. You yourself think that the rules in question are poor.
2. You insist on playing those rules anyways, presumably because:
3. it assists you in winning (hey, that's how one wins when one plays on "hard mode").
In other words, you purposefully exploit bad rules to win a game. In fact, you use that particular unit because the rules are bad (and in your favor)!
Traditio wrote: Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Hey, you shouldn't run a list like that. It's OP and gamebreaking.
Guy 1: But I paid for it! I even painted it!
You understand why I'm not impressed by this?
I know why you aren't, the fact that I disagree with your argument doesn't mean that I've failed to understand it. Your comparison with a video game glitch is absurd because we're talking about deliberate design decisions by GW, not coding mistakes. And what about the following conversation:
Guy 1: *checks internet* I'll buy this broken copy/paste cheeselist that everyone admits is OP and game-breaking!
Guy 2: Awesome, now I'll have a good list to test my own tournament list against.
Guy 1: Let's play a game!
It sounds like yet again you just can't seem to understand the concept of people having fun in ways that you personally don't enjoy.
What you are dismissing as unreasonable is precisely what the OP is recommending.
Well yes, that's because the OP is being unreasonable.
If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.
That doesn't follow at all. There are (at least) two possible solutions:
1) Do nothing to change the rules, but create a mess of unwritten rules and social obligations where you're allowed to use the overpowered stuff but everyone will shame you if you do.
or
2) Change the rules so that the overpowered stuff isn't overpowered anymore and everyone can use whatever they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: In other words, you purposefully exploit bad rules to win a game.
No, it's not "in other words" because there's no exploiting. This is not a programming glitch where you press the B button within 5 seconds of changing the background music and your gun gets 100x the power, it's a deliberate design decision to make certain options more powerful than others. Using those options is just good strategy, not an exploit.
Peregrine wrote:I know why you aren't, the fact that I disagree with your argument doesn't mean that I've failed to understand it. Your comparison with a video game glitch is absurd because we're talking about deliberate design decisions by GW, not coding mistakes. And what about the following conversation:
In hindsight, the glitch analogy was probably a poor one.
Well yes, that's because the OP is being unreasonable.
Unreasonable because...?
If it be granted that 1. GW is too lazy to do fix a broken game and 2. the game is, in fact, broken as stands, and 3. what is desired is a balanced game, then what follows is that the players themselves must bring balance to that game...in particular, by refusing to exploit the broken elements of said game.
That doesn't follow at all. There are (at least) two possible solutions:
1) Do nothing to change the rules, but create a mess of unwritten rules and social obligations where you're allowed to use the overpowered stuff but everyone will shame you if you do.
or
2) Change the rules so that the overpowered stuff isn't overpowered anymore and everyone can use whatever they want
What you've basically just said are subsets of the bolded part of what I said.
No, it's not "in other words" because there's no exploiting. This is not a programming glitch where you press the B button within 5 seconds of changing the background music and your gun gets 100x the power, it's a deliberate design decision to make certain options more powerful than others. Using those options is just good strategy, not an exploit.
Then why, pray tell, did he use the phrase "poor rules"? Clearly, if there is no exploit, then the rules are not poor.
For the reasons already mentioned: fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun, shaming people for taking powerful stuff instead of fixing the rules directly is a terrible approach to game design, people very rarely agree on what the appropriate power level for a list is, etc.
What you've basically just said are subsets of the bolded part of what I said.
Except it isn't, because they're two separate things. You proposed option #1, voluntarily avoiding the overpowered stuff. I pointed out that there's a second option, where you change the overpowered thing so that it isn't overpowered anymore and nobody has to avoid it.
Then why, pray tell, did he use the phrase "poor rules"? Clearly, if there is no exploit, then the rules are not poor.
That doesn't make any sense. "Exploit" implies that you're doing something dishonest and breaking the intent of the rules, but that's not happening here. It's clear that the rules say what they do because of deliberate intent from GW. People aren't spamming Eldar jetbikes because there was a typo in the codex and they cost 5 points per model, they're spamming them because GW deliberately gave them powerful rules.
So here is my opinion on this. Whether or not someone brings a top tier list has no impact on whether or not someone is TFG or a good person. TFG is how someome acts. If you have a well tuned list but are a great person, and I have a bad time, it's not your fault. If you have a terrible list and are a jerk, it's probably not the list's fault that I had a bad time. Players aren't terrible people just because they want to play awesome models, whether the awesomeness comes from rules, fluff, or aesthetics.
As to the comments about getting lists from the internet, I think people having access to successful lists is great because not everyone has the time to brew and playtest themselves.
I think the whole point here the OP was trying to make got swallowed somehow.
It's just in agreeing to run lists where both you and your opponent has fun is an important part of the hobby. I think both casual and tournament players see the logic behind that, right? Toofast enjoys playing with and against people with superlists. He's also got the people in his area to play that style of game against, who also enjoy that style of play.
I'm also sure if he had access to more than just his current tournament-ready army, and had some friend new to the hobby who was using some starter kit armies, he'd probably enjoy a more casual game with that person than rolling out the WK and winning by turn 2. He might not have those units to do this, but then again his friends are the tournament mindset type. Judging the player by what he's got is kind of dumb. I own some Eldar models even though I've never brought them to the table because Windrider Bikes look cool, and Wraithguard look cool, and that matters to me infinitely more than rolling dice.
I enjoy playing Highlander matches, where you can only bring one squad of any given type of unit in the game, barring troops. I also have agreed with friends ahead of time this is an enjoyable way to play the game, and we've had a lot of great matches as a result of building comparable power in our lists. It's not a "superior" way to play or some other horsedroppings some elitist person might try and use; it's simply how we've found to have fun with our models. Because we talked it out and agreed upon it first.
Yeah, but if your list much better then any one else, and not because of skill, but because of design team decisions. It is kind of a hard to make the game fun for the other person, if you don't know them. Me for example 2 of my opponents use eldar and one uses GK which is instant win against IG. The games are horrible for me, but I can't realy play against other people and 3 out of 4 people I play the most are family and the 4th is my boyfriend.
As for net list, does anyone around the world needed to check the interent, if a WK or jetbikers got better?
Uh... no one plays 40k to be a decent human being.
There are non-profit and religious organizations all around that let people scratch that particular itch. Most people who play are trying to win.
I say 'trying to win' because it really describes most people's relationship to the rules of the game. The average player has a grasp of the rules but not a complete understanding. They know their own Codex and a decent about a few others they have encountered before, and that's about it.
It leads to anxiety around winning and creates a situation where people overcompensate for the gaps in their knowledge by bringing lists that evidence the great strengths of their Codex. Very few people would choose to nerf their forces to ensure someone else gets enjoyment out of it because they would not know where to start.
By this logic, a more powerful Codex is necessarily going to be less fun to play, unless it's in the hands of someone who really knows a lot about the game.
In a balanced game it's actually FUN to sit and try to think of way to beat your friend's list that you got beaten by before. You bring something new, manage to take him out, so he adapts and brings something new etc etc.
From your post, I get that you don't think that's fun. You want to be able to just bring whatever and still have a better than decent chance to win against your opponent, because why should you have to think about what you bring.
I like min-maxing to get the MOST out of my lists. I Like thinking of new little tricks to get the upper hand, and I like for my opponent to be doing the same things. But what's the point in doing that when my average list can beat your best? It's a hollow victory for me if I win and if I tie my hands behind my back by bringing my worst units, then it's a hollow victory for you.
I wish people would stop trying to make out like we're being horrible people for wanting a SOMEWHAT balanced game.
Peregrine is exactly right, using good units is not a glitch or a cheat code, it's good strategy. There is a very big difference between using the peacekeeper with the right perks in COD and using an aim bot. My good 40k lists equate to the former, not the latter. If people think I should tone my list down, that's fine, but where does it end? Should I take out the WK? Ok cool, I'll just run another squad of WG in a serpent. Oh, still too much you say? Alright, I can swap in more scatter bikes to fill the points. Except now you're complaining that I have 60 scatter lasers. How about some hornets, then? Wait, that won't work, those are also "too good". Perhaps 3 squads of fire dragons in deep striking falcons? I'm sure that will be a problem too. So where does it end when you ask me to tone my list down? Should I buy an entire new army of shining spears, wraithlords, storm guardians, Banshees and scorpions? Will that satisfy you, or is it still too powerful just because it came from the eldar book? This is why my group takes the best lists we can come up with. Then nobody has to have a 20 minute debate before the game about which units are "too good" as everyone will have a different definition of that.
Finally, if this wasn't the internet I would be offended that you think I need a net list to figure out the most powerful units in a codex. Considering the internal balance (or lack thereof) in most books, it doesn't take a world class tournament player to realize what's good and what isn't. You act like I would have no idea that WK, WG and scatter bikes were the winners in this codex if I didn't have Internet access.
Its games with friends that isn't the problem. You're friends with them, and most likely want to keep it that way, so a roflstomp list is counter-intuitive. Its the games with people you're not familiar with that could be a problem, but a small discussion before the game can easily sort that out.
So the remaining issue becomes tournaments. At my FlGS there's a don't be a feth rule, and everyone abides by it. Until it comes to tournaments, then the gloves come off. Which is acceptable I guess, but now Eldar are throwing what was already an unbalanced system into even more of a kilter. Basically your armies are crons and eldar. That's why people are freaking out. Eldar were a pain before their dex, now its just -_-
Akiasura wrote:In this case, can does equal must.
I must take dire avengers for 13 points. I can chose not to take them, but I don't get to take them for 4 points or 45 points.
The bolded was the only point that I was making. Again, what you're ultimately responding to is my objection to another poster who claimed that there are GW lists. There are no GW lists. They don't make army lists. You disagree? Then show me one. Direct me to the relevent codex. I would love to see that.
By definition, any list taken in 40k is a GW list. They define what point costs are, what goes in what lists, formation requirements and bonuses for every army out there, minus house rules.
See every codex ever created, and army creation rules in all of the GW books.
My point is that GW defines what armies are legal, not I. They are involved in army construction through several means, like unbound being legal and the ally matrix.
As I said, yes: they provide the ingredients and the general limitations on how you can put those ingredients together. But ultimately, what recipe you come up with is your responsibility, not GW's.
Yes and no. Is it my fault that I don't use 1k sons? They are beautiful models, very fluffy, and I do own some.
However, GW has decided to make them awful for the point costs. They have made other codexes a lot stronger then my own. They have decided that taking 1k sons is a bad decision in this game.
Against certain formations, I could not take a 1k sons army list and expect to have any game.
So while I may decide what ingredients I chose, GW decides to limit my ingredients to just 3-4 options out of everything in my kitchen. To continue your analogy, GW also decides what kitchenware I own via list design, so not all recipes are possible.
I will, of course, agree with a previous poster: to an extent, it is GW's fault for making it possible to "break the game," so to speak. But the players are even more to blame. They're like that one guy who plays a video game knowing full and well that there is a glitch that will crash the game at x part of the game. He's playing with a group of friends. He activates the glitch. His friends get super annoyed at him: "Hey, don't blame me! Blame the game designers! They made it possible for me to do that!"
His friends, of course, would be perfectly in the right to refuse to play said video game with him ever again.
As others have pointed out, this was an awful choice, so I'll skip going over why this is wrong.
I'm a science professor at a state university. So, yes? I have?
Did you skip over the part where I mentioned a pre-med? You can't do what you did for that major, you must take calculus and statistics as your math credits.
I suggest you quote the entire passage.
I skipped over the pre-med thing because it didn't strike me as relevent. Whether or not you get into med school is immaterial to whether or not you are satisfying the general education requirements. At any rate, you're putting too much into my analogy. My only point is that just as general education requirements indicate that you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but do not specify that you must take this or that in particular, so too, the codices indicate that, if you wish to take a formation, you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but not this or that in particular.
I'm pretty sure that there is no formation in the Eldar codex that says that you must spam scat bikes.
This is where you are wrong again. If you want a pre-professional biology degree, there are education requirements you must fill. You can not take trig and logic and get a degree in many programs. You MUST take calculus and statistics, to the point where matrix theory, a harder math then either of those, doesn't work. So yes, what degree you have is slightly important for the general education requirements. People with science, professional, and engineering degrees have to do a lot more work and have less options. A lot of these classes must be taken in a certain order as well. You made an analogy and it was incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time, this is the danger of making analogies when your experience is limited to programs that count logic as a math credit. Many are stricter then that, especially in my department.
There are formations that indicate you MUST take certain units and WILL get certain bonuses. Many of these, and not just for eldar, push a good codex to broken. Often, there is little to no reason not to take them. The models are common. I can run a lot of them myself since I owned a biel-tan and ulthwe army. I'm sure a lot of eldar players who have played since 3rd are in my position.
Toofast wrote: My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.
Why does your entire collection consist of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents? Because, I assume, you copy/pasted a cheesy internet tournament list and wanted to get all of the best units that everyone said are brokenly good, that will gaurantee you a victory.
You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.
Yeah, I mean waveserpents and wraithknights have been terrible forever now. It's not like for 2 editions in a row they were really strong.
It's not like I haven't heard that the eldar codex will be balanced next edition cycle since 3rd, and rarely has it been true.
I'm sure my 1k sons will be fine next time
Doesn't the whole premise of this thread boil down to "don't blame GW for making a broken game, it's our fault for taking advantage of it?"
Again?
This blame the community attitude really needs to stop. The job of the rules is not to allow reasonable people, which I am totally confident represents the majority of players, to play a game where the various imbalances, vagaries and incompatibilities can be worked through, it is to provide a tight structured and fair framework where someone from the depths of the Australian outback could theoretically play a complete stranger from the heart of New York City and both players would be playing the same game and both players could give their all and reliably have a tight and competitive game.
You do not write rules for reasonable people, you write rules for the ultra competitive douchebag who will twist any vague wording to try and gain an advantage, because then everyone benefits. Writing rules that are tight enough to prevent a WAACTFG ruining someone else's game is far more important than any hippy dippy 'be excellent to each other' bs.
GW are making a poor quality product. It is not the customer's job to fix that product, much more constructive for the community at large to either not pay for the poor product to encourage them to fix it, or at the very least complain to them so they know you're not happy.
The problem with "be decent human beings" is that different people have different ideas of what's fun, and there's often such a large discrepancy between power levels that it's almost impossible.
If someone like Jetbikes, why shouldn't they take it? Now yes if they suspiciously all have Scatter Lasers it's an indicator the person might be a WAAC type but if it's a variety, maybe they like Saim-Hann. On the flip side a person who likes CSM and wants to field them without pretending the Mark of Nurgle is something else gets screwed because CSM are too weak.
That's a problem with game design, not the players choice. Rules that cost more than every other set of rules out there has no business being so poorly written and with such poor balance.
Azreal13 is exactly right. This "blame the community" nonsense needs to stop because the problems with 40k are a direct result of GW's lack of caring, nothing else. GWs rules are poor because GW doesn't care about the rules despite putting out more and more rules for a game that is supposedly secondary to the miniatures and yet is the primary reason people even know of or pick up the game in the first place. It shouldn't be on the community to fix bad rules.
Silverthorne wrote: What's with the super preachy mood on Dakka lately? I've never seen so many people pontificating about the most idiotic stuff. Like there is some sort of moral crisis because an OP codex was released. It's completely off-putting. Sign of the times, I guess.
I for one, used to enjoy the challenge of army building, I would pick a theme, and then work very hard to convert my theme into a list that not only made me enjoy the game, but i believed would be powerful. I then enjoyed playing against opponents who also worked hard to make lists they felt were powerful.
Now however that entire aspect of the hobby is gone, because the power divide between 'competitive' and 'casual' is so massive, you cannot forge for yourself lists which can go toe to toe with the big boys, without compromising and selecting the same level of power.
If I choose to try hard, and build a competitive list. Then I should have a decent advantage in a game vs a noobie, and be of a roughly comparable power level to anyone who has been in the hobby for more than a year. I shouldn't be feeling bad if my opponent brought space marines, and feeling like i need to limit my list building in order to match the capabilities of the race I'm facing. Heck Id rather have predesigned lists, than have that level of guilt in list design.
I like to win, I like to feel like I have earned victory, But I hate the concept that I have to handicap myself, in order to have a fun game. I hate the thought that it will be expected of players.
How do you appraise skill if you're forever having to tailor your list until your opponent has a roughtly 50% win record vs you (its self dumbing). Its pointless, we might as well not play a game and instead flip a coin.
There was a thread on Warseer talking about how "typical" armies can deal with the current stuff. By "typical" army they meant like what GW sells in boxes e.g. Adeptus Astartes Strike Force with a balanced force, like a couple of tactical squads, maybe a terminator squad in a land raider, regular stuff.
People were actually arguing that not only can they not, but that's a good thing and the game has moved away from it. It was ridiculous.
These outlier armies should be just that, outliers. A normal force should be balanced and well representing the army, you know all that "spirit of the game" gak that GW has spouted out for 20 years. It just goes to show that they really don't give a gak about the game despite all the "forge the narrative" and "beer and pretzels" garbage.
That's the biggest part of the problem. If I play Space Marines for example, I may not want to spam bikes. I might want to have a fluffy Battle Company as depicted in the source material. That army should not just get steamrolled by basically everything else and my recourse shouldn't be to spam bikes or IKs or some weird allied 3-4 army detachment nonsense.
WayneTheGame wrote: There was a thread on Warseer talking about how "typical" armies can deal with the current stuff. By "typical" army they meant like what GW sells in boxes e.g. Adeptus Astartes Strike Force with a balanced force, like a couple of tactical squads, maybe a terminator squad in a land raider, regular stuff.
People were actually arguing that not only can they not, but that's a good thing and the game has moved away from it. It was ridiculous.
These outlier armies should be just that, outliers. A normal force should be balanced and well representing the army, you know all that "spirit of the game" gak that GW has spouted out for 20 years. It just goes to show that they really don't give a gak about the game despite all the "forge the narrative" and "beer and pretzels" garbage.
That's the biggest part of the problem. If I play Space Marines for example, I may not want to spam bikes. I might want to have a fluffy Battle Company as depicted in the source material. That army should not just get steamrolled by basically everything else.
It all boils down to GW lets you pick models of certain types, in a certain way, from given armies at a given points value.
Many units are not comparable for what they do for the points given.
I really am at the point where the days of "picking a balanced list" is long over.
You simply will have no idea what you will face and "scale" accordingly: it literally is a roll of the dice of what you face to what power levels
GW has allowed so many combinations and options that any limitations that could exert some balance or control is well and truly gone.
Don't blame the players for what they are allowed to do by rules as written, agreeing to be "decent human beings" is only applicable to decent behavior while playing.
However, it would be fun if a mounted White Scars list were possible. And currently it is. It would be better if it didn't trounce my demi company UM decendents quite so handily. But at least its possible.
I don't think I truly understand how a 'reasonable' meta is possible. But it is. I am fortunate enough to have one. I do what I can to keep myself from ruining it (I'm a TFG at heart).
That certainly included no longer taking my pair of Serpents in the last dex (with 10-mans inside, so switching to Falcons didn't really work). It also means that, in any of my armies, I try not to spam anything but troops. And try to have a mix of AV and infantry. And some MCs. Maybe a flyer. The onus really is on the individual, in a reasonable meta, to create a meta-appropriate list. Sure, someone could come through and stomp any of our regular lists. But if they kept at it, they might have trouble finding a game.
In the last Eldar dex, there were problems, but they were easily spotted, IMO (let's not get too into it in this thread). WKs, more than one Serpent, Bikespam, Demon Factory, or Seer Council. The thing was, even without those, the old Dex could do a lot of reasonable fun (Swordwind, Black Guardian warhost, mixed Sam-Hainn, WK-free Spirit Hosts, or mixtures thereof).
With the new Dex, almost every list got more powerful. My old Swordwind was 1500, is now 1407, and is more powerful at that. It was easy to make a reasonable list in 6th. I think it is possible in 7th, but will be much harder.
Not sure how, but I'll find a way to be reasonable. I assume other members of the meta will too. The one other Eldar player I don't think has touched his Eldar since the codex dropped. I'll probably play my SM and Tau more frequently, and/or include more Harlequins and Corsairs in my lists than I used to. I even started assembling some of my Dark Eldar, but I just can't get into them.
What the OP suggests is pretty much the only thing you can do to try to salvage 40k, but let's not be apologists for GW. They made this bed, and now we have to sleep on it.
WayneTheGame wrote: If I play Space Marines for example, I may not want to spam bikes. I might want to have a fluffy Battle Company as depicted in the source material. That army should not just get steamrolled by basically everything else and my recourse shouldn't be to spam bikes or IKs or some weird allied 3-4 army detachment nonsense.
I feel that. I want to play an army of ground-pounders with flamers and meltas, but I feel like a chump when bike force of equivalent points can do the flamer/melta thing so much better. GW advertises this as being a game about making a fluffy army and forging a narrative, but their ruleset punishes players who do that. The core of this issue is:
Azreal13 wrote: GW are making a poor quality product. It is not the customer's job to fix that product, much more constructive for the community at large to either not pay for the poor product to encourage them to fix it, or at the very least complain to them so they know you're not happy.
I really like playing 40k, because I do have a group of friends who are willing to work with the game's terrible rules to try to make it a good time (I've said it in other threads, but 40k is the hobby I spend the most time on and have the most fun with). But every other tabletop gaming thing I do - Magic, Chess, X-Wing, Board Games, Warmachine - are like a paragons of exquisite game design by comparison. It's embarrassing for GW, and it's the reason I steer new players towards X-Wing or Infinity.
I relied on pick up games of 40k at the LGS and it was a total nightmare. Living in a small city I don't have the number of players to turn down hoping to play someone else. So you take what you can get if you want to get a game in. Was not having much fun so I quit playing the game balance is just to much between the different armies
Chute82 wrote: I relied on pick up games of 40k at the LGS and it was a total nightmare. Living in a small city I don't have the number of players to turn down hoping to play someone else. So you take what you can get if you want to get a game in. Was not having much fun so I quit playing the game balance is just to much between the different armies
I have had the opposite experience. I find playing games at the LGS pretty enjoyable. I typically come with a few lists at different point levels. when I am matched up with another player i generally say what I have at the different point levels and we agree to a game. work out pretty well usually. Usually the same folks are around all the time so you get to know what kinds of list they can build. i try to match up the "level" of my list to theirs. if I beat them soundly last time we played i bring lower powered lists next time. if I get beat, then I try something a bit stronger next time. I try to be matched up as best as possible without specifically list tailoring so it will be fun for both sides and the outcome is not basically pre-detirmined based on lists.
I guess this comes down to what the OP said, "Just agree to be decent human beings." This motto works pretty well in the groups I play with. Maybe I am just lucky?
Loborocket wrote: This motto works pretty well in the groups I play with. Maybe I am just lucky?
You are. You're lucky that your group doesn't want to play a competitive game, but are happy to just field some models and roll some dice, and you're lucky that's what you want from the game too.
I'm not WAAC, but I want to try to win. I also want my opponent to try and win. I want to lock horns and see who comes out on top.
Right now, an Eldar player is like Lucifer himself locking horns with a baby ram if he faces anything but another Eldar or a Necron player.
Chute82 wrote: I relied on pick up games of 40k at the LGS and it was a total nightmare. Living in a small city I don't have the number of players to turn down hoping to play someone else. So you take what you can get if you want to get a game in. Was not having much fun so I quit playing the game balance is just to much between the different armies
I have had the opposite experience. I find playing games at the LGS pretty enjoyable. I typically come with a few lists at different point levels. when I am matched up with another player i generally say what I have at the different point levels and we agree to a game. work out pretty well usually. Usually the same folks are around all the time so you get to know what kinds of list they can build. i try to match up the "level" of my list to theirs. if I beat them soundly last time we played i bring lower powered lists next time. if I get beat, then I try something a bit stronger next time. I try to be matched up as best as possible without specifically list tailoring so it will be fun for both sides and the outcome is not basically pre-detirmined based on lists.
I guess this comes down to what the OP said, "Just agree to be decent human beings." This motto works pretty well in the groups I play with. Maybe I am just lucky?
It's just the attitude at the shop that I played at. Everybody spammed the most op units and just tried to table you by turn two. Faced a lot of trip tides, lots of SH and lots of wave serpents with my Orks. Did not really cared if I lost but I was not having any fun. Found a group to play with at my buddies house but they all quit playing so it was back to pick up games at that shop I described. New ork codex came out and I thought maybe I can run with the big dogs now? Boy was I disappointed
Lot of posts to read, but I had to make a comment after reading a statement that someone made about Wraith spam and being TFG.
In 6th ed they came out with a Wraith army kit that I've been working on for a while. I picked up Eldar in 6th, was planning on picking them up for a while since I've played Tau back in 5th and wanted to run some fun allies when 6th dropped. Then when the 6th ed codex hit I feel like crap because here I am with a Tau/Eldar army.
I picked up one unit of jet bikes because I needed a mobile troop and Wraithguard. Now Wraithguard are slow, so I needed some way to get those short range weapons the enemy and of course the only real option is the WaveSerpent.
Then they release the Wraithhost kit and I ended up getting that since I love the wraith models. I'm still working on them now, kind of lost motivation once 7th dropped. But I have my WK built and painted, magnetized the model for all weapon options. I even magnetize the wraithguard to use all weapon options available if I wanted.
Now I read some posts on here and see how I'm apparently TFG because GW sold a whole box set and then changed the rules so every single model has weapons that used to only be found on super heavies.
Now I'm of limited funds, and even more limited motivation. I do try to make smart purchases and put my heart and soul into the modeling and painting, though my results won't win any prizes. When I go to make a purchase for Tau if I'm looking for something to add to the fast attack slot I'll generally use marker drones or Piranha. Drones come extra with everything and Piranha are relatively cheap and fun to build. I don't want to go purchase Vespid to use, because I don't like the models and I couldn't figure out how to use them as a game other than hoping they take shots instead of something I care about. This is a problem that is built into the game, not on purpose but it's there. It's not the players who made this problem. I have nothing to do with GW decisions. I just bought what they were selling and tried to make an army they allowed me to use on the table top.
If the simple game design can take a player making a fluffy list and make him almost indistinguishable from a TFG to you, then you may want to realize there is a major problem with the game design.
And this is why people say it is the casual players that get hurt most.
A competitive player just orders a couple of dozen Jetbikes, the likes of yourself (and how you describe your army building approach sounds similar to mine, so me too) are the ones that get screwed when either the project they've spent months on either gets nerfed into the ground or boosted beyond reason in the time between inception and completion.
Loborocket wrote: I guess this comes down to what the OP said, "Just agree to be decent human beings." This motto works pretty well in the groups I play with. Maybe I am just lucky?
That works, to a point. But it's so, so subjective. For example, can you give me a hard limit as to how many jetbikes & Wraithknights put me over that limit? A hard number, where having x means I'm okay, but x+1 means I'm a WAACTFG? Of course not, nobody could, because everyone will have different answers to that question.
Wouldn't it save so much aggravation if the rules just did what they said they did (points value = how good they are in play)? Yes, reasonable people can haggle out how many Wraithknights make you a bad person before the game, but doesn't that feel like a waste of gaming time? Imagine for a moment that you could just take a list because you like the models, like the lore, want to try out a combo that mathematically should be good, or want to try a quirky list. And you could just play the game without worrying that you've crossed a fuzzy line of "too good" and will be judged for it?
There are games out there that already do this, or at least do it much better than 40K--and most of them haven't been using fundamentally the same system for around 16 years. It's not an impossible dream, as has often been implied here.
I think there might be some misunderstanding here? My reading of it is that a lot of people acknowledge that pre-game negotiation and self-restraint are needed to avoid breaking the system and producing funless games--but that many of them would like for that to be unnecessary through better rules and points costs that actually relate to how good something is. They want to show up, put their models down, and enjoy the actual game with no time wasted on negotiation.
Chute82 wrote: I relied on pick up games of 40k at the LGS and it was a total nightmare. Living in a small city I don't have the number of players to turn down hoping to play someone else. So you take what you can get if you want to get a game in. Was not having much fun so I quit playing the game balance is just to much between the different armies
This experience mirrors my own.
I relied on PUG's, still do, and 40k just became unplayable for that.
MWHistorian wrote: I relied on PUG's, still do, and 40k just became unplayable for that.
This is where the 40k rules fall down the most.
They still work with my friends and we agree to "terms of engagement" but with strangers, a tighter game like X-wing or Warmachine seems more appropriate.
It always feels like you start off well getting to know someone with a more equal footing.
Scrubs are actually the WAACTFG. The rules of the game are the rules of engagement. Scrub mentality dictates that these rules need to be changed so that they are "fair and balanced" so they have equal chance of fun; fun meaning an equal chance of competition.
That's not to say 40k isn't a broken mess in the least. However, realize that you bought that broken mess. And complaining about it and trying to fix it is the textbook "Scrub" thought. And labelling someone WAAC is a misnomer. Everyone wants a shot to win, that's why people label other WAAC... Totally hypocritical.
The best thing to do is play with friends and stop buying GW products. Fix your rules in time, correct them and enjoy. Introduce the new models with the new rules and fix them to fit your house rules. The key thing is to stop supporting the garbage. Or, better yet, play any other game that actually treats their customers with respect and actively cultivates and maintains their games for fairness. There are many, just not one that's "40k".
So stop being TFG by belly aching a GW rules release is busted. Either step up your game and play as the rules were written, do something about it (which includes stop paying for broken rules if you think they are), or move on to something more productive.
The TFG is the guy who does the least to ensure his opponent enjoys the game. In a competative environment, that could be the scrub. In a noncompetitive environment, it is rarely the scrub.
Did you never enjoy games with relatives when you were a little kid? Do you never enjoy games with your little siblings/cousins/nieces/nephews? Even with major imbalances, fun can be had.
Bharring wrote: The TFG is the guy who does the least to ensure his opponent enjoys the game. In a competative environment, that could be the scrub. In a noncompetitive environment, it is rarely the scrub.
Did you never enjoy games with relatives when you were a little kid? Do you never enjoy games with your little siblings/cousins/nieces/nephews? Even with major imbalances, fun can be had.
Yes, I did. We played various dominos, euchre, hearts, and the like. We trashed bad games like Monopoly because, as written, its a terrible board game. Now I play much better made board games which cater to either entirely silly chance (Kings of Tokyo) or well designed balance.
You can't compare games of sub $100 investment or tried and true rules to wargames as they're a significant and time sink. By buying the rules and models to a new game, you're agreeing to play X game. Not Bob's variant of X game.
Like TooFast, I played in a highly competitive 40l setting and that's where I learned the game. Then I moved to much lesser one and I was labelled the bad guy... I was still playing the same lists and the same game, but suddenly I'm a jerk? Nope, that's just 40k. It's the only wargame I've experienced that relies very heavily on community house rules and expectations vary from location to location.
Bharring wrote: The TFG is the guy who does the least to ensure his opponent enjoys the game. In a competative environment, that could be the scrub. In a noncompetitive environment, it is rarely the scrub.
Did you never enjoy games with relatives when you were a little kid? Do you never enjoy games with your little siblings/cousins/nieces/nephews? Even with major imbalances, fun can be had.
Yes, I did. We played various dominos, euchre, hearts, and the like. We trashed bad games like Monopoly because, as written, its a terrible board game. Now I play much better made board games which cater to either entirely silly chance (Kings of Tokyo) or well designed balance.
You can't compare games of sub $100 investment or tried and true rules to wargames as they're a significant and time sink. By buying the rules and models to a new game, you're agreeing to play X game. Not Bob's variant of X game.
Like TooFast, I played in a highly competitive 40l setting and that's where I learned the game. Then I moved to much lesser one and I was labelled the bad guy... I was still playing the same lists and the same game, but suddenly I'm a jerk? Nope, that's just 40k. It's the only wargame I've experienced that relies very heavily on community house rules and expectations vary from location to location.
As someone who moves around quite a lot, I agree. Local metas can differ quite a lot. I go from one place where tac termies are played against Khorne 'Zerkers to one where every army has at least one IK.
It amazes me how the GW apologists seem to think everyone is aware of the levels of imbalance in the game of 40k, and have the time and funds to amend their choices to suit their player group.
What about 2 fresh faced new players , who love the fluff and have lovingly crafted their first 40k army.
One gets told he is TFG and everyone refuses to play his 'WAAC over powered list'.And the other player gets kerb stomped every game ...
How can these young /inexperience players be judged on their character?
They are perfectly nice people who have forged their narrative and got a back story for their army ,and painted everything to the best of their ability.
These are GW perfect customers are they not?
Yet GW plc has let them down horribly with such poor game balance that just gives them negative experiences.
And the GW apologists want to say its the players fault?
Lanrak wrote: It amazes me how the GW apologists seem to think everyone is aware of the levels of imbalance in the game of 40k, and have the time and funds to amend their choices to suit their player group.
What about 2 fresh faced new players , who love the fluff and have lovingly crafted their first 40k army.
One gets told he is TFG and everyone refuses to play his 'WAAC over powered list'.And the other player gets kerb stomped every game ...
How can these young /inexperience players be judged on their character?
They are perfectly nice people who have forged their narrative and got a back story for their army ,and painted everything to the best of their ability.
These are GW perfect customers are they not?
Yet GW plc has let them down horribly with such poor game balance that just gives them negative experiences.
And the GW apologists want to say its the players fault?
Warhammer 40k has always been a fundamentally imbalanced game, and the rules are meant to be guidelines for play. That said, the onus should not be on the player or gaming group to fix the rules themselves; GW should provide a framework for games that is relatively balanced. In this case, it's a matter of amending the rules in a more radical way.
It amazes me that people think that this problem of competitive vs. casual armies is unique to 40k. The same things happen in MTG, Warmahordes, X-Wing, and other tabletop games: there are people who optimize to play at a very competitive level, and there are the people who play to win but still want to have fun with their opponent.
For the OP, a lot of what constitutes a reasonable list depends on the local meta. Same gaming groups are more casual, and some are more competitive. It's a simple matter of what people enjoy playing. People wouldn't run the really nasty tournament lists from other armies in a more casual-minded group, so the same rules should apply to Eldar.
Peregrine wrote:For the reasons already mentioned: fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun, shaming people for taking powerful stuff instead of fixing the rules directly is a terrible approach to game design, people very rarely agree on what the appropriate power level for a list is, etc.
There is a disparity in opinion about what's fun. That's fine. There's less disparity about what's fair.
Do you think that a 295 point base model wraithknight is fair, both in relationship to the Eldar codex and in relationship to the other units and codices currently in the game? The general concensus, I believe, is: "No. That unit should cost roughly 50 points more."
Do you think that scatbike spam is fair? The general concensus is: "No. Either the rules should say that you can only bring 1 scatter laser for every 3 bikes, or else, each scatter laser should cost 15 points, not 10 points, extra."
Do you think that a 2++ rerollable save is fair? I'm pretty sure that the general consensus is "no."
Are there certain lists that you could bring against which a TAC list of a different codex would have much less than a 50% chance of winning? Is that fair? "No," you answer? Then don't run that list. It would not be a fair match-up.
Let's set fun aside, and consider fairness. You and I have different views about fun (for me, what's fun is pretending that my sternguard are actually megacity-1 judges who are using lawgivers. So instead of saying "kraken rounds: rapid fire," I'll say "armor piercing: rapid fire!" (This is also part of the reason that I won't even consider putting my combimelta sternguard in a drop pod...that's not how judges travel; they travel either on bikes, patwagons, landraiders (I kid you not; check out the Cursed Earth saga) or H-wagons.) You clearly like to min-max your codex and win the vast majority of your games. That's fine. You can have your conception of fun, and I'll have mine.
But a 295 point wraithknight is not fair, given the current configuration of the game, and I don't think that anybody disputes this.
And you'll tell me: "But the rules themselves aren't fair!" That's basically what the gentleman from Alabama basically said. That's fine. But nobody says that you have to take advantage of unfair rules. Everybody agrees that it's unfair to spam scatter lasers, or else, they should be 5 points per model more expensive? Then let your conception of fun be what it may, but play in a way that everybody considers fair: Either only equip every 1 in 3 bikes with scatter lasers, or else, when you write your list, pretend as though your bikes are 5 points per model more expensive. Pretend your wraithknight is 50 points more expensive. And don't use the 2++ rerollable invuln.
Will you have fun playing that 800 points list (which should be 1000 points) against a 1000 points list of a different codex? Maybe. Maybe not. But nobody will claim that it's an unfair match-up, and there's no rule that says that you have to bring 1000 points to a 1000 points game. And if you're a decent human being, you should value "fair" over "fun." Always.
I'm sure that you can see the general point that I'm making, and I'll leave it to you and to my other readers to abstract this point and see its application to other points of the game.
Except it isn't, because they're two separate things. You proposed option #1, voluntarily avoiding the overpowered stuff.
All that I said, the only conclusion that I drew, which, strictly speaking, followed from premises 1 and 2, is that the players themselves must come up with a way of fixing the game and making it more balanced.
I pointed out that there's a second option, where you change the overpowered thing so that it isn't overpowered anymore and nobody has to avoid it.
Which would still be the prerogative of the player, no?
That doesn't make any sense. "Exploit" implies that you're doing something dishonest and breaking the intent of the rules, but that's not happening here. It's clear that the rules say what they do because of deliberate intent from GW. People aren't spamming Eldar jetbikes because there was a typo in the codex and they cost 5 points per model, they're spamming them because GW deliberately gave them powerful rules.
"Exploit" may be the wrong word. My point is that he admits that the rules are bad and unfairly bias the game in his favor...and specifically purchased the model(s) for that reason. That's basically what he said. But if you dispute my use of the word "exploit," then replace all previous instances of the word "exploit" with "take advantage of."
It amazes me that people think that this problem of competitive vs. casual armies is unique to 40k. The same things happen in MTG, Warmahordes, X-Wing, and other tabletop games: there are people who optimize to play at a very competitive level, and there are the people who play to win but still want to have fun with their opponent.
Oh yes, but none of them have it to such an acute degree as 40K. It's probably not possible to get perfect balance, but it's also not necessary--it can be done much better than it is in 40K--which, again, has been running for 16 years on the same basic system.
Peregrine wrote:For the reasons already mentioned: fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun, shaming people for taking powerful stuff instead of fixing the rules directly is a terrible approach to game design, people very rarely agree on what the appropriate power level for a list is, etc.
There is a disparity in opinion about what's fun. That's fine. There's less disparity about what's fair.
Do you think that a 295 point base model wraithknight is fair, both in relationship to the Eldar codex and in relationship to the other units and codices currently in the game? The general concensus, I believe, is: "No. That unit should cost roughly 50 points more."
Do you think that scatbike spam is fair? The general concensus is: "No. Either the rules should say that you can only bring 1 scatter laser for every 3 bikes, or else, each scatter laser should cost 15 points, not 10 points, extra."
Do you think that a 2++ rerollable save is fair? I'm pretty sure that the general consensus is "no."
Are there certain lists that you could bring against which a TAC list of a different codex would have much less than a 50% chance of winning? Is that fair? "No," you answer? Then don't run that list. It would not be a fair match-up.
Let's set fun aside, and consider fairness. You and I have different views about fun (for me, what's fun is pretending that my sternguard are actually megacity-1 judges who are using lawgivers. So instead of saying "kraken rounds: rapid fire," I'll say "armor piercing: rapid fire!" (This is also part of the reason that I won't even consider putting my combimelta sternguard in a drop pod...that's not how judges travel; they travel either on bikes, patwagons, landraiders (I kid you not; check out the Cursed Earth saga) or H-wagons.) You clearly like to min-max your codex and win the vast majority of your games. That's fine. You can have your conception of fun, and I'll have mine.
But a 295 point wraithknight is not fair, given the current configuration of the game, and I don't think that anybody disputes this.
And you'll tell me: "But the rules themselves aren't fair!" That's basically what the gentleman from Alabama basically said. That's fine. But nobody says that you have to take advantage of unfair rules. Everybody agrees that it's unfair to spam scatter lasers, or else, they should be 5 points per model more expensive? Then let your conception of fun be what it may, but play in a way that everybody considers fair: Either only equip every 1 in 3 bikes with scatter lasers, or else, when you write your list, pretend as though your bikes are 5 points per model more expensive. Pretend your wraithknight is 50 points more expensive. And don't use the 2++ rerollable invuln.
Will you have fun playing that 800 points list (which should be 1000 points) against a 1000 points list of a different codex? Maybe. Maybe not. But nobody will claim that it's an unfair match-up, and there's no rule that says that you have to bring 1000 points to a 1000 points game. And if you're a decent human being, you should value "fair" over "fun." Always.
I'm sure that you can see the general point that I'm making, and I'll leave it to you and to my other readers to abstract this point and see its application to other points of the game.
Except it isn't, because they're two separate things. You proposed option #1, voluntarily avoiding the overpowered stuff.
All that I said, the only conclusion that I drew, which, strictly speaking, followed from premises 1 and 2, is that the players themselves must come up with a way of fixing the game and making it more balanced.
I pointed out that there's a second option, where you change the overpowered thing so that it isn't overpowered anymore and nobody has to avoid it.
Which would still be the prerogative of the player, no?
That doesn't make any sense. "Exploit" implies that you're doing something dishonest and breaking the intent of the rules, but that's not happening here. It's clear that the rules say what they do because of deliberate intent from GW. People aren't spamming Eldar jetbikes because there was a typo in the codex and they cost 5 points per model, they're spamming them because GW deliberately gave them powerful rules.
"Exploit" may be the wrong word. My point is that he admits that the rules are bad and unfairly bias the game in his favor...and specifically purchased the model(s) for that reason. That's basically what he said. But if you dispute my use of the word "exploit," then replace all previous instances of the word "exploit" with "take advantage of."
Here's the problem, there really isn't a general consensus. Some people think 1 in 3 is the best fix for scatter bikes. Others think they should cost more points. How many? That's up for debate and will change from one opponent to the next. Some people think the WK is undercosted. By how much? Well now we have another debate. I go to the FLGS or GW to play a game, not to have a 30 minute debate with my opponent about which of my units need a total re write and how to fix them.
No, changing the overpowered thing to make it balanced is not the prerogative of the player, that falls on the people writing the rules. I'm happy to play against someone using ITC or NOVAFAQ and missions. I'm not going to have an hour long debate and re write half my codex. If they don't want to play me using the stats and point costs written in the codex, fine by me. I have plenty of opponents that will. In my meta, the people making ridiculous demands and telling people what they can and can't use in their list are the ones not getting games.
I still fail to see how you think it is on the players to write the rules. I paid $85 for my BRB and $58 for my codex. If I was just going to make the rules up before each game I could've spent that money on more models and paint. Sure, I take advantage of strong units. I use what I think gives me the best chance to win the game. When I built my race car, I used the parts that I thought gave me the best chance to win races. When Saban picks our starting QB, he goes with the guy that gives the team the best chance to win. I'm not sure why wanting to win an inherently competitive game makes me the bad guy. Humans are competitive by nature. The rulebook is 208 pages of "here's how you determine who WINS and who LOSES". There are no narrative campaigns or asymmetrical missions allowing both players to accomplish their goal. The only expectations I have of my opponent are they do what they can to win the game, follow the rules and be a good sport.
TL: DR It is GWs job to make sure my opponent and I have a good game, that is what we pay them thousands of dollars for. Trying to win doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human playing an inherently competitive game.
Toofast wrote:Here's the problem, there really isn't a general consensus. Some people think 1 in 3 is the best fix for scatter bikes. Others think they should cost more points.
Either one would be fine.
How many?
I could throw different numbers at you, but if we were to take a poll, what percentage of (non-eldar) resspondents would answer "less than 5 points per model more than they are now"?
That's up for debate and will change from one opponent to the next.
To an extent that's true. But here is basically your argument: "Pretty much everyone agrees that they should cost more points. But nobody can tell me just how much more they should cost. Therefore, there's no reason that I should run them as though they cost what they cost." That argument doesn't follow. If everyone admits that they should cost at least 5 points more (but some people say 10, and others say 15), then what's fair is for you to run them as though they were at least 5 points more expensive. Here, just go with the majority vote. Majority says 5 points? Then 5 points is fine.
Some people think the WK is undercosted. By how much?
Supra. What's the minimum points increase that most people agree to? I'm thinking "50."
Well now we have another debate.
Except, not really. You know that the wraithknight is undercosted by roughly 50 points. That' why you purchased the model. You know that scatbikes are spammable and undercosted by at least 5 points per model. That's why you purchased them.
No, changing the overpowered thing to make it balanced is not the prerogative of the player, that falls on the people writing the rules.
It's hypothetically/conditionally on the player if the people writing the rules don't do it properly. You should never say: "Hooray, the rules are unfair. I can take advantage of this."
I still fail to see how you think it is on the players to write the rules. I paid $85 for my BRB and $58 for my codex. If I was just going to make the rules up before each game I could've spent that money on more models and paint. Sure, I take advantage of strong units. I use what I think gives me the best chance to win the game.
By taking advantage of what you yourself think are "bad rules." Congratulations. That makes you such a skilled and strategic player. [/sarcasm]
TL: DR It is GWs job to make sure my opponent and I have a good game, that is what we pay them thousands of dollars for. Trying to win doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human playing an inherently competitive game.
No, but taking advantage of unfair advantages might.
the thing is, there is no such thing as a perfect game. Even the others that are boasted about have issues (the people boasting about them just dont mind those issues as much because of personal preferences). One being "better" than the other is just a matter of personal preference.
All players have access to all armies. If one person wants to complain about the eldar player having too powerfull stuff, they too have access to go and get the same eldar models. Or they can accept that the power balance shifts and that for a set period of time, they will be the underdogs and that when it is their turn, they will be more powerfull than the eldar.
Personally, If someone is a jerk, I wont play them. They have superheavies in a tournament, I dont play in it.
The real issue is not the rules but how we react to them. We can work together to get along and act decently or we can insult and call one another names (calling someone a "GW apologist is name calling and thus breaks rule #1 here by the way).
True, the rules are not perfect and it is easy to exploit aspects. you can do that in ANY game where there are options of what you can take and you dont have the exact same models and rules. Heck, if you played chess by "buying" the pieces for points, you would have people complaining about how unbalanced the game was because someone chose to take an entire army of knights while the other player took a smaller army of nothing but queens.
So yes, the rules are not perfect and are often wonky and playing with strangers can be a pain but we knew that coming into the hobby at Rogue trader. There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".
The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.
EVIL INC wrote:All players have access to all armies. If one person wants to complain about the eldar player having too powerfull stuff, they too have access to go and get the same eldar models. Or they can accept that the power balance shifts and that for a set period of time, they will be the underdogs and that when it is their turn, they will be more powerfull than the eldar.
"Either accept the fact that your army, which you paid 100x number of dollars for, is temporarily useless, or else, purchase another 100x number of dollars army."
Really? That's what you're saying?
The fact that you even had the audacity to type those words...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.
The players shouldn't. GW should make sure that the game is balanced.
EVIL INC wrote: There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".
You're not actually referring to GW as a hobby, are you?
Also, good work trotting out the old 'No game is perfect' argument. Totally flawless logic there.
Oh, and finally, look up the definition for apologist. You might be able to argue that in the context it might be insulting, but there's really not a better term to describe someone defending a controversial subject, you know, like the definition of the word.
WayneTheGame wrote: If someone like Jetbikes, why shouldn't they take it? Now yes if they suspiciously all have Scatter Lasers it's an indicator the person might be a WAAC type but if it's a variety, maybe they like Saim-Hann.
This makes no sense. Why does taking a poorly-optimized mix of weapons suggest that it's a "fluffy" list/player? Did I miss a section in the codex where it talks about how Eldar like to take stupid weapon choices just for the sake of being diverse?
Also, perhaps the all-scatter-laser player's thought process was something like this: I want to play a Saim-Hann army because I love their fluff, so what's the best jetbike army I can come up with?
WayneTheGame wrote: If someone like Jetbikes, why shouldn't they take it? Now yes if they suspiciously all have Scatter Lasers it's an indicator the person might be a WAAC type but if it's a variety, maybe they like Saim-Hann.
This makes no sense. Why does taking a poorly-optimized mix of weapons suggest that it's a "fluffy" list/player? Did I miss a section in the codex where it talks about how Eldar like to take stupid weapon choices just for the sake of being diverse?
Also, perhaps the all-scatter-laser player's thought process was something like this: I want to play a Saim-Hann army because I love their fluff, so what's the best jetbike army I can come up with?
If you played orks, I imagine that you would be singing a different tune. Basically, what your posts in this thread have amounted to is: "But I like winning, even if that means that I get to enjoy unfair advantages. Why shouldn't I enjoy my unfair advantages and milk them for all that they're worth?"
EVIL INC wrote: There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".
That's only said by GW apologists and is perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Infinity, Warmachine, Maliefaux are all part of the same hobby.
I convert, make scenery, paint, make lists for those games.
Look outside of GW and you'll find a whole world of gaming and yes, 'hobbying' too.
Edit: Oh, and "Just buy a stronger army is the second dumbest thing I've heard."
That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that way. If you voluntarily pay an extra 5 points per model for jetbikes some people will complain about "WAACTFG cheese spam" and insist that you pay 10 points per model, limit yourself to taking one unit, etc. Then if you give them what you want you'll lose horribly against the other guy that thinks 5 points is an appropriate change and builds their army to that power level. As long as you're depending on unwritten rules, social pressure, and voluntary avoidance of "cheese" you're going to have this problem. The only way to fix it is to get everyone to agree on the necessary changes to the rules (point costs, 0-1 limits, etc), make them explicit, and then accept that this is how the game works and you no longer have any right to complain about "cheesy" army lists.
Traditio wrote: If you played orks, I imagine that you would be singing a different tune. Basically, what your posts in this thread have amounted to is: "But I like winning, even if that means that I get to enjoy unfair advantages. Why shouldn't I enjoy my unfair advantages and milk them for all that they're worth?"
WayneTheGame wrote: The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.
Because thats exactly what you have to do with any game you play whether it be 40k, warmachine chess tic tac toe or even rock paper scissors.
The game is cyclic, this week eldar are at the top, next week marines, week after orks. This is why we pick the army we like the looks and feel of. If winning is the only thing your worried about, you will complain. if your looking at the hobby (other games such as warmachine, Maliefaux and so forth are just games) you will enjoy collecting and painting and painting an army win or lose knowing that in turn, yours will be at the top.
That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that way. If you voluntarily pay an extra 5 points per model for jetbikes some people will complain about "WAACTFG cheese spam" and insist that you pay 10 points per model, limit yourself to taking one unit, etc. Then if you give them what you want you'll lose horribly against the other guy that thinks 5 points is an appropriate change and builds their army to that power level. As long as you're depending on unwritten rules, social pressure, and voluntary avoidance of "cheese" you're going to have this problem. The only way to fix it is to get everyone to agree on the necessary changes to the rules (point costs, 0-1 limits, etc), make them explicit, and then accept that this is how the game works and you no longer have any right to complain about "cheesy" army lists.
Your point only holds on the assumption that people will attempt to maximize every advantage that they can under every possible rule set, ie., that the WAACTFG is going to be WAACTFG no matter what the rules are. Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAACTFG (not, of course, that I'm calling you any such thing).
As I said, when you compose your army list, take the following into account:
1. How would this fare against a standard TAC list composed mainly of infantry, some vehicles, maybe one or two fliers and up to one or two MC or GC (and which does not spam non-troop choice units)?
2. Does my list take account of underpriced/overpowered units, unit combinations or broken rules?
If the answer to 2 is "no," then revise your list.
If the answer to 1 is "such a list has much less than 50% chance of winning against my list," then revise your list.
Or else, be prepared to be labeled a WAACTFG. It's really that simple, despite all the fluff and smoke that you competitive players have been raising.
Traditio wrote: Your point only holds on the assumption that people will attempt to maximize every advantage that they can under every possible rule set, ie., that the WAACTFG is going to be WAACTFG no matter what the rules are. Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAACTFG (not, of course, that I'm calling you any such thing).
Why do you have so much trouble understanding the fact that people can have fun in ways that you don't enjoy? Taking the best options and playing competitively does not make a player a WAACTFG.
1. How would this fare against a standard TAC list composed of infantry, some vehicles, maybe one or two fliers and up to one MC or GC?
Why should I care about how it fares against a bad list? A list with a random mix of stuff is not a TAC list, it's a poorly-optimized list. A TAC list is one that can take on any potential opponent and expect a reasonable chance of winning. So, for example, Eldar jetbike + D-weapon spam is a pretty good TAC list.
If the answer to 1 is "such a list has much less than 50% chance of winning," then revise your list.
Why? Did you forget the fact that not everyone plays that kind of poorly-optimized list? Sure, if you're about to play a newbie with their first battleforce list you should probably tone down your tournament list so that you don't slaughter them mercilessly. But if your fellow players all enjoy playing competitively and consider list optimization a fun challenge then why should you spend even a moment of thought on how your list performs against a hypothetical opponent that you aren't playing against?
It's really that simple, despite all the fluff and smoke that you competitive players have been raising.
And here's where you're just hilariously wrong. I don't even play competitively in 40k, I'm just pointing out the fact that the things you enjoy are just the things you enjoy, not the objective One True Way To Have Fun you seem to think they are.
Peregrine wrote:Why should I care about how it fares against a bad list? A list with a random mix of stuff is not a TAC list, it's a poorly-optimized list.
It's a list which is obviously favored by 1. the CADFOC and 2. the fluff. [And I'll here pass by a discussion of the points system and how "poorly-optimized" and "well-optimized" should not even be an issue, given the points system. That's just more of the WAACTFG mindset, imho.]
And here's where you're just hilariously wrong. I don't even play competitively in 40k, I'm just pointing out the fact that the things you enjoy are just the things you enjoy, not the objective One True Way To Have Fun you seem to think they are.
Again, I don't care about fun. I'm not talking about fun. This notion of "fun" should not even come up in this context. I'm talking about fairness.
How am I automagically a "GW apologist" for believing that, with the game the way it is, we shouldn't be douchebags to each other?
I'd rather GW wrote rules better. In some cases it just boggles the mind. But even with things imperfect, it can still be fun to play a game. And so there are some people who say "Being an asshat makes the game worse", who don't mean to excuse GW's rule-writing failures.
Its like claiming that people who say you shouldn't leave your car unattended while the keys are in the ignition and the door is unlocked are apologizing for car theives. Such an unreasonable leap.
But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?
Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.
It's not fair to take legal choices from a codex?
Abstractly? Yes. Concretely? Possibly not. It depends on the concrete conditions of the game.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAACTFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.
Martel732 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAACTFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.
Your question, Martel, is literally the following: "It's not fair to do everything that the rules tell me I can do?" Well...that depends. Are the rules fair? If the rules are unfair, then no, it's not fair to do everything that the rules tell you that you can do.
Again, it's really that simple.
But you'll answer: "But I didn't write the unfair rules! GW did!"
Sure. But you recognize that the rules are unfair, and you still take advantage of them. That speaks against the quality your character, not GW's.
Martel732 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAACTFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.
Your question, Martel, is literally the following: "It's not fair to do everything that the rules tell me I can do?" Well...that depends. Are the rules fair? If the rules are unfair, then no, it's not fair to do everything that the rules tell you that you can do.
Traditio wrote: Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.
The game begins at list construction. Like it or not this is a game where designing a good list is part of being a good player.
Exactly. You will find people who are just horrible at list building. likewise, players who enjoy playing the game period and just want to have quality time with their buddies.
Bharring, any time you see someone calling you that, just report the post. it is breaking rule #1 of the site. these are all mere differences of opinion and as the saying goes, opinions are like...well, you know what they are like and that we all have one. Saying that one is more valid than another or putting down, insulting or calling someone names just because it differs from their own is just rude and impolite. i know others disagree with mine but you have never seen me put them down for it. it is healthy to be able to have open and polite discussions concerning our likes and dislikes. just, not everyone understands that others should have the right to be treated with the same dignity and respect they want for themselves when it differs.
I'm fairly sure its "legal" to wait until after the game begins to, say, put a call in to whoever that your opponent's car is illegally parked. Then call it a forfeit when he runs to pay the meter (or whatever). But I'm sure most wouldn't call that 'fair'.
Martel732 wrote:Why are the rules unfair to begin with?
I was speaking hypothetically. In the case of WH40k, we subsequently may ask: "Are the rules fair?" In point of fact, the general player consensus seems to be "no." The general concensus is that the rules are poorly written and that the game is horribly unbalanced.
If you disagree, then that's fine. But you're disagreeing, it seems, with what seems like a majority of WH40k players.
If you agree, on the other hand, and you still take advantage of the unfair rules (which, let us note, you think are unfair)...again, this speaks poorly about your character, in my view.
Traditio wrote: It's a list which is obviously favored by 1. the CADFOC chart and
No it isn't. The CADFOC doesn't favor any particular mix of unit types (vehicles/infantry/etc). And really, who cares about the CAD? This isn't 5th edition, the CAD is just one possible detachment among many that are equally valid in a battle-forged army. And an unbound army is just as valid as any battle-forged army.
2. the fluff.
The fluff doesn't say anything about taking a random mix of units, that's just a concept that "casual at all costs" players have invented. CAAC players believe that the opposite of a powerful list is a fluffy list, so any list that is weak must automatically be fluffy. In reality that's not even close to true. My IG armored company list with nothing but tanks and aircraft (thank you GW for making my LRBTs scoring in 7th and removing the need to take infantry entirely) is also a very fluffy list.
That's just more of the WAACTFG mindset, imho.
And there you go again, assuming that anyone who enjoys playing competitively has the "WAACTFG mindset". Could you please stop stereotyping people and acting like your favorite way to play the game is the One True Way To Have Fun?
Again, I don't care about fun. I'm not talking about fun. This notion of "fun" should not even come up in this context.
It keeps coming up because that's the way you're treating your style of playing the game: you're doing it the right way, and everyone else is just WAACTFGs even if they're playing in an environment where everyone enjoys competitive play and all of those "TFGs" are having lots of fun.
I'm talking about fairness.
And fairness, in this case, depends entirely on your point of view. In a competitive metagame (a concept you can't seem to understand) "fair" means taking the "cheesiest" possible list because that's what everyone else is doing. Alternatively, I could argue that the game is fair already since you and I both have access to the same "cheese"* and therefore your failure to build a good list is entirely your fault (just like we wouldn't complain about "fairness" if you charged a terminator squad with a single grot and the grot inevitably died).
*There is, however, the question about whether or not this "fair" game has a diverse and interesting metagame, but that's a subject that is entirely separate from fairness. "Flip a coin" is a perfectly fair game even though it isn't a very interesting one.
Bharring wrote: I'm fairly sure its "legal" to wait until after the game begins to, say, put a call in to whoever that your opponent's car is illegally parked. Then call it a forfeit when he runs to pay the meter (or whatever). But I'm sure most wouldn't call that 'fair'.
Martel732 wrote:Why are the rules unfair to begin with?
I was speaking hypothetically. In the case of WH40k, we subsequently may ask: "Are the rules fair?" In point of fact, the general player consensus seems to be "no." The general concensus is that the rules are poorly written and that the game is horribly unbalanced.
If you disagree, then that's fine. But you're disagreeing, it seems, with what seems like a majority of WH40k players.
If you agree, on the other hand, and you still take advantage of the unfair rules (which, let us note, you think are unfair)...again, this speaks poorly about your character, in my view.
But that assumes anyone cares about your judgments. My group is more likely to point and laugh about your ideas of character.
Martel732 wrote:But that assumes anyone cares about your judgments.
By no means. I'll let there be a vote of one and ask for your vote: does a person of good character take advantage of unfair rules?
If you say "no," then you've conceded my argument.
If you say "yes," then you make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of pretty much everyone (and of yourself, no doubt).
Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.
What's funny is I build my lists for WMH the same way and can have a fair game against anyone. My favorite list is an optimized shade3 cavalry build that's won multiple large tournaments. My friend got into trolls and wanted to see what my list could do. They're usually considered in the mid to low tier power level. Once he learned the game, he was able to get nearly 50% win rate against my best list. Nobody complains when I show up to play pick up games with shade3 and kraken. This is because the rules writers took care of the balance issue.
You keep ignoring the fact that everyone is going to have a different idea of what's fair. If you play 1k sons, you probably think any build I can come up with using eldar is "unfair". If you have a warhound titan, you probably don't have a problem with any of my lists. So, who determines what's "unfair"? You seem to see your opinion as the end all be all of what's fair and what isn't.
Martel732 wrote:Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.
You're dodging the question. Because, I can only assume, you agree with me. A person of good character does not take advantage of unfair advantages.
Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?
Traditio wrote: Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?
Nice bait and switch. You start off with the statement most people will agree with, that there are "unfair advantages" in the sense that some options are more powerful than others and the game is not a fair 50/50 coin flip. But then you switch it for a new concept of "fairness", that a person of "good character" doesn't resort to dirty tricks and dishonestly rig the game in their favor. These two concepts are not at all the same.
I like that: "Taking advantage of unfair rules."
I fine pastime of every person trying to get a leg-up in life.
You ARE playing a game if you abide by the rules.
You don't like the rules; don't play it or change them with agreement by your opponent.
When competing in a game, how you play is not to be confused with your social behavior.
I am sorely tempted to get an Eldar army and dare people to try to beat me... just so we all know where we stand. Refusal to play should be based on me acting like a jerk, not by how aggressive my play/army list is (bunch of cowards...).
Martel732 wrote:Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.
You're dodging the question. Because, I can only assume, you agree with me. A person of good character does not take advantage of unfair advantages.
Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?
I'm not dodging anything. I actually don't judge people for making legal choices. I'm blaming those who wrote the rules. And, to be honest, if a very good BA codex were somehow published, I'd put the wood to Eldar and Tau players every chance I got. I think it's fine for competitors to use the legal tools at their disposal regardless of whether their opponent thinks it's fair or not.
Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. The CADFOC doesn't favor any particular mix of unit types (vehicles/infantry/etc).
The CADFOC permits up to 6 troop choices, up to 2 HQs, and 3 of each other unit type. The standard troop choices are infantry. I'll let you finish the reasoning for yourself.
The fluff doesn't say anything about taking a random mix of units, that's just a concept that "casual at all costs" players have invented.
You're putting words in my mouth. What I described earlier is an army with mostly infantry, some vehicles, up to 1 or 2 MCs and up to 1 or 2 fliers. That's not the same thing as "a random mix of units."
And there you go again, assuming that anyone who enjoys playing competitively has the "WAACTFG mindset". Could you please stop stereotyping people and acting like your favorite way to play the game is the One True Way To Have Fun?
You keep talking about fun. I've made myself perfectly clear: I'm not concerned with fun.
And fairness, in this case, depends entirely on your point of view.
Aristotle disagrees. Fairness = justice = proportional equality. Which is, let us note, what the points system is supposed to effect.
In a competitive metagame (a concept you can't seem to understand) "fair" means taking the "cheesiest" possible list because that's what everyone else is doing. Alternatively, I could argue that the game is fair already since you and I both have access to the same "cheese"* and therefore your failure to build a good list is entirely your fault (just like we wouldn't complain about "fairness" if you charged a terminator squad with a single grot and the grot inevitably died).
Simple question: Do you think that a wraithknight should cost 295 points? If you say "no," then what you are saying is that the current points cost of the wraithknight is unfair. In order for you to claim that the game is fair, you have to tell me that there are no undercosted, overcosted or broken units, unit combinations or rules.
Traditio wrote: Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?
Nice bait and switch. You start off with the statement most people will agree with, that there are "unfair advantages" in the sense that some options are more powerful than others and the game is not a fair 50/50 coin flip.
You keep putting words in my mouth. Is that what I said? Yes, I (and other people) think that apart from skill, actual dice results, etc., each player, regardless of the list that they bring, should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning. That's not the same thing as saying that the game should be a 50/50 coin flip.
But then you switch it for a new concept of "fairness", that a person of "good character" doesn't resort to dirty tricks and dishonestly rig the game in their favor. These two concepts are not at all the same.
Not what I said. What I said is that a person of good character doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages.
I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser
That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?
Toofast wrote: So anyone who does what they can (within the rules) to win at an inherently competitive game has bad character? I have no words...
Absolutely not. You have a bad character if you take advantage of unfair advantages or rules. That's what I said. By all means, try to win. But if trying to win means taking advantage of unfair rules...
"What I said is that a person of good character doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages. "
Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.
I maintain calling the metermaid when your opponent's meter ran out - especially if you slow play to make it happen - doesn't break the rules, but few, if any, would consider that fair.
Toofast wrote: I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser
That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?
No. It's pretty much universally accepted that a wraithknight should be 50 points more expensive, and that each of your scatter bikes should be at least 5 points more expensive. Just for starters. Based solely on those two considerations, by my count, you have at least 200 more points in your list than you reasonably should (had only GW written the codex in a more equitable way).
Toofast wrote: I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser
That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?
No. It's pretty much universally accepted that a wraithknight should be 50 points more expensive, and that each of your scatter bikes should be at least 5 points more expensive. Just for starters. By my count, you have at least 200 more points in your list than you should.
But not by the legal count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I maintain calling the metermaid when your opponent's meter ran out - especially if you slow play to make it happen - doesn't break the rules, but few, if any, would consider that fair.
Fortunately, GW is not in charge of parking enforcement.
Martel732 wrote:Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.
I'm not claiming that taking undue advantages at a game makes you a very bad person, or even a particularly bad person at all. It's, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly minor fault. It is a fault, though, and it does demonstrate an unjust character, at least in that minor respect and degree. A person of perfectly just character always tries to maintain equity.
Martel732 wrote:Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.
I'm not claiming that taking undue advantages at a game makes you a very bad person, or even a particularly bad person at all. It's, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly minor fault. It is a fault, though, and it does demonstrate an unjust character, at least in that degree. A person of just character always tries to maintain equity.
I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.
Martel732 wrote:I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.
Well fine. But if you're running the race on steroids whereas everyone else isn't, don't pretend that you have anything to be proud of when you win the race.
Martel732 wrote:I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.
Well fine. But if you're running the race on steroids whereas everyone else isn't, don't pretend that you have anything to be proud of when you win the race.
Steroids aren't legal in most (any?) races. Scatbikes are. It's going to be hard to find another competitive game or sport where this kind of insanity is permitted within the rules. But hey, it's the rules.
Traditio wrote: What I said is that a person of good character
Stopping right here.
What is "good character"?
“to do the ethnical and virtuous thing without anyone watching” (William S. Cottinger) I have a little trouble thinking this all applies in a game's framework other than your interactions on a social level with your opponent (no cheating!).
doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages.
"Unfair advantages" where to begin...
Can you pick the same army list as me and play the same way?
Yes. Soooo... unfair advantage how?
I have my choices, you have yours.
We agree on the rules and play, at any point you have many choices including to use the poorly balanced GW rules.
Try watching "Survivor" where people are challenged on so many levels for a million dollars and it is all a game.
You see the constant "Are they REALLY that way or is it how they play the game?", few people ever know.
I play games to relax, I find it troubling to have my character judged by what I choose to play... it is rather a shallow means of evaluation.
Traditio wrote: The CADFOC permits up to 6 troop choices, up to 2 HQs, and 3 of each other unit type. The standard troop choices are infantry. I'll let you finish the reasoning for yourself.
1) There is no such thing as a "standard" troops choice. Some troops are infantry, some are vehicles (whether it's LRBTs in an armored company or just token scoring units in Wave Serpents), some are jetbikes, some are jump/jetpack infantry, some are cavalry, etc.
2) The CAD still allows you to take 1 HQ, 2 troops, and then 3 each of fast attack and heavy support. For example, IG can take Pask, two veteran squads in Chimeras, three Hellhound squadrons and three LRBT squadrons. That's a pure vehicle army with token infantry squads to fill a FOC requirement, not a "mostly infantry" army like you seem to think the CADFOC demands.
3) You've moved the goalposts. What you originally said was that the CAD pushes you to have a mix of infantry/vehicles/MCs/etc, not that it makes you take infantry. A pure infantry army disproves your claim just as well as a pure vehicle army.
You're putting words in my mouth. What I described earlier is an army with mostly infantry, some vehicles, up to 1 or 2 MCs and up to 1 or 2 fliers. That's not the same thing as "a random mix of units."
Of course that's a random mix of units. That's a straightforward "take a little of everything" list with no coherent purpose behind it.
You keep talking about fun. I've made myself perfectly clear: I'm not concerned with fun.
And yet over and over again you talk about it, even if you never explicitly say the word "fun". Your position is very clear: you play the game the "right" way, and everyone who doesn't play it your way is a WAACTFG.
Aristotle disagrees. Fairness = justice = proportional equality. Which is, let us note, what the points system is supposed to effect.
Nice job ignoring the rest of that argument, where I pointed out that what is "fair" in one metagame is "overpowered cheese" in another and "why are you wasting my time with such a weak list" in a third. Which means that, like I said, "fairness" depends on your point of view.
Simple question: Do you think that a wraithknight should cost 295 points? If you say "no," then what you are saying is that the current points cost of the wraithknight is unfair. In order for you to claim that the game is fair, you have to tell me that there are no undercosted, overcosted or broken units, unit combinations or rules.
Are you willing to make that claim?
No, because that's a stupid and irrelevant claim to make. See my other post about the bait and switch you're attempting to do.
Martel732 wrote:It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.
It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.
Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?
It's not about feeling special. It's about collecting the $$ for winning. If the others aren't willing to do what it takes, then they don't deserve the $$ in a competitive event. This is why steroids are illegal, because they cause long term harm in order to compete. Buying different toy soldiers doesn't cause long term harm.
Bharring wrote: Evil - it doesn't seem reasonable to report someone who really thinks I am a GW apologist who posted so, prior to me asking them not to.
Rude name calling is rude name calling. if you were to call them TFG even if they act that way and you feel that they are, you can BET they would be hammering on the report button.
We ALL need to follow the rules of the site not just a select few of us.
This is why you get the illusion of "the majority of players thinking the rules are broken". You have a select few who are able to ignore the rules of the site and run rampant until the actual majority of members just put them on ignore or cower down and let them have their way. In other times, the players who thought the rules were totally off kilter, were more polite about it.by not reporting them, you are condoning their actions and hurting those of us who actually do follow the rules of the site.
Personally, i think the rules have always been broken in one form or another since day one. All of the other games on the market are the same way. it is just a matter of opinion as to which is "worse" and who is more or less vocal about it. Along with who is more or less impolite and rude about it.
What it comes down to is that no matter how "unfair" or "fair" the rules are, it is up to the players themselves to determine whether or not they want to act like jerks in a game. yes, even if they were using the magical non-existant "perfect" ruled game.
Traditio wrote: You keep putting words in my mouth. Is that what I said? Yes, I (and other people) think that apart from skill, actual dice results, etc., each player, regardless of the list that they bring, should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning.
So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning?
Not what I said. What I said is that a person of good character doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages.
Ok, here's where you're going wrong with this. You're assuming everyone plays the game the way you do. So, here's the situation in your mind:
Everyone in the group agrees to bring lists with a diverse mix of vehicles/infantry/flyers/etc and refrain from taking "too many" copies of overpowered units. But since this is just an unwritten rule enforced by social pressure there's nothing preventing someone from taking advantage of the lack of explicit bans and bringing their best tournament list. This would be "unfair" because nobody else can match it, and the games wouldn't be much fun.
But here's your problem: you're confusing the balance issues with the exploitation of social norms. The player with the tournament list isn't behaving badly because they took a powerful list, they're behaving badly because they're exploiting the fact that you didn't explicitly say "don't do this" and taking advantage of a loophole in the group's rules. But that isn't the situation in other groups, so your assumption that powerful list = unfair doesn't apply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.
Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?
But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.
Bharring wrote: Evil - it doesn't seem reasonable to report someone who really thinks I am a GW apologist who posted so, prior to me asking them not to.
Rude name calling is rude name calling. if you were to call them TFG even if they act that way and you feel that they are, you can BET they would be hammering on the report button.
We ALL need to follow the rules of the site not just a select few of us.
This is why you get the illusion of "the majority of players thinking the rules are broken". You have a select few who are able to ignore the rules of the site and run rampant until the actual majority of members just put them on ignore or cower down and let them have their way. In other times, the players who thought the rules were totally off kilter, were more polite about it.by not reporting them, you are condoning their actions and hurting those of us who actually do follow the rules of the site.
Personally, i think the rules have always been broken in one form or another since day one. All of the other games on the market are the same way. it is just a matter of opinion as to which is "worse" and who is more or less vocal about it. Along with who is more or less impolite and rude about it.
What it comes down to is that no matter how "unfair" or "fair" the rules are, it is up to the players themselves to determine whether or not they want to act like jerks in a game. yes, even if they were using the magical non-existant "perfect" ruled game.
Could you provide some links to the bolded please?
And all the issues come down to GW not putting any effort into balancing their game, which people pay the premium to play, I personally don't see why I should spend so much and then fix the rules myself, when I could arguably spend less on a different system that is inherently balanced, and then tweak it for messing around.
There shouldn't be a comp vs "fluffy" player mindset, it should be "how can the rules designers make this game work for the majority?"
"So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning? "
Absolutely not. That is an example of why being a competative player starts at list building. if you expect to only curbstomp your opponant, this grot list will more than likely not do it. If your looking to have fun where winning was not the object, you could likely find ways to do it in a funny characterful way. Most players will want somewhere in the middle and would likely not choose said army.
Mozzyfuzzy, for the bolded, read through this thread and the forums in general and you will find it aplenty. I only mentioned it as an aside in pointing out that players should treat one another with the same respect and dignity they want for themselves.
If you want a perfect game where there are no issues, you simply will not find one. It is only a matter of opinion as to which are "better" or "worse" and which game rules are preferred by the individual person. What it all boils down to is finding a set that you and the your group can agree on and go with that. Calling other's names and putting them down for having a different opinion does not fix what you (in general, not you in particular) think is wrong or broken in a game.
If there is a multimillion pound multinational company , that has an entire department of paid professional developers.
And this department of said company gives values and system instructions that are unclear and in some cases just totally incorrect.
And the customers of said company complain about the poor instruction set, and the inaccurate values.
And some other say 'its not the fault of the company they sell poor instructions and inaccurate values , the customers should be able to correct the mistakes themselves.'
Then by definition , does this not make these people apologists for that company?
I am sorry if I have got this wrong...
Lanrak,
Wouldn't "GW wrote some pretty bad rules" and "Maybe my opponent would rather I *didn't* bring a list full of WKs and Scatter Bikes" be compatible?
I, and others, are saying the second. You, and others, are taking exception with the first.
I don't believe we materially disagree on the first statement. The second, however, seems to be controversial.
calling someone an "apologist" merely because they disagree with you in thinking that a company should be torn asunder and the entire game and ip burnt to the ground and instead think that there are issues and serious ones at that but are only more respectful and follow the rules of the site it is discussed on does not make them an apologist. As a matter of fact it is insulting (intentionally and misrepresentative of their stance (also intentionally).
These people you are rudely insulting by calling them apologists actually feel the same way as you do in many ways.
As long as you and your opponent are happy with the lists, it shouldn't matter what it consists of.
If you or your opponent take issue with each other's lists, then the issue is either resolved through some sort of compromise in power, or by finding another more compatible player.
In the second scenario, its still a symptom of the issues with the game either way you cut it. If you expect your opponent to build a list a certain way with certain restrictions, expect the same in return.
There's no right or wrong way to build a list, or morally superior or inferior way, or more fluffy or less fluffy, or more legal or less legal way.
*Edit* Evil, go read the definition of apologist. Come back when you have something reasonable and rational to say.
Bharring wrote: If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?
What? No.
List building is a choice, cancer is not. I can choose to play and build an army I like, just like you can. The incompatibilities between power levels are purely due to GW's incompetence. The symptom is that you either have to find a different player, or force both players into a likely less than satisfactory compromise.
Bharring wrote: If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?
Define "reasonable" without any reference to your personal opinions about list strength.
In the earlier context, it was clearly a pejorative, paired with dismissing the argument at hand while providing a strawman. Not insulting enough to report, but clearly an insult.
In Lanark's post above, it was a respectful debate about terms.
a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl′ə-jĭst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
Beat me to it.
Apologist isn't a detrimental term unless you choose to take it as such, in which case I'm afraid the problem is yours. What it is is a handy term to succinctly summarise a group with a certain POV that isn't actually an insult unless the concerned party doesn't actually know what it means and chooses to be offended.
Meanwhile, anyone who takes a more critical approach frequently get accused of being whiners, cry babies, scrubs etc etc and this frequently goes past unremarked.
EDIT
Alternatively, perhaps we can drop apologist and start using equivalent terms to those applied to the more critical, would people prefer that or would it damage their delicate sensibilities?
Perhaps we could get a ruling on the approved term? You know, like they do with religious and ethnic groups?
a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader
"one of Eisenhower's better-known apologists"
Useding this definition, it is being intentionally used as an insult because it is intentionally misrepresentative of hat is being said andis using he age old politics method of propaganda to form an "us against them" stance where one side isseen as the "bad guy".
using the definition provided, it most definately does NOT represent the stance of those you are calling that.
calling me unreasonabe and irrational through inference is also a form of insult and name calling. Remember, i am advocating following the rules and getting along with one another while having a civil discussion. Allowing that we all have different opinions and that one's right to have an opinion is just as valid as the right of another to have theirs. Not everyone in this thread is doing so.
It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.
EVIL INC wrote: a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader
"one of Eisenhower's better-known apologists"
Useding this definition, it is being intentionally used as an insult because it is intentionally misrepresentative of hat is being said andis using he age old politics method of propaganda to form an "us against them" stance where one side isseen as the "bad guy".
using the definition provided, it most definately does NOT represent the stance of those you are calling that.
calling me unreasonabe and irrational through inference is also a form of insult and name calling. Remember, i am advocating following the rules and getting along with one another while having a civil discussion. Allowing that we all have different opinions and that one's right to have an opinion is just as valid as the right of another to have theirs. Not everyone in this thread is doing so.
I wouldn't presume to know other people's intentions, I'm not psychic.
Perhaps, if you're unsure as to their intent, you should ask for clarification before throwing accusations around?
Blacksails wrote: It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.
Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie. No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.
In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.
Bharring wrote: If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?
No it's like stopping chemo because the doctor fethed up and somehow .... gave you cancer while fixing a dislocated shoulder I'm not really sure where to go with this analogy.
You shouldn't have to think about pulling punches when writing a list (exempting doing something for scenarios or whatever), you put together a reasonably "smart" TAC list, and you should be able to compete with any other "smart" TAC list from any other codex.
There's been a lot of discussion about what constitutes "fair" and "TFG" lately, both in this thread and others. I figured I'd offer my personal definitions.
"Fair" in the context of 40k (or, for that matter, most tabletop wargames) is bringing an army that your opponent would have a good chance at beating if they played well, without resorting to list tailoring. In a competitive environment, a lot more of what would be considered cheese in a more friendly/casual environment is fair play because in those circumstances both players are aiming to win using the best possible lists their armies allow them to utilize. In a more casual/friendly atmosphere, fair may mean not taking the most optimal units in a particular codex to allow for more varied, lore-friendly, or gimmicky lists where the main goal is having fun. In this atmosphere, losing can be just as much fun as winning because of the relatively equal power level of the armies.
"TFG" is not the player who brings the best units and list possible for their army. In certain contexts, this behavior is considered normal and perfectly acceptable.
"TFG" is someone who plays without any respect for their opponent's fun. In a friendly or casual game, TFG is someone who brings a tournament-level list for the sole purpose of tabling or crushing their less competitively minded opponent without their opponent's consent. In a competitive or tournament game, TFG is is someone who plays in an unsportsmanlike manner, who rules-lawyers their way through the game and exploits it to try to give themselves an undeserved advantage over their opponent.
I think the main point of the OP is that it's all a manner of sportsmanship, and knowing the environment that you play.
Peregrine,
"Reasonable" is highly dependant on the personal opinions of both parties, one set of which is obviously unknowable, but usually easily approximateable. Clearly, it is not quantifiable. But that doesn't mean useless.
For example, a technical solution to your query is to define "Reasonable" based on "one's perception of list strength", as it isn't defined by *my* perception. However, we can all agree that would be unreasonable.
Savageconvoy wrote: Lot of posts to read, but I had to make a comment after reading a statement that someone made about Wraith spam and being TFG.
In 6th ed they came out with a Wraith army kit that I've been working on for a while. I picked up Eldar in 6th, was planning on picking them up for a while since I've played Tau back in 5th and wanted to run some fun allies when 6th dropped. Then when the 6th ed codex hit I feel like crap because here I am with a Tau/Eldar army.
I picked up one unit of jet bikes because I needed a mobile troop and Wraithguard. Now Wraithguard are slow, so I needed some way to get those short range weapons the enemy and of course the only real option is the WaveSerpent.
Then they release the Wraithhost kit and I ended up getting that since I love the wraith models. I'm still working on them now, kind of lost motivation once 7th dropped. But I have my WK built and painted, magnetized the model for all weapon options. I even magnetize the wraithguard to use all weapon options available if I wanted.
Now I read some posts on here and see how I'm apparently TFG because GW sold a whole box set and then changed the rules so every single model has weapons that used to only be found on super heavies.
Now I'm of limited funds, and even more limited motivation. I do try to make smart purchases and put my heart and soul into the modeling and painting, though my results won't win any prizes. When I go to make a purchase for Tau if I'm looking for something to add to the fast attack slot I'll generally use marker drones or Piranha. Drones come extra with everything and Piranha are relatively cheap and fun to build. I don't want to go purchase Vespid to use, because I don't like the models and I couldn't figure out how to use them as a game other than hoping they take shots instead of something I care about. This is a problem that is built into the game, not on purpose but it's there. It's not the players who made this problem. I have nothing to do with GW decisions. I just bought what they were selling and tried to make an army they allowed me to use on the table top.
If the simple game design can take a player making a fluffy list and make him almost indistinguishable from a TFG to you, then you may want to realize there is a major problem with the game design.
In fact I'll just quote this again and everyone can go home as this is /thread.
Also also
Spoiler:
Flithy Blacksails you've insulted people before, I promised I'd find the proof of you not getting the repercussions of doing such things
Blacksails wrote: We don't have every single detail of the codex, so we couldn't possibly form an informed opinion.
We must have faith in GW's superior balancing ability.
What could a bunch of random forum goers know about game design anyways?
Blacksails wrote: It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.
Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie. No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.
In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.
Passive aggressive =\= polite. Just saying.
Equally Evil, if you're saying you often agree with the more "anti" GW posters on here, I think you need to work on how you express your thoughts in your posts, because that's distinctly not the impression I frequently get.
Either way, if someone says "x is bad" and you come along and say "well, y isn't perfect either" you're going to come across as defending x, whether you mean to or not.
Bharring wrote: If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?
No it's like stopping chemo because the doctor fethed up and somehow .... gave you cancer while fixing a dislocated shoulder I'm not really sure where to go with this analogy.
You shouldn't have to think about pulling punches when writing a list (exempting doing something for scenarios or whatever), you put together a reasonably "smart" TAC list, and you should be able to compete with any other "smart" TAC list from any other codex.
This I agree with. I feel that TAc lists have always been an issue because there hasalways been a "top codex". this has been around from the start and you find it in other games outside of the hobby like warmachine and such. At times, it has been better or worse. Currently, I feel that with the inclusion of super heavies, this has gone out the window. This from someone who has 3 knights so I can field a "knight army" who intends to get the new codex and at least 2 more of them. I feel that the battle brothers and wording in many codices also allows for many broken loopholes that can be abused.
Do i feel that I should go online and attack others, call them names (apologist in this case is an insult and ANY insult of this nature of name calling is reportable)?
No, i make a personal decision to not attend tournies and i refuse to play outside of my gaming group until the matter is addressed in a way I can 'live with" and thus during that time, buy far less models/books than I would otherwise thus "hitting them in their pocketbook" as my form of "protest". Much more polite than trying to bring harm to other players who actually agree with me.
I come into these threads not to disagree with you or cause drama but to try to propose peace among ourselves as players. WE arent the enemy of one another and we should show GW a united front. Until we do, nothing will change.
Edit: had to fix a few words. wireless keyboard doesnt get all I type.
Also, not that when someone says "x is bad" and i reply that "y is also bad", I am not say that the "x bad" is ok. i am only illustrating that there is a larger picture that extends outside of the hobby and to show that there are issues in every game because the person saying that "x is bad" is saying it in such a manner to make us think that it is the ONLY bad thing and thus "appearing to be an apologist" for the other game's issues.
this is why I stick with the fluff, imagery and "world" of 40k because I like it better than that of the other games despite the "x problems". S someone else has said in here "words are hard" and i apologize if i am unable to get my meaning across coherently.
EVIL INC wrote: Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie.
Its not insulting, and its not telling a lie. You're making it out to be an insult for reasons unknown, which rest entirely on your perception. If you feel that the problems with the game should either be solved by the players or that the players in any way shape or form make it worse by taking anything they want within the confine of rules, you're defending GW's actions. The extent to which can be debated, but it doesn't make that stance any less apologist.
No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.
Stop foisting this perfect game analogy. Everyone is aware no game is perfect. No one has argued that since time immemorial. Whenever you bring up this fallacy, you invalidate your own point and much of anything else you have to say. For the sake of your own arguments, do not reference this perfect game nonsense.
If you're paying attention to the discussion happening, there are people who believe its the player's responsibility to not use certain units for fear of being a WAACTFG. That stance is most definitely an apologist stance as it shifts the responsibility from GW onto the players and ignores so much of what some people may enjoy about the game. That is the issue at hand, and what is being referred to in this case as being an apologist. And it most certainly is.
You can also drop the hyperbole of claiming people go online just to find someone as a whipping boy. Get over yourself. Go read through your own comments in this thread. You've asserted that GW games are a seperate hobby unto themselves, that rock paper scissors requires balancing and fixing, and that balance problems can be solved by buying a different army. In all three of those cases you are undeniably and laughably incorrect. If you feel like you're being unfairly picked on, maybe consider that your thoughts are not strong, cogent, relevant, or correct in any way.
In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.
You can also drop this holier than thou nonsense about being more polite. You've accused plenty of people on this forum for breaking various rules, yet yourself found to be in the wrong in most of them.
If you and your opponent can both agree to a reasonable compromise where on side lowers the power level and the other raises their's to match, power to you.
If you and your oppoent can't agree to a compromise, you should find other players, or suffer through a one sided match (or enjoy it, if that's your thing, 40k BDSM?).
Either way, so long as everyone acknowledge that the responsibility ultimately rests on GW's shoulders, and that having to negotiate your list is a symptom of the poor state of the game, then I can't fault much else in people's thinking. There's just no way to define a universal reasonable, and it comes down to you and your opponent, which varies too much to write down even the roughest of guidelines.
In the end, the final solution is to not throw money at GW and basically mash together a bunch of editions and codices to form some super house rules Franken-40k, but that only works with close knit groups unfortunately.
*Edit* Added humour to ensure serious levels remain below critical. I also struggle with words tonight.
What is "reasonable" is actually the issue. You have issues that are "reasonable or unreasonable" in any game you play.
One side here says that it is possible for 2 players to communicate and work out what is reasonable and work together to have a fun game. This is not always possible of course but it CAN be done in many cases. It is the opinion of this side that the rules are broken but that with work among like minded players, it can be addressed in many settings.
The other side is saying that the opinions of side 1 are not valid at all because of the underlying rules being broken.
I can see both sides and see neither as being of an apologist stance. It is true that we should not have to work so hard to agree on reasonable. Acknowledging that here is that issue and finding a way around it till it is adressed is not a bad thing. Sometimes a pain in the rear of course though. But i am not going to call someone names just because they are willing to put in hard work when they shouldnt have to to have fun playing a game in a mythos they love. Instead I will applaud their ingenuity, maybe ask what "standards" they are using and possibly ask them hat exact issues they are having that they want addressed and add them to the list to take to GW if they are not already on your list.
A united front is much stronger than a divided one.
Peregrin wrote:1) There is no such thing as a "standard" troops choice. Some troops are infantry, some are vehicles (whether it's LRBTs in an armored company or just token scoring units in Wave Serpents), some are jetbikes, some are jump/jetpack infantry, some are cavalry, etc.
Ok. So you're telling me that if I had all of the codices in front of me, and I went to the section entitled "Troops," the majority wouldn't be infantry?
2) The CAD still allows you to take 1 HQ, 2 troops, and then 3 each of fast attack and heavy support. For example, IG can take Pask, two veteran squads in Chimeras, three Hellhound squadrons and three LRBT squadrons. That's a pure vehicle army with token infantry squads to fill a FOC requirement, not a "mostly infantry" army like you seem to think the CADFOC demands.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Did I say "demands"?
3) You've moved the goalposts. What you originally said was that the CAD pushes you to have a mix of infantry/vehicles/MCs/etc, not that it makes you take infantry. A pure infantry army disproves your claim just as well as a pure vehicle army.
Why don't you go get your codex? Open it up, and go to the "troops' section. What percent are infantry? What percent vehicle? What percent are monstrous creatures? Then switch over to fast attack. What percent infantry? What percent vehicle? What percent monstrous creatures? I can keep questioning you along these lines. You can see where I'm going with this.
Of course that's a random mix of units. That's a straightforward "take a little of everything" list with no coherent purpose behind it.
Translation: "If it's not a spam/cheese list, it's 'take a little of everything' with no coherent purpose."
Ok. Just so we're clear on that.
And yet over and over again you talk about it, even if you never explicitly say the word "fun". Your position is very clear: you play the game the "right" way, and everyone who doesn't play it your way is a WAACTFG.
He's not a WAACTFG because he's not having fun or because he makes the game less fun for other people. He's a WAACTFG because 1. he takes advantage of unfair rules, and this, 2. without concern to how that affects everyone else. He displays a habitually unjust character (albeit probably in a minor degree; it is, after all, only a game).
In fact (with respect to not caring about how his actions affect everyone else), the gentleman from Alabama will insist that the rules are broken. He will insist that the rules for the wraithknight are unfair. And then he'll buy 2. He'll insist that scatter bikes are broken. And then he'll buy 30.
In the long run, who is really to blame for breaking the game? GW or people like the gentleman from Alabama? GW's a business. What's our gentleman's excuse?
Nice job ignoring the rest of that argument, where I pointed out that what is "fair" in one metagame is "overpowered cheese" in another and "why are you wasting my time with such a weak list" in a third. Which means that, like I said, "fairness" depends on your point of view.
We're talking past each other. Your claim is: "But look, in a certain meta, everyone is using broken, overpowered stuff. So it balances."
That doesn't have anything to do with the point that I'm making: in point of fact, there are broken, overpowered components in warhammer, and if you take advantage of these broken, overpowered components, then you are, by that very fact, at an unfair advantage (albeit not necessarily in relationship to this or that list). You admit this very fact if you admit that there are broken, overpowered components. That's roughly the same thing as saying "there are unfair components." Yes, you stop being at an unfair advantage if everyone plays like that, but so what? That's not what I'm talking about.
No, because that's a stupid and irrelevant claim to make. See my other post about the bait and switch you're attempting to do.
Then you admit that there are unfair components to the game. If you take advantage of those components, then you are taking advantage of unfair components. That's trivially true.
Hmmm isn't another rule is to stay on topic, and this thread isn't about talking about the rules of Dakka.
My take is that it's kind of pointless to argue what's acceptable gaming etiquette is on the internet when what's going to be actually acceptable and indeed possible is dependent on where and who you are playing with. In other words, this threads not going to go anywhere soon, you're all going to just keep arguing with each other until a mod locks it.
Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.
EVIL INC wrote: Again, using the definition of the word, it is insulting and telling a lie as it does not represent the stance of those you are calling an apologist.
Once more EVIL, its not insulting because you feel it is. Its not the intention, its not the definition. If you are personally offended, that is entirely your problem, and no amount of stating you're offended will change that or make anyone care. So once more, get over yourself.
The issue being discussed is not the rules at all. There is no such thing as a perfect set and nly differences of opinion as to which sets are more or less perfect.
Technically any issue with the game will be about the rules. A game is literally just a set of rules, and any issues with the game must therefore be issues with the rules.
And once more you mention this perfect game nonsense. Do you even bother reading other people's responses?
the issue is how we as players react to the rules.
Side 1. Says that players CAN take the initiative upon themselves to take reasonable lists. They acknowledge that the rules are broken.
I agree with them in many cases. leagues, private groups and among friends, this is fairly easy to do as the people involved often find it less competitive and know one another's weaknesses. In tournaments or "public games", i feel they are being foolishly optimistic as either there is a prize involved that everyone wants and are willing to "fight for" and B, you are far less likely to be able to have as much "social fun" when playing a stranger and thus will concentrate on the "winning fun".
The issues people are having with so-called 'side 1' is that its being asserted (unintentionally or not) that players should or even must temper their lists and avoid certain units. That's the issue generating friction. I feel everyone here understands that ultimately you and your opponent will have to either work something out or suffer through some power disparity, which is still a problem and symptom.
Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.
I agree with them in that the loopholes and exploits should not be there for players to take advantage of in the first place.
I disagree with them in that I feel that putting the entire hobby and IP to the torch and attacking other players is not the way to address the problems.
Both the sides are not mutually exclusive. Well, you know, except for your insistence on this notion of a perfect game that quite literally NO ONE in this thread or any thread since time immemorial has ever argued. What people want, in a short summary, is for every unit to have a viable function or role within an army list that still requires the player to make meaningful choices in army design that allow for multiple flavours, themes, or styles of play.
Side 1 is not denying that there are issues, they are only saying that there are not harmfull to the other players in the hobby who actually agree with you in other ways.
Honestly EVIL, all this raises a point that you seriously need to work on how you convey your message, because what you intend to say and what you actually say don't seem to match up more often than not.
It doesn't help your case when claim that rock paper scissors needs fixing or balancing.
My take is that it's kind of pointless to argue what's acceptable gaming etiquette is on the internet when what's going to be actually acceptable and indeed possible is dependent on where and who you are playing with. In other words, this threads not going to go anywhere soon, you're all going to just keep arguing with each other until a mod locks it.
Exactly. Too many people with too many different concepts of what fun, fluffy, casual, thematic, or narrative means to even try to hammer down some sort of acceptable or reasonable set of list building guidelines.
Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.
No they don't.
Tells you not to call apologists that as it does not reflect their stance.
Peregrine wrote:So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning?
Quote abolutely anything that I said in the course of this thread or absolutely any other thread which would give you any reason to think that any such thing should follow from my arguments.
I never said anything remotely like this. Nothing even remotely like this follows from anything that I said.
Ok, here's where you're going wrong with this. You're assuming everyone plays the game the way you do. So, here's the situation in your mind:
Everyone in the group agrees to bring lists with a diverse mix of vehicles/infantry/flyers/etc and refrain from taking "too many" copies of overpowered units. But since this is just an unwritten rule enforced by social pressure there's nothing preventing someone from taking advantage of the lack of explicit bans and bringing their best tournament list. This would be "unfair" because nobody else can match it, and the games wouldn't be much fun.
But here's your problem: you're confusing the balance issues with the exploitation of social norms. The player with the tournament list isn't behaving badly because they took a powerful list, they're behaving badly because they're exploiting the fact that you didn't explicitly say "don't do this" and taking advantage of a loophole in the group's rules. But that isn't the situation in other groups, so your assumption that powerful list = unfair doesn't apply.
Again, false. I am saying that our "competitive power gamers" (if we wish to speak euphamistically; if not, then "WAACTFG") are playing in an unfair way and they darned well know it. "Wow, why on earth would GW make a wraithknight be worth 295 points? This is undercosted by 50 points. This is so unfair...GW totally sucks to do something like this...I want two of them."
But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.
I'm pretty sure that wraithknights aren't in the space marines codex.
According to this definition, it is an insult...
in·sult
verb
inˈsəlt/
1.
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
"you're insulting the woman I love"
synonyms: abuse, be rude to, slight, disparage, discredit, libel, slander, malign, defame, denigrate, cast aspersions on, call someone names, put someone down; More
antonyms: compliment
noun
noun: insult; plural noun: insults
ˈinˌsəlt/
1.
a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.
"he hurled insults at us"
synonyms: abusive remark, jibe, affront, slight, barb, slur, indignity.
But to stay on topic,all that is needed for a post to be on topic is a part of it. You an put in asides and additions within the rules such as discussing the rules so long as part of your post is on the topic at hand, ...
Side one is not saying that players HAVE to temper themselves. They are saying that it is a possibility that CAN be used if desired as a stopgap (not sure if I'm using this correctly) to use until the issue is resolved. A thumb in the dike if you will. It is fully acknowledging the issues that are present but offering it as a reminder that it might be more fun to play the game than argue about it.
yes, I do have issues getting a point across.
Your right, rock paper scissors is rather balanced but even with it, you could add in other "options" for points values and so forth and it would soon become unbalanced.
You don't get to choose how people meant what they say. No one meant it as an insult, you can't pick a definition where it is an insult if that's not how they meant it.
And none of those definitions have anything to do with 'apologist' so I don't know how they prove that everyone was insulting you.
Peregrine wrote:But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.
I'm pretty sure that wraithknights aren't in the space marines codex.
The idea is probably that you should bring OP allies or outright switch the army you play if something proves too strong to handle. And that's what really disturbs me in the current game - armies that have weaknesses are supposed to shore them up by bringing another army along while the strong armies can become even stronger with the right allies. Why should I have to bring flyers and AA from outside my SoB Codex when other armies have both? And why can those other armies increase their power even more by taking some nice ally combo when they're already powerful on their own?
ImAGeek wrote:Well, you have the choice to play Eldar, so you have equal access to anyone else. Plus, allies and unbound and stuff.
This line of reasoning openly admits that wraithknights are broken and that it's unfair to use them in the precise way which is permitted by the rules as they stand. You're basically saying: "If you don't use them, and your opponent does, then you are going to get creamed regardless of what you bring. So you'd better bring one (never mind the fact that there is no good fluff reason for eldar and space marines to ally with each other). Wraithknights confer an unfair advantage. So buy one!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote:The idea is probably that you should bring OP allies or outright switch the army you play if something proves too strong to handle. And that's what really disturbs me in the current game - armies that have weaknesses are supposed to shore them up by bringing another army along while the strong armies can become even stronger with the right allies. Why should I have to bring flyers and AA from outside my SoB Codex when other armies have both? And why can those other armies increase their power even more by taking some nice ally combo when they're already powerful on their own?
I agree. I agree entirely. There is, of course, a perfectly good metagame answer to this: "But of course. GW is a business. They need to sell more codices and models, man."
In game? There's no good reason for this. It reeks of unfairness.
ImAGeek wrote:Well, you have the choice to play Eldar, so you have equal access to anyone else. Plus, allies and unbound and stuff.
This line of reasoning openly admits that wraithknights are broken and that it's unfair to use them in the precise way which is permitted by the rules as they stand. You're basically saying: "If you don't use them, and your opponent does, then you are going to get creamed regardless of what you bring. So you'd better bring one (never mind the fact that there is no good fluff reason for eldar and space marines to ally with each other). Wraithknights confer an unfair advantage. So buy one!"
Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game, and there's no reason for them not to use them. It's just as unfair to ask them not to use it (if not more) than it is for them to use it.
ImAGeek wrote:Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game
If you specifically purchased the model because it is broken, then yes, it is your fault that you have and are using a broken unit. If you are further aware that the unit is broken and you don't tailor your list accordingly to make it less broken (say, by capping your points at 50 points less than what you're playing against), then you are to blame!
and there's no reason for them not to use them.
Because of fairness/justice.
It's just as unfair to ask them not to use it (if not more) than it is for them to use it.
False. It is not unfair to request that someone not act unfairly. What you just said is a massive self-contradiction...it's right up there with 1984:
ImAGeek wrote:Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game
If you specifically purchased the model because it is broken, then yes, it is your fault that you have and are using a broken unit.
What if you didn't? And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?
Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?
And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?
Yes. If the rules are unfair, and you're aware that they're unfair, it is unfair to take advantage of them. Period.
And look. I'm not telling you not to use your wraithknight. I am telling you to cap your list at 50 points less than the allotted number of points for each one you have, though. Because wraithknights should cost that much more, by common concensus.
Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?
Are you seriously proposing this isn't a real possibility?
ImAGeek, the definitions I provided show it to be used as an insult according to the context in which it is used.
You may think it is the players fault for bringing an 'unbalanced list". I disagree with you there. I feel that the fault is with GW for roviding rules that allow for it.
I feel that 2 players should be able to communicate with one another and have a discussion about what they each see as being fair or reasonable and work together as a team to have a game that is "close". I fully acknowledge that this is not always possible. The difference is that many here believe it is impossible in every case and that players should not even make the attempt to pick up GW's slack and that those who try to have fun with what is available should be figuratively burnt at the stake instead of the true culpret which is GW.
Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?
And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?
Yes. If the rules are unfair, and you're aware that they're unfair, it is unfair to take advantage of them. Period.
And look. I'm not telling you not to use your wraithknight. I am telling you to cap your list at 50 points less than the allotted number of points for each one you have, though. Because wraithknights should cost that much more, by common concensus.
Erm, yes? I'm being serious, the Wraithknight is a pretty sweet model, not everyone who buys one will be doing so because it's broken. Obviously. Are YOU being serious..?
And I've not seen any common consensus that WK should be 50pts more. I've seen numbers thrown around but no consensus on anything. This is the internet after all. You aren't going to get a common consensus.
To the people that think that players should houserule the games and personally limit themselves, how do you expect the game to grow.
Now as limited as I am in money and time right now, I'm comfortable in the number of models that I have that I could probably purchase enough to field a less powerful army than GW intentionally gave me.
But I've been in the game a while now. What about the new players? The ones that may have gotten a netlist because they're new and want something that they know will be good to help the learning curve?
How do you tell little Jimmy that he can't field the Wraith host army he bought in the big box last year to get an army on a budget?
What about the rules? How do you expect anyone to be interested in a game where you have to agree to things before it starts, then if there is a question about what you're allowed to do, there is nowhere to look up? That you have to figure it out with a coin toss?
How do you sell someone a game with a rule that you that you'll have to make stuff up on the fly and agree to or flip a coin for? Or that there is some subtlety to making an army that may require you to avoid entire units or equipment without any clear indication to which ones they are?
What about telling the new comer that they're TFG because they picked up a book and saw that scatterlaser bikes seem like a good mobile unit with good offensive power?
GW's sales are going down. Probably because of the reasons above. How do you expect a new player to get into this game?
*I'm using it in the context as outlined in the link. Not derogatory, but simply playing by imaginary rules they've made up and then try to impose on the other players. Scrubs are WAACTFG types and going on about fair and unfair. Guess what? You bought the rules and play the game. If it's broken, then play something else. You're not the game designer and you're actively forcing your idea of fun on someone else. The finger your pointing is actively being wagged back at you because you cannot define someone else's idea of a fair and fun game.
Eldar are extremely overpowering, without a doubt. But that's because GW is bad at their jobs, at least from game design.
Evil, you can't take offense to "Apologist" because it is not meant to be offensive by use or definition.
You're an American. Do you take offense if I call you such?
You might say "But other people don't like Americans and think they're imperialist arrogant jerks."
That may be, but it has no baring on what the term actually means or how it's used.
"Apologist" is an academic term. Someone who defends something. You say that you agree with those that criticize GW, yet everything you say is in defense of it. If that's not your intention, you need to work on your writing skills because you keep saying that we're misstating your stance. Yet if everyone misunderstands the same way, the fault lies with the writer.
And for the last time, stop talking about perfect balance. It has nothing to do with what anyone is saying.
The WK is a pretty slick model. Frankly, most of the Eldar range is pretty good looking. My wife has a small collection for painting, and I'll be damned if I won't convince her to paint up a WK.
EVIL INC wrote: ImAGeek, the definitions I provided show it to be used as an insult according to the context in which it is used.
You may think it is the players fault for bringing an 'unbalanced list". I disagree with you there. I feel that the fault is with GW for roviding rules that allow for it.
I feel that 2 players should be able to communicate with one another and have a discussion about what they each see as being fair or reasonable and work together as a team to have a game that is "close". I fully acknowledge that this is not always possible. The difference is that many here believe it is impossible in every case and that players should not even make the attempt to pick up GW's slack and that those who try to have fun with what is available should be figuratively burnt at the stake instead of the true culpret which is GW.
I never said it's the players fault. I said the complete opposite. And no one has said it's impossible to be reasonable and whatever, just that in some situations it's not that simple and that we shouldn't have to do so. That's all people have been saying.
Blacksails wrote:Are you seriously proposing this isn't a real possibility?
I'm saying that it's laughably improbable in at least the vast majority of cases.
According to who? You?
You need a stronger argument than that if you want to be taken seriously. Unless you can read minds, I'd suggest you don't assert what people's motivation are for buying and using models.
Blacksails wrote: The WK is a pretty slick model. Frankly, most of the Eldar range is pretty good looking. My wife has a small collection for painting, and I'll be damned if I won't convince her to paint up a WK.
Yes it is. I bought one on preorder when it first came out. I certainly didn't know that two years down the line it would be broken.
BS: I noticed afterwards that you altered your post:
Erm, yes? I'm being serious, the Wraithknight is a pretty sweet model, not everyone who buys one will be doing so because it's broken. Obviously. Are YOU being serious..?
I'm just saying. It seems pretty unlikely.
And I've not seen any common consensus that WK should be 50pts more. I've seen numbers thrown around but no consensus on anything. This is the internet after all. You aren't going to get a common consensus.
Ok. Suppose I were to start polling non-eldar players. "How many more points should the wraithknight cost?" What percent of respondents do you think would answer "less than 50 points more"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote:*I'm using it in the context as outlined in the link. Not derogatory, but simply playing by imaginary rules they've made up and then try to impose on the other players. Scrubs are WAACTFG types and going on about fair and unfair. Guess what? You bought the rules and play the game. If it's broken, then play something else. You're not the game designer and you're actively forcing your idea of fun on someone else. The finger your pointing is actively being wagged back at you because you cannot define someone else's idea of a fair and fun game.
Eldar are extremely overpowering, without a doubt. But that's because GW is bad at their jobs, at least from game design.
I've addressed these points earlier in the thread. See my previous comments.
Blacksails wrote: The WK is a pretty slick model. Frankly, most of the Eldar range is pretty good looking. My wife has a small collection for painting, and I'll be damned if I won't convince her to paint up a WK.
Yes it is. I bought one on preorder when it first came out. I certainly didn't know that two years down the line it would be broken.
They were undercosted in 6th edition. Seriously. You don't really have a plausible excuse here.
The wraithknight IS a beautifull model. i've contemplated getting one just for modeling purposes as i dont play eldar.
Blacksails, I'm not offended. You have called me far worse here than that. I only proed the point to establish it as an insult. There are far worse ones that could be used that are far more insulting. that particular one just doesnt apply in this case though. No harm done
Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?
Did you ever read my first post a few pages back? I bought the Wraith army kit a while back because it basically came at a good discount and I wanted more Wraithguard. I got a good deal on the WK and it was easy to model, magentize, and paint. I field it because I was proud of it and it was not obscenely bad for it's price at the time.
Now that kit, plus the one extra box of WG I got have 30 D weapons and the WK has 2 D weapons and is more powerful and durable.
Do you want to tell me, right now that I'm TFG? Do you want to say I bought that expensive kit because I want an unfair game? BACK IN 6TH?
Traditio wrote: BS: I noticed afterwards that you altered your post:
Erm, yes? I'm being serious, the Wraithknight is a pretty sweet model, not everyone who buys one will be doing so because it's broken. Obviously. Are YOU being serious..?
I'm just saying. It seems pretty unlikely.
It doesn't seem that unlikely to me. Not everybody buys broken stuff because it's broken. That's one of my main issues with the bloody game, someone might love a certain themed army that happens to be broken, and someone might like a themed army that's godawful. That's why crappy balance hurts casual/fluffy players more than competitive players.
And I've not seen any common consensus that WK should be 50pts more. I've seen numbers thrown around but no consensus on anything. This is the internet after all. You aren't going to get a common consensus.
Ok. Suppose I were to start polling non-eldar players. "How many more points should the wraithknight cost?" What percent of respondents do you think would answer "less than 50 points more"?
I too have never seen a consensus suggesting 50 points is okay for a Wk as an fix. I certainly don't agree with it. 100 might be better, possibly more.
On the other side of the coin, how do you fix bad units like warp talons? 1k sons? Tac marines?
ImAGeek wrote:
Yes it is. I bought one on preorder when it first came out. I certainly didn't know that two years down the line it would be broken.
Shame really. Knights are pretty cool too.
Traditio wrote:BS: I noticed afterwards that you altered your post:
I'm just saying. It seems pretty unlikely.
Again, unless you can read minds, you have zero basis for that. Further, there's nothing saying you can't have multiple reasons, which then complicates the matter more.
Either way, I'd recommend you avoid asserting, assuming, or otherwise making up facts about why people take certain models. You'll get as many answers as there are players.
Ok. Suppose I were to start polling non-eldar players. "How many more points should the wraithknight cost?" What percent of respondents do you think would answer "less than 50 points more"?
Why not poll all players, including Eldar players. From what I've read so far, plenty of Eldar players aren't exactly tickled pink about the changes.
Azreal wrote:I've got an Eldar playing friend who has a collection of Jetbikes that not only predate this codex, they probably predate you.
How does that fit with your dubious theory? How is it possible to own and play models before they're broken?
Are they all scatter bikes?
At any rate, I was specifically addressing wraithknights. I'm pretty sure that they only came out in 6th edition, and they were commonly considered undercosted even then.
EVIL INC wrote: The wraithknight IS a beautifull model. i've contemplated getting one just for modeling purposes as i dont play eldar.
Blacksails, I'm not offended. You have called me far worse here than that. I only proed the point to establish it as an insult. There are far worse ones that could be used that are far more insulting. that particular one just doesnt apply in this case though. No harm done
It isn't an insult
You are trying to make it so by ascribing motive and intent with zero evidence to do so and making massive assumptions.
Blacksails wrote: The WK is a pretty slick model. Frankly, most of the Eldar range is pretty good looking. My wife has a small collection for painting, and I'll be damned if I won't convince her to paint up a WK.
Yes it is. I bought one on preorder when it first came out. I certainly didn't know that two years down the line it would be broken.
They were undercosted in 6th edition. Seriously. You don't really have a plausible excuse here.
I brought it on preorder, it's in the quote. I didn't know how strong it was in the game.
ImAGeek wrote:It doesn't seem that unlikely to me. Not everybody buys broken stuff because it's broken. That's one of my main issues with the bloody game, someone might love a certain themed army that happens to be broken, and someone might like a themed army that's godawful. That's why crappy balance hurts casual/fluffy players more than competitive players.
Again, wraithknights only came out in 6th edition (I think). In 6th edition, they were commonly considered undercosted, no? The common list in 6th was waveserpent/wraithguard spam with 2 wraithknights.
EVIL INC wrote: The wraithknight IS a beautifull model. i've contemplated getting one just for modeling purposes as i dont play eldar.
Blacksails, I'm not offended. You have called me far worse here than that. I only proed the point to establish it as an insult. There are far worse ones that could be used that are far more insulting. that particular one just doesnt apply in this case though. No harm done
It isn't an insult
You are trying to make it so by ascribing motive and intent with zero evidence to do so and making massive assumptions.
He won't get it. He'd determined to make it an insult despite all evidence to the contrary.
I'm going to keep using the word because English.
Akiasura wrote: I too have never seen a consensus suggesting 50 points is okay for a Wk as an fix. I certainly don't agree with it. 100 might be better, possibly more.
But note, you don't disagree that at least a 50 points increase is necessary. You and I both agree that if an eldar player has a 1000 points list for a 1000 points game, and he has a wraithknight, he has at least 50 points more worth of units than he should be able to have.
On the other side of the coin, how do you fix bad units like warp talons? 1k sons? Tac marines?
1. Decrease their points cost.
2. Make their stuff better.
3. Nerf everything else.
4. Make the rules more friendly to those units.
Again, wraithknights only came out in 6th edition (I think). In 6th edition, they were commonly considered undercosted, no?
In 6th they didn't have FNP, could only target a single unit, didn't have stomp, and weren't resistant to ID and removes from play.
They were good, but not game breaking. Their weapon did ID on a 6. Now it removes the model on a 6 and D3 wounds/HP on a 2-3 and targets different targets.
Azreal wrote:I've got an Eldar playing friend who has a collection of Jetbikes that not only predate this codex, they probably predate you.
How does that fit with your dubious theory? How is it possible to own and play models before they're broken?
Are they all scatter bikes?
At any rate, I was specifically addressing wraithknights. I'm pretty sure that they only came out in 6th edition, and they were commonly considered undercosted even then.
No, but he's sure got enough cannons to use them, and that's potentially almost as strong.
Knights, Imperial or Wraith, also count amongst some of the most spectacular models released in recent years, why wouldn't people have been excited to own them?
Speaking personally, I'd never put a model on the table that I didn't like the look of, making armies I find pleasing to look at is my priority. I can tell you I'd absolutely want to include a WK in an Eldar army because they're fething spectacular, just as I have an IK army (that's yet to see the field, but that's cos I paintz slow) and a variety of other units which definitely rate at the strong end of the spectrum in other armies, but I can say categorically that in game ability was either of no consideration or a distant secondary to the aesthetics.
Read the definition of the word, then the definition of insult. Then look at the context in which it is used. that proves it to be an insult regardless what color or size you want to deny it in.Because all evidence proves it to be. lol But like I said, I've seen far worse ones used on here and it is incorrectly used here to define someone as something they are obviously not (hene the insult) so no harm has been done just proving the point beyond the shadow of a doubt for future reference
on topic, I'm waiting for my eldar playing buddy to get the new eldar codex so i can see the details of the new units and options/rules. I look forward to the challenge of countering them
Savageconvoy wrote:Did you ever read my first post a few pages back? I bought the Wraith army kit a while back because it basically came at a good discount and I wanted more Wraithguard.
Why, pray tell, did you want more wraithguard? What did your list look like?
Do you want to tell me, right now that I'm TFG? Do you want to say I bought that expensive kit because I want an unfair game? BACK IN 6TH?
Not necessarily. But do you think that the Wraithknight currently is overpowered? If you do, do you run that wraithknight? Do you take a full x number of points list even though you are including a wraithknight?
If so, then that might speak negatively about your character.
Don't change the goal posts. My point is there is no consensus for 50 points being the right amount for a WK. You asserted there is.
There is a big difference between 50 points and 100 points for what is right.
Which of these do you suggest for talons? All of them? I'm supposed to change the entire game to allow someone to field one unit?
Be specific. I can't go into a club and expect someone to sit down with me for an hour and rework the rules. I have to have something in mind they will agree with right off the bat. Telling someone to do something unofficial is remarkably difficult in a competitive game. See all of forge world's history.
Traditio wrote: Why, pray tell, did you want more wraithguard? What did your list look like?
Because I like an expensive golem like unit with cannons. They were slow, tough, and had short range. Do you really want to tell me the 6th ed Wraith guard were game breakingly bad?
I thought they were good. Yes. What does that have to do with anything though? Why would I buy a unit I thought would do badly or that I couldn't use?
I had an ally list before I bought them. Bikes, Spiritseer, Wraithguard in a Wave Serpent, and a Fireprism.
Then I bought the kit so I could have a Wraith army.
Not necessarily. But do you think that the Wraithknight currently is overpowered?
Absolutely. For the reasons I already listed. But it's one of my favorite models that I painted, assembled, and based. So I keep my favorite model right now shelved and embarrassed to field it.
If you do, do you run that wraithknight? Do you take a full x number of points list even though you are including a wraithknight?
If so, then that might speak negatively about your character.
I had my army pre 7th. I've been working on them before the new codex dropped. I used to be proud of my wraith army that I was building. Now they sit unfinished on the shelf because I can't field them. I am honestly ashamed to have that army now. I often times consider finishing it just to sell it because if I even tried to put them on the table then I'd feel like TFG.
Do you really want to talk to me about my character?
Traditio, you've addressed nothing but saying "the content of your character...." well if you read what I linked it actively fitting that definition of a Scrub. It's not meant as an insult, but purely short hand of an individual who wants to win not by the rules of the game, but by their own definition of success (I'd take a better less inflammatory word to define this anyway).
So what you see as unfair is seen by others as whining. You paid for 40k. You now know it's a hot mess. So either fix the rules in time, "fix it" and play with friends or accept that the current release is the way to play.
And everyone can play Eldar, so it's entirely fair. Is it cost effective, exciting, or a great way to make a good game? Not in the least!
So stop wagging fingers and judging Internet randoms based on their plastic men. Because who know, maybe GW will make your army/model composition the next OP flavor of the week. Then what?
Akiasura wrote: Don't change the goal posts. My point is there is no consensus for 50 points being the right amount for a WK. You asserted there is.
There is a big difference between 50 points and 100 points for what is right.
I've already addressed this previously vs. the gentleman from Alabama. Yes, there may not be an exact concensus about how undercosted the WK is. There is, however, a concensus that the WK is undercosted...by at least 50 points, in fact.
Which of these do you suggest for talons?
I'm unfamiliar with warptalons.
I'm supposed to change the entire game to allow someone to field one unit?
Be specific. I can't go into a club and expect someone to sit down with me for an hour and rework the rules. I have to have something in mind they will agree with right off the bat. Telling someone to do something unofficial is remarkably difficult in a competitive game. See all of forge world's history.
Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous question. I was thinking in terms of what GW could do to make those units better. You are asking about here and now solutions that players could use to make thousand sons, for example, better?
I don't own the Chaos space marines codex. But one solution is simply to ask your opponent not to use monstrous creatures. Chaos space marines can deal with infantry and vehicles, no?
Savageconvoy wrote:Did you ever read my first post a few pages back? I bought the Wraith army kit a while back because it basically came at a good discount and I wanted more Wraithguard.
Why, pray tell, did you want more wraithguard? What did your list look like?
Do you want to tell me, right now that I'm TFG? Do you want to say I bought that expensive kit because I want an unfair game? BACK IN 6TH?
Not necessarily. But do you think that the Wraithknight currently is overpowered? If you do, do you run that wraithknight? Do you take a full x number of points list even though you are including a wraithknight?
If so, then that might speak negatively about your character.
Let's shift this up then, I've played varieties of marine since I got into this hobby, before 7th dropped and the one person who played eldar left before the 6th codex came out, I saw the wraith models and I thought hey those are pretty sweet, if I wasn't working on whichever aspect of marine I was at the time, maybe I'd get some, then the Iyanded supplement comes out and I remember thinking those wraith models were pretty sweet, look up a few reviews, wraithguard as troops, man that's pretty cool, if I wasn't buying 30k power armour for the eventual release of the alpha legion and raven guard, maybe I'd get some.
If I had decided to go for those wraith models, would I be TFG? does it speak negatively about my character, that a decision not in my hands made the wraith units even better. As that is what you're saying about people who thought "wow those new models are cool I'd better impulse buy them while I've still got some cash".
Savageconvoy wrote:Because I like an expensive golem like unit with cannons. They were slow, tough, and had short range. Do you really want to tell me the 6th ed Wraith guard were game breakingly bad?
Game breakingly bad? I don't know. Part of a standard internet list? Yes...yes they were.
I had an ally list before I bought them. Bikes, Spiritseer, Wraithguard in a Wave Serpent, and a Fireprism.
Yes. Because nobody played those in 6th edition!
I had my army pre 7th. I've been working on them before the new codex dropped. I used to be proud of my wraith army that I was building. Now they sit unfinished on the shelf because I can't field them. I am honestly ashamed to have that army now. I often times consider finishing it just to sell it because if I even tried to put them on the table then I'd feel like TFG.
I don't think that's necessary. Just figure out what you think is an appropriate points cost for your units and build accordingly. You're playing an 1850 points casual game? Take 1500-1600 points. I will grant you this: wraith armies are cool, and it would be a shame if people didn't play them.
Do you really want to talk to me about my character?
No. I have no idea what your character is. "Who am I to judge?"
There is no such consensus. People all have different ideas of how good it is, many have no experience with it.
My point is this; people all have different ideas on what the right cost for a unit is. This has been true for every op unit. Go back several pages and you will see pages of such discussion for the riptide.
You can't say there is a consensus at all. Saying it's at least X isn't helpful, it needs to be a number so the eldar player can build a list.
Either you point out such a consensus, or you admit such a consensus doesn't exist and move on.
It's not about the codex, I'm talking about a single unit. This discussion has become about pretty much one unit. I'm asking how to fix a bad unit, which I'm betting will prove much harder then nerfing a good one.
For the record, I wouldn't call the chaos marine codex good at anything.
Blacksails wrote: The simple fact is, there's no wrong reason to buy or field a unit.
End of.
Per the rules of 7E, as long as your follow unit composition and wargear, you can literally have Nids, Chaos, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Tau all in one list.
If they're all terrible choices, cool fluffy list! If they're all the best units from each book, you're WAACTFG!
Personally, if I saw someone running some insane medly of crons, nids, and marines without being a really fething cool conversion/counts as army, I'd cringe. But whatever boats their float I suppose.
Akiasura wrote: There is no such consensus. People all have different ideas of how good it is, many have no experience with it.
There may not be a concensus on precisely how undercosted the WK is. There is a concensus that the WK is undercosted.
My point is this; people all have different ideas on what the right cost for a unit is. This has been true for every op unit. Go back several pages and you will see pages of such discussion for the riptide.
You can't say there is a consensus at all. Saying it's at least X isn't helpful, it needs to be a number so the eldar player can build a list.
Go with the majority vote of those persons who play the game and are widely experienced with the different codices. I didn't make up "undercosted by 50 points." That's something that I read in other dakka threads.
Either you point out such a consensus, or you admit such a consensus doesn't exist and move on.
You are committing Loki's wager. Your reasoning is fallacious.
It's not about the codex, I'm talking about a single unit. This discussion has become about pretty much one unit. I'm asking how to fix a bad unit, which I'm betting will prove much harder then nerfing a good one.
For the record, I wouldn't call the chaos marine codex good at anything.
I played a game against someone who fielded three tanks that shot pie plates across the map. On turn 1.
Anyway...I don't know. I'm not familiar with the chaos marines codex. I don't know what a reasonable player-based solution would be. But I am sure that there is one.
Game breakingly bad? I don't know. Part of a standard internet list? Yes...yes they were.
Standard internet list?! They were a troop option! With an entire supplement dedicated to them almost.
And are you now implying I just copy and pasted my list?
Yes. Because nobody played those in 6th edition!
Spiritseers? Only useful to field wraiths. The Farseer was FAR more common. I had a wave serpent because it was the only transport for wraithguard.
I had a jetbike squad because I didn't have very mobile troop options in an objective game.
What do you suggest I field then?
I don't think that's necessary. Just figure out what you think is an appropriate points cost for your units and build accordingly. You're playing an 1850 points casual game? Take 1500-1600 points. I will grant you this: wraith armies are cool, and it would be a shame if people didn't play them.
I paid a lot of money for a BRB and codex and supplement that lasted less than 2 years each. Why should I figure an appropriate point cost? Didn't GW get enough of my money for me to play a fun game? No, seriously. After all the time and money I put into this game. Do I not deserve that?
No. I have no idea what your character is. "Who am I to judge?"
Then why are you so adamant that I am TFG. Every description you gave, I fit apparently. Now I want to know, WHO are you to judge me?
It should be very easy for you to find posts on dakka declaring that the WK is undercosted by exactly 50 points then, if there are so many.
Again, do not move the goal posts around.
Oh I'm aware. I was actually emulating something you've done several times in this thread, and was curious to see how you would respond. I'm glad you're aware of it and aren't committing it out of ignorance then.
I'm not sure what the tank comment is about...are you implying such a unit is in the chaos marine codex? It isnt.
Savageconvoy wrote:Standard internet list?! They were a troop option!
They were a troop option if you ran spirit seers. As per the standard internet list.
And are you now implying I just copy and pasted my list?
I don't know. Did you?
Spiritseers? Only useful to field wraiths...I had a wave serpent because it was the only transport for wraithguard.
Yes. As per the standard internet list. Add 2 wraithknights and you've got it!
I had a jetbike squad because I didn't have very mobile troop options in an objective game.
What do you suggest I field then?
Space marines.
Or how about orks?
But I kid. I don't know...as I said, I think that wraith armies can be cool. They just so happen to be OP and undercosted. Run a wraith list, but run fewer of them? I mean, that's one option.
I paid a lot of money for a BRB and codex and supplement that lasted less than 2 years each. Why should I figure an appropriate point cost? Didn't GW get enough of my money for me to play a fun game? No, seriously. After all the time and money I put into this game. Do I not deserve that?
I understand. GW failed you. Granted, however, that they failed you, you should behave accordingly. Don't be TFG (not saying that you currently are).
Then why are you so adamant that I am TFG.
Never said that.
Every description you gave, I fit apparently.
I never said anything about you personally, man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akiasura wrote:It should be very easy for you to find posts on dakka declaring that the WK is undercosted by exactly 50 points then, if there are so many.
Again, do not move the goal posts around.
I saw that number in one of the eldar complaints threads. Note, however, that I never claimed that the WK is undercosted by exactly 50 points.
Oh I'm aware. I was actually emulating something you've done several times in this thread, and was curious to see how you would respond. I'm glad you're aware of it and aren't committing it out of ignorance then.
To what in particular are you referring? Loki's wager?
I'm not sure what the tank comment is about...are you implying such a unit is in the chaos marine codex? It isnt.
Chaos space marines don't have a tank that shoots pie plates? What on earth was I playing against, then?
You know what? It might have been a walker that shoots pie plates. Either way, my reaction was the same: "Huh...you have 3 of those? And it's your turn one? Well...good game. I think we're done here."
No you didn't, but you made sweeping generalisation earlier on in the thread that implied anyone who even thought about using such things was TFG and should be aware of what is said about their character.
Absolutely, I dont think anyone here disagrees that there are issues. Heck, a few of us have been discussing them since the days of rogue trader. As I expect this in the hobby or even in games outside it like warmachine/hordes and such. I'm always interested in seeing how different people react to or address them. I see them as a challenge to face and avoid abusing them except in cases where it is expected such as tournaments (and even then, i take what I think happens to look cool at the moment of my list building. Heck, i remember going to a tourney with rough riders even just because I was proud of my conversions for them.
The op suggested as a way to address the issue in a thumb in the dike manner, communicating with your gaming group beforehand and working out an overall consensus what is and isnt acceptable in power building'. I feel this is a good idea but doesnt fix the underlying issues which would still rear their heads in tournaments and such so it is of limited use to most players. My own group kinda does this and we know what to bring "power wise' based on which of us we are playing. This way, we always have a fairly balanced game(in our group). I generally dont play outside it anymore (not that I get to play much at all) for this very reason. When things are addressed to my satisfaction, I will once more "go public" with my army.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: No you didn't, but you made sweeping generalisation earlier on in the thread that implied anyone who even thought about using such things was TFG and should be aware of what is said about their character.
My claim is that if a person purchases and fields a model specifically because it grants him an unfair advantage, then he very well might be TFG, at least, to some extent.
Then link it. It should be easy to find a few. You may not have created it, but you claimed a consensus. A consensus on a forum should be relatively easy to find. I read that thread and would not call anything being discussed there a consensus.
Yes, I was referring to the wager. Sorry for the confusion, quoting is difficult on my phone.
Please quote the entire conversation. You said across the field. We have tanks that shoot pie plates, but 24" is hardly across the field. Vindicators are not a very good tank given their weak side armor, single shot nature, and relative point cost. You don't see marines taking them.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: No you didn't, but you made sweeping generalisation earlier on in the thread that implied anyone who even thought about using such things was TFG and should be aware of what is said about their character.
My claim is that if a person purchases and fields a model specifically because it grants him an unfair advantage, then he very well might be TFG, at least, to some extent.
While also dismissing the fact that maybe some people do like the models they buy, that maybe they buy models first then start list building.
So which is it? As for me personally your stance on this comes across as black and white, rather than the shades of grey that the situation is, when it comes to making pricey purchases.
Anyhoo I should stop being awake at this point, I'm on a work placement in the morning
Akiasura wrote: Then link it. It should be easy to find a few. You may not have created it, but you claimed a consensus. A consensus on a forum should be relatively easy to find. I read that thread and would not call anything being discussed there a consensus.
If you know the thread that I'm talking about, then there's not much point in me looking for it.
At any rate, you're attacking a claim that I didn't make. "The current concensus is that the wraithknight is undercosted by exactly 50 points."
My claim is that the concensus is that the wraithknight is undercosted by 50 points or more. If you tell me that the current consensus (let us suppose) is that it's undercosted by 100 points, then you haven't contradicted my claim. The two claims are mutually consistent. If you tell me that there is no concensus about a precise number at all, that I'll get answers ranging from 60 points to 200 points, then you still haven't contradicted my claim.
Do you disagree that the wraithknight is undercosted by 50 points or more, and that pretty much everyone agrees about this?
Please quote the entire conversation. You said across the field. We have tanks that shoot pie plates, but 24" is hardly across the field. Vindicators are not a very good tank given their weak side armor, single shot nature, and relative point cost. You don't see marines taking them.
No, it wasn't a vindicator...it may have been a walker. Do chaos marines have a walker that shoots pie plates at long range?
There is nothing unfair with any model in 40k from a player's perspective. If this game had as much personality as chess, sure. But there's so many possible reasons for taking, say, a Wraithknight (fluff reasons, model appearance...). In addition, the game is competitive in nature, so playing it with the intention of winning - no matter how hardcore the actual match is - should be obvious. If you didn't intend to win, you would not shoot with your units at all.
The blame lies with GW for failing to balance their game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: No, it wasn't a vindicator...it may have been a walker. Do chaos marines have a walker that shoots pie plates at long range?
The Defiler? That unit is extremely overpriced and fragile.
To be fair, you can usually tell who is taking a unit purely for the exploit/advantage and who is taking it for the model coolness/fluff by just listening to the player talk about the army and their list. This is not always the case of course.
But it doesnt mean that someone taking it purely for the cool factor isnt gaining the same advantages the other player is of course. However, it may affect whether or not I will play them based on attitude, but of course attitude is outside of the rules and make it my personal preference.
Ashiraya wrote: There is nothing unfair with any model in 40k from a player's perspective. If this game had as much personality as chess, sure. But there's so many possible reasons for taking, say, a Wraithknight (fluff reasons, model appearance...). In addition, the game is competitive in nature, so playing it with the intention of winning - no matter how hardcore the actual match is - should be obvious. If you didn't intend to win, you would not shoot with your units at all.
The blame lies with GW for failing to balance their game.
I've addressed these claims previously in the thread.
The Defiler? That unit is extremely overpriced and fragile.
That was it. He had three of them. He went first, and my guys started out deployed fairly close together. I conceded turn one.
Ashiraya wrote:If he went first, he also deployed first.
So why deploy bunched up in front of battle cannons? Why not use cover?
Well, for one thing, as I said, I don't really know much about about the chaos space marines codex. For another thing, I was using cover. I had a group of guys hidden behind two rhinos, except for a small crack between the two rhinos.
Even then they are BS3 and 175+ points each. They are really not good. They are AV12 balloons waiting for the needle.
They shoot pie plates long range. Pie plates have a 1/3 chance of getting a direct hit, regardless of your BS.
It appears you unsuccessfully refuted them.
If you have specific objections to any one of my arguments, feel free to bring them up.
Traditio wrote: Well, for one thing, as I said, I don't really know much about about the chaos space marines codex. For another thing, I was using cover. I had a group of guys hidden behind two rhinos, except for a small crack between the two rhinos.
Then you should have little issues dealing with them using any competitive list.
But the fact that he brought 3 Defilers probably means that your list was quite weak as well, in which case, they are okay. They never get better than okay unless you intentionally try to bunch up vanguard veterans in front of them or something.
I should know. I have one and I regularly use it.
They shoot pie plates long range. Pie plates have a 1/3 chance of getting a direct hit, regardless of your BS.
Spread correctly and use cover, and fire back effectively, and they will do very little.
So, basically, you can not link any such consensus reached. You feel the need to move your goal post as well.
Again, 50 points is different from 100. The eldar player must know how many points down he is playing when he brings them. You'll notice in your codex it rarely suggests that a terminator should cost 30-40 points. They tend to give exact numbers for everything, including options. You'd need to be able to do the same for your opponent.
If you lost turn 1 to 3 defilers, a unit so bad I forgot it was in the game, then I don't think we will ever see eye to eye. I'm having trouble picking how bad your deployment could be that you'd lose that many troops.
And ppeople thought I was crazy for suggesting I can score 3 hits with a small blast. What do you do against soul grinders? Lemans russes? Whirlwinds?
If you take an unbound list of Vanguard Veterans, buy thunder hammers and similar expensive weapons as much as possible (but no storm shields), and then place them outside of cover, bunched up.
Akiasura wrote: So, basically, you can not link any such consensus reached. You feel the need to move your goal post as well.
Again, 50 points is different from 100.
If he takes one basic wraithknight for 350 points instead of 295, some people may still claim that it's undercosted. But I certainly wouldn't accuse such a person of taking advantage of bad rules or being a WAACTFG. His actions show that he recognizes that he is at an unfair advantage and has adjusted his list accordingly.
If you lost turn 1 to 3 defilers, a unit so bad I forgot it was in the game, then I don't think we will ever see eye to eye.
And yet he was using 3, and a certain website claims that they are "a powerful beast."
I'm having trouble picking how bad your deployment could be that you'd lose that many troops.
And ppeople thought I was crazy for suggesting I can score 3 hits with a small blast. What do you do against soul grinders? Lemans russes? Whirlwinds?
Leman russes also shoot pie plates long range? I don't think I've played against a soul grinder or a whirlwind yet. My list is very infantry heavy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: If you take an unbound list of Vanguard Veterans, buy thunder hammers and similar expensive weapons as much as possible (but no storm shields), and then place them outside of cover, bunched up.
Then you might feel like conceding turn 1.
But then I'd ask you why you'd do that...
I had a bunch of infantry who were bunched up behind a couple of rhinos.
If he takes a basic wraithknight for 350 points instead of 295, some people may still claim that it's undercosted. But I certainly wouldn't accuse such a person of taking advantage of bad rules or being a WAACTFG. His actions show that he recognizes that he is at an unfair advantage and has adjusted his list accordingly.
You shouldn't be accusing people of being WAACTFG regardless of whatever handicap they play with or don't. Seriously, there is no right or wrong reason to bring a model, and your list does not define if you are WAACTFG. You continue to imply that bringing a good model makes someone a WAACTFG, which is absolutely a terrible attitude to have.
Blacksails wrote:You shouldn't be accusing people of being WAACTFG regardless of whatever handicap they play with or don't. Seriously, there is no right or wrong reason to bring a model, and your list does not define if you are WAACTFG. You continue to imply that bringing a good model makes someone a WAACTFG, which is absolutely a terrible attitude to have.
You say "good model." I say "undercosted and overpowered." If you use a broken unit because it's broken, that says something about you.
If you use a broken unit because it's broken, that says something about you.
No, no it doesn't!
Because, once more with feeling, YOU DON'T KNOW THE REASONS WHY SOMEONE IS PLAYING WITH 'X' UNTIL THEY STATE OUTRIGHT EVERY REASON THAT LEAD THEM TO USE THAT UNIT.
It says a lot about you though.
You, the person who's so quick to judge someone based only on a list put together for a wargame with absolutely zero idea as to all the many reasons why someone decided to play with a certain collection of miniatures, are the problem here. Not little Timmy with his WK, but you, judging everyone. You are the poisonous element.
I hope you understand how childish you sound. Its a list for a game, and yet you're stating with more or less absolute certainty that people who bring a powerful unit are WAACTFG. Before you've shook hands, had a chat, or even rolled dice, you're judging and labelling people. Absolutely childish.
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.
A lot of tanks in the IG army fire stronger, better pieplates for cheaper at even longer ranges then the defiler. And on a stronger chasis.
The soul grinder is a demon tank that is superior to the defiler in every way.
I don't see what the first thing you posted in response to me has to do with anything I said. Could you clarify?
Cost is relative in this unbalanced game. Against necrons, let the WK fly. The decurion could likely handle it.
If you use a broken unit because it's broken, that says something about you.
No, no it doesn't!
Because, once more with feeling, YOU DON'T KNOW THE REASONS WHY SOMEONE IS PLAYING WITH 'X' UNTIL THEY STATE OUTRIGHT EVERY REASON THAT LEAD THEM TO USE THAT UNIT.
It says a lot about you though.
You, the person who's so quick to judge someone based only on a list put together for a wargame with absolutely zero idea as to all the many reasons why someone decided to play with a certain collection of miniatures, are the problem here. Not little Timmy with his WK, but you, judging everyone. You are the poisonous element.
I hope you understand how childish you sound. Its a list for a game, and yet you're stating with more or less absolute certainty that people who bring a powerful unit are WAACTFG. Before you've shook hands, had a chat, or even rolled dice, you're judging and labelling people. Absolutely childish.
See the italicized/underlined in your post. See the italicized/underlined in my post. Do you seriously not know what the word "because" means?
Do you seriously not understand that it still doesn't matter why they took it anyways?
Unless you're seriously going to state that using powerful models make you less of a person than someone using deliberately weak models under some sort of illusion you're the superior person.
In which case, I stand by my comment that its an incredibly childish, toxic, and terrible attitude to have. Either way, you're judging people on a list in a game before you've ever really gotten to meet them.
So what if they took it partly or in whole because its strong? Honestly, it doesn't matter in the slightest and they're not WAACTFG for bringing a strong list.
Akiasura wrote: Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.
A lot of tanks in the IG army fire stronger, better pieplates for cheaper at even longer ranges then the defiler. And on a stronger chasis.
The soul grinder is a demon tank that is superior to the defiler in every way.
Either way, I think that the general principle stands: "Thou shalt not spam non-troop choices."
I don't see what the first thing you posted in response to me has to do with anything I said. Could you clarify?
Are you referring to this?
"If he takes one basic wraithknight for 350 points instead of 295, some people may still claim that it's undercosted. But I certainly wouldn't accuse such a person of taking advantage of bad rules or being a WAACTFG. His actions show that he recognizes that he is at an unfair advantage and has adjusted his list accordingly."
Your point was: "But is it 50? Or 100? He needs a points list!" That was my answer to that point.
Cost is relative in this unbalanced game. Against necrons, let the WK fly. The decurion could likely handle it.
Necrons are also commonly thought to be unbalanced relative to other codices, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Do you seriously not understand that it still doesn't matter why they took it anyways?
Seriously. Read what you previous said in answer to my claim. Then read what I actually claimed. At this point, you're just making yourself look silly. "If someone does x because y, then z." "But you don't know why he does x!!!" Uh...great. So, there's this thing called a dictionary, and I'm pretty sure that the word "because" is in there. Check it out.
" while the nice "why can't we get along?" voice says "Make it fun! Winning is not that important! 
".
I'm not really sure where to go with this analogy.
