Hey guys,

So this is geared to the people who play the "top teir" codex's. I have found lately that when I play my necrons against some of my friends armies, it isn't enjoyable for either of us as it is very apparent there is a massive power difference between some codex's. When I play against my mates AdMech I don't feel bad as the crazy amount of rules they have offset the crazy amount of rules I have, and it's an enjoyable game. I was just wondering if this is the same for other people? I'm not talking about power gamers and the like who build super competitive lists 24/7 and go up against the same all the time, I'm talking just casual games against friends. We buy our armies because we love the aesthetic/lore of them, and just want to throw dice around and have some good banter. Its frustrating because I love my crons yet I'm fielding my KDK as my primary army because of this.

Sadly a lot of people do not buy armies because of lore/aesthetics to them. It's easier to win with. People must be plastic toy soldier jocks and will spend lots of money to be so.

Just look at the tourney scene and see how armies change a lot.

Sure you might have that person who played Eldar when they were not good, but fore every player like that you have what 3, 4 5 players who play Eldar now because they are easier to do so and will drop them when another army comes up that is more powerful or easier to play with.



A good example is how many elder players were in 5th edition? How many played Tau? Not many. Only people who loved Eldar played Eldar. People who loved Tau played Tau. When 6th edition came out how many people played Eldar or Tau? Not many. Now when the new Eldar codex came out, how many people started Eldar armies? A lot. No new Tau armies. Then Tau came out. How many people started Tau? A lot. Then came 7th edition. How many people play Eldar? A lot still but not as much as with Tau funny. But a lot of new Necron players though.

It just goes to show you when something new and more "powerful" or "easier to win with" comes out a lot of people will buy them. They will also drop them when the new flavour of the month sort to speak comes out as well.

Some people just need to be Jocks when it comes to toy soldiers. You can almost say they are performance enhancing drugs. Plastic crak. Makes it easier to beat your fellow opponent.

Speaking as a guy that normally plays underpowered armies (CSM and IG), getting half your army removed on T1 and being able to place a safe £500 bet on a total rout by the end of turn 3 is never fun.

There have been occasions where I've done that to my opponent, and it's funny the first time, but when 10 games in a row have been exactly the same gakfest, it's just sad.

I play a bunch of different armies of varying power levels and try and avoid putting high tier stuff against bottomfeeder codecies and visa versa, but sometimes there's just a bad match-up in a tourney and you either try to end it quickly and commiserate your opponent or you try and hold out and go for the win on objectives, depending on which side of the power imbalance you're on.

IMHO there's no fun to be had for either side in a WK/Scat pack vs CSM match, but that's the way the codecies are written and if that's all you've got since you've only got 1 army each, well, it's a case of toning it down if you can or just not having fun/not playing. That's just where the state of the game is. While some people might suggest a points handicap, sometimes there's just no amount of points that's going to suffice. I've watched an 1850 Eldar army wipe the floor with a 2500 BA army in 4 turns and still be at almost full strength.

The only advice is to put top tier against top tier, mid against mid and low against low unless there's a bit of an addity in list building where a high is taking bad units or a low is running as much cheese as they can, in which case high/mid or mid/low can usually have a fairly even game. I certainly don't recall a high/low game in my local ever turning out anything less than a stomping, regardless of how much the high player toned down their list, though you do see the bottomfeeders coming up with a fun against the favoured sons often enough in the batreps both here and other places.

Yea so that was what I was trying to figure out.

Do the majority of players value winning over having fun?

Or visa versa?

Don't get me wrong I like playing games when the gloves come off on both sides and it's an epic brawl (so long as the codex's are even-ish).

Say for example, you went to a GW store and brought an eldar army that is fairly balanced and not crazy cheesy, expecting to play against tau or SM. You manage to find a PUG, but you were are up against a very average ork list. How can you find enjoyment in playing a one sided game?

It goes like this:

Winning > Losing > No fun

I hope you find a solution for yourself with this. My friend stopped playing because of such mismatches. I played, for the most part, only weak armies. CSM, IG, Orks, DE. And whenever I played against my friends Tau or Necrons we had no happy faces to tell you the least. This imbalances led me to sell most of my armies and only stick to the ones i really really liked. While I still play, my friend dropped out of the hobby completely.

As long as the people you play against aren't complete asses who play to always win all the time instead of having fun, the game will be fun.

I hate playing games that are a big mismatch in power in either direction as an easy win is as vapid as an impossible matchup is frustrating. That being said its not impossible to have a low tier army fight a high tier army but the high tier army just needs to have some restrain and avoid some of the groin kicker tactics/formations/units. Casual 40k is very much a social contract game as both parties need to have their opponents enjoyment in mind and arrive at an agreeable place when it comes to what sort of game you all will be playing.

I seriously dislike games that are an easy turn 2 win, there's no fun in it and nothing to enjoy. For this reason I have no intention of ever running a Scatterbike Eldar list and stikking to my Aspect Warrior set up. So far my games have been relatively close, and the easy wins tend to come more from my Dark Eldar than Craftworld.

I don't like losing but would rather it was down to my bad tactics rather than coming up against an op army that I probably couldn't defeat whatever I did.
Too many match ups in 40k currently fit this bracket.
My hat goes off to anybody who still plays against these and even occasionally gets a win, but I now pick my games carefully.
On a side note I think a decent/sporting opponent can always be played, because they will adjust an army to make for a fair game for both sides.

 Selym wrote:
It goes like this:

Winning > Losing > No fun

True.

In some situation, the real problem is not to have an overpowerd army as if you have lots of guys to play with, each should find an opponent against who he can have a funny moment playing. The problems breaks up when it comes to 2/3 casual gamers' group. In this case, if one of them is winning, his comrades my not have fun anyway with it and leave because it's pointless carrying on.

And I know what I'm talking about because I'm in this very case: I almost always win. Let's fancy i do am a bit better than them as far as strategy: the edge I have over them this way would only allow me to win like barely more than 60% of my matches against them at the very most. Though, my imperial guard's is too powerful for them as far as it's been going. I started armored, and reduced to max 2 tanks per list to even the matches, unfortunatly not reaching a better ratio nor closer and tougher enough games. I now kinda put more normal infantry: even my storm troopers are now in rare use! And still no... I lost the ork player for a campaign, and what's hanging my CSM bud on is how often we play: 3/4 times a year maybe, (but he's gained up in hope for his non-cheesy eldars though achieved draws and may serv him better). The problem's coming from CSM and Orks codex that are too weak, especially the poor orks. (old-timer complaining and boring: ON )

In these conditions, as you have neither somebody else to play with nor, as far as I'm concerned, much more money nor lust about a second army to sink into 40k, well, I'd answer by: misaligned codices are a plague.

There is noting I like more then looking at the armies before the game starts and knowing what army is going to get krumped with no chance for survival at all. This really makes those next few hours playing out the game much more enjoyable.

No, it is not fun at all. Being repeatedly hammered by invisible triple Vindicator linebreakers whilst the Librarians who are making them invisible are hiding behind them so I cannot just blow them away whilst my tanks are wiped out by the so called 'underperforming' triple las predtors is not fun at all.
The power imbalance is nightmarish.

 oldzoggy wrote:
There is noting I like more then looking at the armies before the game starts and knowing what army is going to get krumped with no chance for survival at all. This really makes those next few hours playing out the game much more enjoyable.

Gotta love those days that go:

"I've got a fully painted and carefully detailed 250-man imperial guard infantry company. They are experts at urban warfare, and are comprised mainly of criminals and the disillusioned youth. All of my characters have names, and they are on a campaign to redeem their homew-"

"So that's 47 Str D hits, no cover or armour allowed, 223 Str 6 Ap 5 hits, also no cover, and I cast invisibility on my Gargantuan creature."

Tyranids round here ?

No, more seriously, that's a bit like that and there's no point in playing such macthes for either game.

This problem is even more shoking since I play bolt action where apart from germany whose special rules are quite useless, the game is well balanced...

 Selym wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
There is noting I like more then looking at the armies before the game starts and knowing what army is going to get krumped with no chance for survival at all. This really makes those next few hours playing out the game much more enjoyable.

Gotta love those days that go:

"I've got a fully painted and carefully detailed 250-man imperial guard infantry company. They are experts at urban warfare, and are comprised mainly of criminals and the disillusioned youth. All of my characters have names, and they are on a campaign to redeem their homew-"

"So that's 47 Str D hits, no cover or armour allowed, 223 Str 6 Ap 5 hits, also no cover, and I cast invisibility on my Gargantuan creature."

Haha, this. Or those times when your opponent just spams Ignore Cover against you. Have fun getting no saves at all.

I've been on both sides of this. I'm currently a Tau player and have been since the long, long ago before Tau got there relatively recent reboot. I'm talking pre-6th/7th when we had to wait 7 years for a model. I've always been a fan of Farsight and his story and always played a list comprised of Farsight and as many Crisis Suits as I could fit with limited support from Fire Warriors, Skyrays and Broadsides. Back in the day, I lost almost every game I played because the Tau were pretty terrible.

Fast forward to today. As soon as I pull out the first Crisis Suit from my case, people start talking about cheese and how Tau are overpowered and just need to be removed entirely from the game. They're too strong. They don't fit the grimdark aesthetic. I'm a terrible person for playing them. It becomes tiresome. Then, when we do play, my more or less same army dominates against pretty much any casual list. It's not a top tier tournament army, but it's no fun to play in stores any more.

So, I have a choice. Fundamentally change the army that I've lovingly built, painted and enjoyed for years, or shelf it and wait for the next meta shift. I chose to shelf it. Playing a game where the conclusion is foregone isn't fun for either player.

I feel like this is one of the major failings of Warhammer 40k 7th Edition. The wide open list building and proliferation of new detachments/formations with benefits but no real downsides has killed the game for many people. Fun casual lists simply have no chance against min/maxed power lists.

I like how Warmachine/Hordes does things. There is only one standard "force org"... Warlock/Warcaster with Warbeast/Warjack retinue + whatever units/solos/etc you can fit. Take too many Warbeasts/Warjacks and they quickly become unmanageable and useless. Take too many units/solos and you won't be able to withstand enemy Warbeasts/Warjacks. Plus, there are theme lists which represent "fluff armies". Theme lists usually have pretty severe and limiting restrictions on what can be taken and then give benefits to make up for your lack of army variety. For example, an army completely made up of Ogruns (think snow/mountain ogres) might allow the Ogruns to deploy 5" forward from your deployment zone and give them all +1 strength. The downside? ...you can't take any ranged support. Something like that. With 40k, it's all benefits with no mechanism to enforce any sort of balance.

Winning with an underdog army is the best.

Na it goes both sides. I also don't enjoy one sided games when I am doing the krumping. This sadly has happened a few times this year when I completely overestimated the power of my opponents list before hand and brought some of my stronger imperial stuff.

I love to crush an opponent on tactics from time to time but I hate to win purely on list building or even worse codex balancing issues, and avoiding this is getting way too hard in casual pick up games lately.

The only thing that I dislike more in this game is are "balancing" house rules like you can only bring x detachments, or shoe horning a huge penalty on MSU (and thus rewarding death starts) in every fething mission. Those changes hardly hit the hyper point efficient builds at all but make it next to impossible to build a half decent ork or Inquisitorial army. What this game needs is a half yearly point revision of all units and detachments and non of that player based rebalancing crap.

My games usually end up being more casual lists so the power levels usually work out even. They're pretty fun.

Although there was a game ages ago that involved Tyranids. That was not fun. Winning just made me feel bad because the opponent had such a disadvantage.

When my friends don't go all out cheese, we have a pretty good game, even when I'm scrubbing it with Orks. But yeah, when they go full all cheese against my low tier stuff, it's not usually fun

Depends who you ask.

Me? I'm selling all my armies. Sick and tired of the imbalance that I've made the conscious decision to quit. I've done spamming Flyrants and destroyed people, done grounded tyranids and been destroyed. I've done Warbiker spam and tabled people, played against Decurion and got tabled. I've played against Tau and got tabled, played against Space Marines and got destroyed. I have the weak armies (BA, Nids, Orks, DE), which obviously contributes, but it shouldn't. Each faction should have be viable. The fact that GW keeps showing favoritism towards certain armies shows to me at least, that things aren't going to change.

My TFG mate? Used to play DE and Chaos, joined the bandwagon onto Necrons, SM and Tau, only to hang up his SM when he couldn't win a few games with them. Otherwise every game it's Riptides, Canoptek Harvests (yes, plural), SSKT, etc. He just has to win, with dubious rules claims supporting him.

Besides, by selling all my stuff I've got a bit more cash to invest in systems that are cheaper or more balanced. Or just to spend on non-hobby luxuries.

I freely admit that I'm a power gamer, I pretty much always have been. It's been "play to win, work the game" for more than a decade at this point.

Then my friends and I decided to start 40k. I picked an army I liked the story of - Blood Angels. Fast forward a couple months and I have won one game. Out of I don't know how many played against my friends. So I think "Maybe I'm just not understanding this army. I don't like it as much as I thought I would." I wasn't having fun. Back to the drawing board.

I look at other armies, and realize I like both the aesthetic and story of the Eldar (They created a chaos god through their decadence! I also see the tragedy in their storyline and that appealed to me). I start collecting Eldar models, I like Rangers a lot, Dark Reapers, Warp Spiders, Jetbikes. I like the models and the rules.

I didn't really start learning about all the imbalances until after I started playing the Eldar I was collecting. I didn't even have jetbikes at my first couple events (and only one unit of warp spiders, also no wk yet) and people would sneer as soon as they saw the faction on my army list. Or even when I would start pulling Rangers out of my case. "Eldar is so cheesy!" was a response I got from a guy who had literally only seen me pull out nothing but a dozen rangers so far. I did okay with my first lists, was still learning the game (am still learning the game, there's always more to learn - new rules I haven't seen yet, new strategies, etc.). But then I started to expand to the jetbikes I wanted, and my natural power gamer kicked in. Got the jetbikes, got a couple more units of warp spiders, got that sweet super cool wk model. Then I started destroying. I could make big mistakes and still nearly (if not completely) table opponents. That stopped being fun after like two games. Eldar vs CSM was mentioned, and that was a game that made me realize I didn't want to play this way anymore. Casually, at least. Competitively, for prizes/paid events, it's all about the wins baby. But I still recognize that those wins are easier simply because of the faction I play.

Anyway, now I tone the lists down for casual play. I'll still have a spider or jetbike unit here and there, but they're not spammed, partially so my friends can slowly get used to what they'll have to play around when they start going to events, and partially because I still like the models and want them to have table time, I just scale back.

Sorry for the long post, but it really seems like people think anyone just starting Eldar are playing the army only because they know it'll win. I'm sure plenty of people are like me and start them because they like the models and the lore. Then they find out what'll win, and maybe they buy more of that, or maybe they were going to buy more of that anyway for their fluffy craftworld army. I personally haven't bought much into making fluffy armies (well, kind of now, I've started a Raven Guard force that I'm going to try to do as fluffy as I can), but I 100% see the appeal. It's tabletop story time, let's forge that narrative with fire and blood.

TL;DR - I'm a power gamer, and I would rather lose having fun than win and my opponent feel like they wasted hours doing nothing but removing models. I've been on the losing side of that. Brought a BA dreadnought force against a dude who tailored hard to beat it easily. It was awful, and I don't want my PUG opponents to feel how I felt after that game.

My natural tendency to win at all costs got pretty strong when I realized how easy wins are for Eldar when you build it a certain way. Then I realized how much time it takes out of a person's day to play me and get nothing out of it. Also, I wasn't increasing my skill in any way with spam lists. I may want to win badly, but I would rather lose and learn something than win every game. For example, that game I got wrecked with my BA dreads against a tailored list, I felt like I learned a lot. My opponent, however, made it very clear the only thing that mattered was I lost. I never want to be like that guy. Never. Weeks later he was still bragging about beating me to people around the LGS when I'd be talking to them about 40k. Like, really?

Maybe 40k has made me less of a power gamer lol.

While I think that codex imbalance plays into it, the attitude of both players matters a LOT more. If both go in, knowing exactly what kind of game they wanna play (casual, competetive, etc.) Then this problem is hugely mitigated. One (or both) players should know when to tone down, and when to bring the generic net-list FotM list. If 2 people have a game, and one dude spams spiders and bikes against an ork player, I'm GOING to frown on that eldar player because he is being a dick. no if's and's or but's about it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The game's not perfect and is highly flawed, but the community is what makes or breaks a game (and a games balance).

As to OP's poll: Winning is nice, BUT if it's a turn 2 win for either side (because army or just dice luck) it's a lot less fun. Fun>Winning>Loosing>No fun

I think it's a pretty identifiable situation. If you're goal is to play pick-up games with strangers or attend tournaments you're probably hosed 60% of the time. You have no control over the nature or ambition of your opponent and in general when facing people you don't know (particularly in tournaments) the goal is to win - maybe have some fun doing it.

However if you have a gaming group of people who aren't immature 14 year old ass-hats...it should be far easier. The rule becomes "hey, don't be a douche". If something is broken/beardy/cheese the players probably know it. If your group has a problem with this - you probably need a new group.

Personally I play games to have a good time with my friends, enjoy the social aspect, have a cool story develop during the game etc. We never play games with broken/cheesy stuff (and I don't just mean 40K). If a game goes super sideways in the first turn or two we'll abort, and start over - or play another game. I'd rather not get a game in than play against someone who's a beardy win-at-all-costs diehard who has zero interest in having a fun evening playing games.

While it doesn't address the tournament/pick-up game problems inherent in a competitive game system...the reality is you're the gamers. You can choose how to play the game. You can adjust point values, invalidate units, change rules...or simply build armies which aren't crap. It's up to you guys.

This is copy-pasted from another thread. I had similar experiences to Jakadakk.

This was 6th edition, about 2 years ago, and a learning game. Unlike many stories, this is my own list.

My opponent brought a cool, fluffy Ultramarine list. It had Marneus Calgar, and lots of units I don't normally see.

I brought 3 Wave Serpents, one with Wraithguard, one with Fire Dragons, and one with Dire Avengers, a Wraithknight, a Crimson Hunter, some Dark Reapers, and a 2+ rerollable Autarch on jetbike.

I was an complete and utter ass who posted stupid crap insulting people on the internet at the time, and ran cheese against everything because I couldn't win any other way. I'm surprised I wasn't slapped for that stunt. The game was over so quick that we played another game, this time bringing my Nids. I got utterly rolled.

Anyway. That was one of the experiences that made me semi-aware that I was being a douche, and I stopped playing Eldar after that game. I still write up some cheesy lists, but only as theory or for games where cheese is expected.

Don't be like me back then. Be a good person.

BossJakadakk wrote:
I freely admit that I'm a power gamer, I pretty much always have been. It's been "play to win, work the game" for more than a decade at this point.

Then my friends and I decided to start 40k. I picked an army I liked the story of - Blood Angels. Fast forward a couple months and I have won one game. Out of I don't know how many played against my friends. So I think "Maybe I'm just not understanding this army. I don't like it as much as I thought I would." I wasn't having fun. Back to the drawing board.

I look at other armies, and realize I like both the aesthetic and story of the Eldar (They created a chaos god through their decadence! I also see the tragedy in their storyline and that appealed to me). I start collecting Eldar models, I like Rangers a lot, Dark Reapers, Warp Spiders, Jetbikes. I like the models and the rules.

I didn't really start learning about all the imbalances until after I started playing the Eldar I was collecting. I didn't even have jetbikes at my first couple events (and only one unit of warp spiders, also no wk yet) and people would sneer as soon as they saw the faction on my army list. Or even when I would start pulling Rangers out of my case. "Eldar is so cheesy!" was a response I got from a guy who had literally only seen me pull out nothing but a dozen rangers so far. I did okay with my first lists, was still learning the game (am still learning the game, there's always more to learn - new rules I haven't seen yet, new strategies, etc.). But then I started to expand to the jetbikes I wanted, and my natural power gamer kicked in. Got the jetbikes, got a couple more units of warp spiders, got that sweet super cool wk model. Then I started destroying. I could make big mistakes and still nearly (if not completely) table opponents. That stopped being fun after like two games. Eldar vs CSM was mentioned, and that was a game that made me realize I didn't want to play this way anymore. Casually, at least. Competitively, for prizes/paid events, it's all about the wins baby. But I still recognize that those wins are easier simply because of the faction I play.

Anyway, now I tone the lists down for casual play. I'll still have a spider or jetbike unit here and there, but they're not spammed, partially so my friends can slowly get used to what they'll have to play around when they start going to events, and partially because I still like the models and want them to have table time, I just scale back.

Sorry for the long post, but it really seems like people think anyone just starting Eldar are playing the army only because they know it'll win. I'm sure plenty of people are like me and start them because they like the models and the lore. Then they find out what'll win, and maybe they buy more of that, or maybe they were going to buy more of that anyway for their fluffy craftworld army. I personally haven't bought much into making fluffy armies (well, kind of now, I've started a Raven Guard force that I'm going to try to do as fluffy as I can), but I 100% see the appeal. It's tabletop story time, let's forge that narrative with fire and blood.

TL;DR - I'm a power gamer, and I would rather lose having fun than win and my opponent feel like they wasted hours doing nothing but removing models. I've been on the losing side of that. Brought a BA dreadnought force against a dude who tailored hard to beat it easily. It was awful, and I don't want my PUG opponents to feel how I felt after that game.

My natural tendency to win at all costs got pretty strong when I realized how easy wins are for Eldar when you build it a certain way. Then I realized how much time it takes out of a person's day to play me and get nothing out of it. Also, I wasn't increasing my skill in any way with spam lists. I may want to win badly, but I would rather lose and learn something than win every game. For example, that game I got wrecked with my BA dreads against a tailored list, I felt like I learned a lot. My opponent, however, made it very clear the only thing that mattered was I lost. I never want to be like that guy. Never. Weeks later he was still bragging about beating me to people around the LGS when I'd be talking to them about 40k. Like, really?

Maybe 40k has made me less of a power gamer lol.

Well, you and your bikes have the same problem than me and my leman russes: love them, but can't put much of them because otherwise it becomes too hard even if I din't mean to...

It hurts my heart

I've set up against another player only to know I was going to lose before the first die was cast. That's not fun. Every little victory I had that game was cause for celebration though.

There is always non PUG style 1.5k v 1.5k slug fests ya know.

There can be a ton of fun with just narrative scenarios and or asymmetric missions.

even un even points can be fun. especially in a attack defend type mission.

cant help ya in Tourny settings though.

I guess that's an upside of BA: I can field whatever I want.

For me personally this is the list of things that dont make the game fun for me to play, ill still do it because i never turn down a game/fight but...

Flyers when the opponent has no anti air on the field.

Wraith knights

Rip tide

Flyers are not an issue, as they can largely be ignored or out maneuvered.

Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

[quote

Flyers when the opponent has no anti air on the field.

 Drasius wrote:
While some people might suggest a points handicap, sometimes there's just no amount of points that's going to suffice. I've watched an 1850 Eldar army wipe the floor with a 2500 BA army in 4 turns and still be at almost full strength.

Yah. Most games I have never had army that has had significant advantage from the get go but in warmaster I did have that misluck. Not fan at all! It was so bad I could give 50% point advantage and talk about how to defeat my army with my opponent midgame(ie we were BOTH trying to figure out how to beat me!) with no luck.

Dominating army isn't fun for me to play either. Good thing we can fix that though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

That is major issue. I have played games where that is and often it results in the larger side being in advantage. Albeit other factors come to play as well but generally it's been "he who outnumbers wins". Big models get rarely fielded then.

Alas nothing is ever perfect :(

But bigger issue is simply that the 40k rules haven't been designed with unit activation in mind. Would almost certainly create whole pile of new problems if such a blanket rule would be introduced. And likely not fix the power level issue anyway...

Watched a friend of mine bring a solid BA list to go against a friend's tourney prep GK/Stormhammer list (3x Dreadknights, Stormhammer, some basic troops for scoring and what not). The BA player knew he was going to lose, but he was asked by my friend to help with his list and prep for the tourney, and the match was a lot closer than anticipated, where the GK player learned a lot about his list.

The imbalance was there and real, but it was still fun as they had the right attitudes going in.

That said, this worked because it was pre-arranged, in a club setting, with friends, with a clear goal of what they were trying to accomplish. Much learning was had.

tneva82 wrote:

That is major issue. I have played games where that is and often it results in the larger side being in advantage. Albeit other factors come to play as well but generally it's been "he who outnumbers wins". Big models get rarely fielded then.

Alas nothing is ever perfect :(

But bigger issue is simply that the 40k rules haven't been designed with unit activation in mind. Would almost certainly create whole pile of new problems if such a blanket rule would be introduced. And likely not fix the power level issue anyway...

Quite true.
there is defiantly a lot of options though.

playing things like Dystopian wars, Planet fall, DZC. i find that its a lot more fun just because at most 90% of your army is still alive by the time you go if you are second. but there is plenty of built in list building regulations to make it more even (not always)

iv seen games where opponents get completely neutered on first turn in 40k and thats absolutely frustrating.

Kriswall wrote:
So, I have a choice. Fundamentally change the army that I've lovingly built, painted and enjoyed for years, or shelf it and wait for the next meta shift. I chose to shelf it. Playing a game where the conclusion is foregone isn't fun for either player.

Have you explained to people why you play Tau and how you played them even before they got a rewrite? Also have you tried this? I know I am going to get a lashing for this.

Offer to play the game, and if the game gets too unbalanced that they get to bring a unit or two that was wiped out back? After all you want to play for fun right? So why not let them have some units come back if the game is going sour or give them a rule that will help them. Say after you wipe out 50% of their army and you have say 50% or even 75% more, some of their weapons are AP1 for a bit till things get more even. Just an idea so you can hopefully create some good will and show who ever rolled their eyes at you there are Tau players that are not Flavour of the month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

We already have a thread for that.

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

Apocalypse blast. Split Fire.

THough alternating activations is a muuuuuch better way to play games with masses of firepower.

Davor wrote:

Kriswall wrote:
So, I have a choice. Fundamentally change the army that I've lovingly built, painted and enjoyed for years, or shelf it and wait for the next meta shift. I chose to shelf it. Playing a game where the conclusion is foregone isn't fun for either player.

Have you explained to people why you play Tau and how you played them even before they got a rewrite? Also have you tried this? I know I am going to get a lashing for this.

Offer to play the game, and if the game gets too unbalanced that they get to bring a unit or two that was wiped out back? After all you want to play for fun right? So why not let them have some units come back if the game is going sour or give them a rule that will help them. Say after you wipe out 50% of their army and you have say 50% or even 75% more, some of their weapons are AP1 for a bit till things get more even. Just an idea so you can hopefully create some good will and show who ever rolled their eyes at you there are Tau players that are not Flavour of the month.

Not posting this to give you a lashing but just to mention that a lot of people might not go for this idea on the losing side. Here's the scenario - You're stomping me completely, and then say "Oh man I'm destroying you, how about you throw a unit or two back on the board/in reserves/whatever." Man I came to play by the rules (as much as this game allows *nudge nudge*), not to be babied by a guy about to table me. (Kind of extreme reaction, but this can come off as condescending to your opponent, regardless of how you word it to them). Another reaction is a thought that the guy wants the game to go on so he can continue whuppin' my behind, and whup it even harder. I'm just saying it could come off to the person getting stomped that you're even more of a TFG than he assumed (whether you are or not).

This actually came up with my BA dread game example. After the game the guy was like "Oh man I pretty much wiped out your chapter, killing all your ancients, huh? How many more models do you have at home? How about you bring all those like reinforcements to our next game and I'll play this same list?" This of course was after he was actually acting like losing was so embarrassing and oh man this and that braggart-style statements, which I doubt most people would be doing, so my opinion on his offer was colored by his attitude through the whole game. Regardless, I took it as "this game was easy how about you make it harder for me next time" and it felt patronizing as feth. Like dude I lost a game, it's okay, I don't need a handicap.

I never plan on playing that guy again, but if I do, here comes the Eldar spam.

I just meant for the current game we are playing BossJakadakk. I see your point, and it's a very good point.

I don't play Tau but I do play Nids. Let's say the Nid codex is the most Over Powered codex ever. I would say I have played Nids since 4th edition. I am only making a list because I love the look of it and I just want to play for fun. So if by chance my list is Over Powered and you are loosing badly lets give you units back or what not. I just want to play for fun. I just want to play my list.

What is wrong with that exactly. Is that really being TFG?

Actually I did make a Tyranid/Genestealer Cult Unbound list but nobody wants to play it because I am told they don't have a chance at winning. I said bring units back or get free split fire, but still I am told no.

I just want to play for fun, damn the rules and lets make the the game fun for both of us. But I am told nope. I was also told if I play a game it has to be at 1500 points because that person feels their army is best played at that so will not play lower point games or higher.

So am I actually being TFG for saying to change the rules in their favour so I can play my way for once? I even said I would play their way for another game. That would be fair, but still get the "Nope will not waste my time."

That just floors me. Maybe I am too old and see that playing with plastic toy soldiers is for fun, not to win. I guess I am TFG sadly. :(

There are times that I have greatly enjoyed the odd power imbalance. Usually, I truly enjoy having a handicap, but there's a point where it is too severe to be fun anymroe.

During the 2nd ed, I played Imperial Guard- who were acknowledged at the time as the worst 'dex. I had to really squeeze my army list and get every ounce of usefulness out of my units. Even then, it was not fun to play against Eldar (the uncontested best 'dex of the edition). So there's a point where it stops being fun anymore.

In Blood Bowl (where the imbalance is overt and intentional) I really love playing the lower tier forces- mostly because if you play them well, they aren't nearly as bad as people think.. I've been having tons of success with my Vampires- often surprising my opponents who expect that they're in for a cake walk. I'm working on an Ogre team because they are considered the absolute worst team of all, and I have some good ideas about how to play them well. I have a friend who likes to attend tournaments with Goblins for the same reason.

On the flip side- I've had fun with my Movie Space Marines force. They were WAY over powered when they came out, and remain pretty powerful. The force list advocates playing them as a practical joke, but I've honestly find it more interesting to play them as sort of an "ultimate challenge" scenario. Also, it is fun to grant opponents extra points and see how large a force the Movie Marines can take on (equal points often nets you a table-wipe with 0 casualties on the Marines). They're also fun to convert.

The thing that no one likes is being power creeped out. It isn't fun if you got a top tier Amazon team that slowly transforms into a bottom of the barrel Halfling team, but that's the story of most 40k forces.

In my ocal group, me and a buddy always had very close games when I played GK and he played KDK. They were really good fun as we generally went for the rule of cool over actually playing to win.

I tried a game with my Necron army and the power difference was noticeable. I didn't have anything overly killy, I just lost very few models.

I enjoyed the game because I got to use a new army, but there was definitely an element missing.

That said, he is starting up a tau force, so we'll be back to even stevens soon enough

Davor wrote:


[snip] Is that really being TFG? [snip]

I don't think so, I'm just saying be aware that depending on the person across from you, they might take it differently than you mean it. I don't think you're TFG for offering a way for them to stay in the fight, it's just that perceptions or how a person who is losing is feeling can affect how they hear your words.

And I know it was in the context of current game, but I used the only example I had! It's all I got, man! It was just to illustrate that hey maybe he meant it nicely, but I wouldn't have believed you had you told me that at the time.

The power imbalance has been in 40k almost as long as I've been playing.

Back in the 2nd ed, if you were playing Eldar, your opponent would not actually get to kill any of your models unless you let him. Poor players regularly trounced much better players with Eldar. And if you actually went up against a very good Eldar player, you would wonder why we bother with the formality of "your turn."

Necromunda had issues with Spyrer gangs as well- plus the other Outlaw gangs were really underpowered in the league (scavvies and Ratskins).

Anyone who plays only the most cheddar'tastic gouda lists vs. the bottom of the barrel armies so as to simply stroke their toy soldier pee-pee and inflate their planetary-sized ego, should be ruthlessly ridiculed to no end.
That's akin to a AA hockey/baseball/footie/whatever team entering into a House League level tournament and then playing at least two age brackets below their own in order to guarantee they get the big shiny trophy through as little effort as humanly possible!

When it comes to playing PUG's vs. weaker armies, it's really not that hard to either;
1. open up a dialog with your opponent about how to try and make the game more fair & interesting for both players.

2. agree that maybe the match-up is likely beyond salvaging, shake hands as friends, and move along to find more appropriate games like happy adults.

The first can be anything from the top level army altering their army list to take far less optimised units/wargear combos, to perhaps arranging a slightly modified scenario, such as making the "top tier" army the 'Attacker', who only gets to begin the game with say 1 HQ + 2 Troops (leaving the rest of the force to come in as reserves), while the under powered army gets to be the 'Defender' and start the game with say any & all HQ's + Troops + Heavy Support options set-up in heavily defensive terrain.
Or else maybe a scenario where the top level army ends up playing a 'last stand' game, in which their opponent gets to recycle ALL their casualties every single turn, in an unending wave of inevitable death! (and even more fun afterwards/next time, when you switch sides and play each other's armies to see if you can last longer/kill the defender quicker than your opponent did!)


About the only time besides just being up against an arrogant TFG where I can't stand a game, is when an opponent gets super salty & sad panda over bad dice... Seriously, just grow a pair, laugh it off and accept that horribly unfair dice will happen from time to time in a freaking dice game!

Sure if there's actual money or prizes on the line such as in a tournament, give a curse or three to get that frustration off your chest and then try to pick up the pieces.

But to get super sour to the point of model or tantrum throwing in a nothing's on the line PUG? Yeah, not playing that sour puss ever again.

I like a challenge and to feel like I won, not that my list won. This is hard though, because half the strategy in the game is list building, which is ruined by codex imbalance and powerful generalist units that when spammed better than diverse lists full of specialized units.

I mean, I know I should run a drone net, bare bones cad for a stormsurge and then a riptide wing. I don't want to though.

 Jaxler wrote:
I like a challenge and to feel like I won, not that my list won. This is hard though, because half the strategy in the game is list building, which is ruined by codex imbalance and powerful generalist units that when spammed better than diverse lists full of specialized units.

I mean, I know I should run a drone net, bare bones cad for a stormsurge and then a riptide wing. I don't want to though.

So do it. Take less points. You want a challenge, there is your challenge. Do what they do in Golf and take a handicap. This way you can feel like you have accomplished something. Nobody is stopping you from doing so.

As people said before Golf is just as expensive if not more than 40K. If they can take a handicap we should be able to do so as well.

Klowny wrote:
Hey guys,

So this is geared to the people who play the "top teir" codex's. I have found lately that when I play my necrons against some of my friends armies, it isn't enjoyable for either of us as it is very apparent there is a massive power difference between some codex's. When I play against my mates AdMech I don't feel bad as the crazy amount of rules they have offset the crazy amount of rules I have, and it's an enjoyable game. I was just wondering if this is the same for other people? I'm not talking about power gamers and the like who build super competitive lists 24/7 and go up against the same all the time, I'm talking just casual games against friends. We buy our armies because we love the aesthetic/lore of them, and just want to throw dice around and have some good banter. Its frustrating because I love my crons yet I'm fielding my KDK as my primary army because of this.

If your games are so mismatched, it's your own fault.

Are you using the Necron decurion, for starters? Are you using death stars? Are you spamming things that either is 1. OP or undercosted gak or otherwise 2. something your opponent is weak against?

I bet you are doing at least one of these things.

The so called "codex imbalance" is only the material cause of the bad, broken games which are being played. GW writes rules that give you options. They give you choices. It's up to you to decide what to do with them.

If you're spamming grav centurions, librarius conclaves, scatter bikes, wraithknights, riptides, storm surges, etc., then that's not GWs fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without using formations, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without running a death star, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Stop power gaming, stop math-hammering and stop min-maxing and actually build something that actually looks like a bloody army, and you might have a different gaming experience.

Otherwise, don't be surprised when your friends start refusing to play with you.

The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:
Hey guys,

So this is geared to the people who play the "top teir" codex's. I have found lately that when I play my necrons against some of my friends armies, it isn't enjoyable for either of us as it is very apparent there is a massive power difference between some codex's. When I play against my mates AdMech I don't feel bad as the crazy amount of rules they have offset the crazy amount of rules I have, and it's an enjoyable game. I was just wondering if this is the same for other people? I'm not talking about power gamers and the like who build super competitive lists 24/7 and go up against the same all the time, I'm talking just casual games against friends. We buy our armies because we love the aesthetic/lore of them, and just want to throw dice around and have some good banter. Its frustrating because I love my crons yet I'm fielding my KDK as my primary army because of this.

If your games are so mismatched, it's your own fault.

Are you using the Necron decurion, for starters? Are you using death stars? Are you spamming things that either is 1. OP or undercosted gak or otherwise 2. something your opponent is weak against?

I bet you are doing at least one of these things.

The so called "codex imbalance" is only the material cause of the bad, broken games which are being played. GW writes rules that give you options. They give you choices. It's up to you to decide what to do with them.

If you're spamming grav centurions, librarius conclaves, scatter bikes, wraithknights, riptides, storm surges, etc., then that's not GWs fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without using formations, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without running a death star, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Stop power gaming, stop math-hammering and stop min-maxing and actually build something that actually looks like a bloody army, and you might have a different gaming experience.

Otherwise, don't be surprised when your friends start refusing to play with you.

What a load of rubbish...

If both sides don't have a roughly 50/50 chance to win then I've no real interest in playing.

If you massively outgun the other guy then it not you winning but the army, I want a victory through skill.

Nothing's more frustrating than just standing there removing models all game while you get trounced and I refuse to do that to someone just because my army got buffed beyond his this edition.

 Stormonu wrote:
The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

This goes back to my point. You weren't getting stomped because of codex creep or bad rules. You were getting stomped either because 1. you aren't good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction), 2. your opponents were very good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction) or 3. your opponents weren't playing the casual game that you thought was being played.

I've had very close games with my casual space marines list against a relatively casual tyrranids list. Last game I played, I beat him 11 to 10 in Maelstrom.

I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations, and he only used one dakka flyrant.

If people want "good games," then it's actually very easy to do.

STOP NETLISTING!

"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

They can still spam big bugs that all ignore armor in CC. That runs over BA quite well, and by extension, "reasonable" marine lists. Reasonable marines fail at every task they are given. Can't shoot, can't assault, can't do well in the psychic phase.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

They can still spam big bugs that all ignore armor in CC. That runs over BA quite well, and by extension, "reasonable" marine lists. Reasonable marines fail at every task they are given. Can't shoot, can't assault, can't do well in the psychic phase.

And we all know how good cc is don't we? There are also things that aren't MC's.

CC is fine against "reasonable" marines. It's only poor vs those lists that are competent at shooting. BA have no chance of denting a Nid list heavy on MCs via shooting. T6 3+ is fantastic vs BA.

That's if you decide to spam them. If you don't it's a different story.

The Nids have such a selection now that they can make a pretty varied list out of big bugs. No spamming necessary.

I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

You also get to kill them easily with missile launchers.

As if I'd ever bring one of those.

I do sometimes.

Then I've taken Plasma Cannons....

pm, stop feeding Martel.

Martel, we get it, Blood Angels suck.



Another not as to on topic: I wonder, do people actually enjoy blatantly one sided games? or what?

Not trying to troll, just having a discussion.

I've met many people who enjoy it. Not as many, though, as my meta indicates. It's just that anti-tailoring measures set up many curb stomps.

Also, not just BA suck. Any "reasonable" marine list is quite poor, as well.

 Brennonjw wrote:
pm, stop feeding Martel.

Martel, we get it, Blood Angels suck.



Another not as to on topic: I wonder, do people actually enjoy blatantly one sided games? or what?

In an arranged scenario as the result of a campaign? Sure.

As a challebfe with an objective other than annihilate or capturebthe objective? Probably.

2 WK and Scatterspam vs 50 IG and some tanks? I'll pass thx.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

You also get to kill them easily with missile launchers.

This. I love playing against my tyrranid opponent because the weapons that I take actually get to do stuff. I take plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers and sternguard. And assault squads in rhinos with flamers.

Against non-flyrant tyrranids, those things actually work.

Not to mention the rhino wall that I put up in the middle of the board.

Granted, my opponent doesn't have much of a sense of target priority (somehow, his dakka flyrant doesn't often seem to notice my devastator squads).

But non-flyrant tyrranids is actually a tactically interesting thing to face up against. If you keep your eye on the prize and know what to focus down, you get rewarded. If you play badly, you get seriously punished.

I like that. [In this respect, it's like playing Dark Souls!]

Conversely, the reason I hate flyrants. If you pay the money and points for the model, you don't have to use tactics. You can just fly around and shoot whatever you want with impunity. You don't have to make good decisions, use cover, etc. It's almost completely point and click.

 Traditio wrote:


But non-flyrant tyrranids is actually a tactically interesting thing to face up against. If you keep your eye on the prize and know what to focus down, you get rewarded. If you play badly, you get seriously punished.

I like that. [In this respect, it's like playing Dark Souls!]

Conversely, the reason I hate flyrants. If you pay the money and points for the model, you don't have to use tactics. You can just fly around and shoot whatever you want with impunity. You don't have to make good decisions, use cover, etc. It's almost completely point and click.

I love playing my Tyranids in casual settings/PUGs. There is a huge range of kind of bad but fun to play builds in the codex. One of my favorite things is taking as many warriors+ shrikes as I can and trying to out MSU the marine players.

I have to disagree with you about flyrants being point and click. In causal games sure, they are pretty strait forward. Against top tier builds (i.e., trying to win a tournement), target priority and movement decisions can be very difficult, particularly in maelstrom style missions where you have to choose between landing to claim objectives and keeping flyers safe.

 Traditio wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

This goes back to my point. You weren't getting stomped because of codex creep or bad rules. You were getting stomped either because 1. you aren't good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction), 2. your opponents were very good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction) or 3. your opponents weren't playing the casual game that you thought was being played.

I've had very close games with my casual space marines list against a relatively casual tyrranids list. Last game I played, I beat him 11 to 10 in Maelstrom.

I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations, and he only used one dakka flyrant.

If people want "good games," then it's actually very easy to do.

STOP NETLISTING!

Oh, so blame the players and not the game? Fiiiiiiine. Guess we won't see any more Tau or Eldar threads from you, huh?

I love the player blaming argument for obvious game design flaws.

In a club environment or with friends, sure, totally reasonable to eventually work towards some semblance of balance by the weaker player upping their list as much as possible and the stronger player toning down theirs similarily. Doesn't change the fact that the poor game design has potentially forced two players to alter their lists potentially against their desires and army fluff, which is not ideal.

In pick-up and tournament or league play, some players are punished for simply liking faction 'X' that happens to be garbage.

But yeah, all those bottom tier army players just need to 'git gud'. Totally.

Stormonu wrote:Oh, so blame the players and not the game? Fiiiiiiine. Guess we won't see any more Tau or Eldar threads from you, huh?

I'll use my favorite video game example:

No, there shouldn't be a glitch there. The fact that there is a glitch there reflects poorly on the game designer. They should fix the glitch.

However, the fact that there is a glitch doesn't force you to exploit it. If you keep moving to that part of the screen and hit a precise sequence of buttons specifically to crash the game, that's on you, not the game designer.

And if I'm playing with you, I am going to be annoyed with you, not the game designer, when you crash the game.

I'm coming around to the common opinion that formations have proven to a bad idea and should not be a part of the game. I also am coming around to the idea that bikes and vehicles shouldn't be troops choices. Ever.

However, given the fact that all of these things are part of the game, we aren't forced to use them. Last game I played against the tyrranid player, I used a CAD. I didn't run a gladius. I didn't even drastically alter my army list. I just removed a captain, a chaplain and a couple of melta bombs and called it a CAD. Nothing else changed.

Except that a bug/glitch is an unintended literal broken aspect of the game, while the imbalances we have are, as far we know, totally intentional.

But I mean, sure, its probably easier to make blanket statements and ignore every instance where a player can have a totally not broken, very strong and fluffy army they enjoy building, painting, and playing. Hell, they might even enjoy winning too!

Hey, I'll happily lose a game with my Orks or Death Guard. They can keep it pretty close - and that's all I care about.

 Blacksails wrote:
Except that a bug/glitch is an unintended literal broken aspect of the game, while the imbalances we have are, as far we know, totally intentional.

Irrelevant to my point. Yes, the bug/glitch is unintentional, whereas the broken gak that GW has spewed out is intentional.

But so what?

Just like you aren't forced to walk to that part of the screen and hit a precise sequence of buttons, nobody is forcing you to run an unbound dakka flyrant list.

If you do, that's on you, not GW.

That's the only point that I'm making.

Saying: "BUT THAT'S AN OPTION THAT THEY'VE ALLOWED ME" isn't really much of a defense. It just makes you (this "you" not referring to you in particular, but "you in general") look like a donkey cave (in my opinion) and makes me want to refuse to play with you (again, a general "you").

 Traditio wrote:
I'll use my favorite video game example:

Which is still just as wrong as it was every previous time you used it. The more accurate example would be an FPS video game where the AK-47 is considered the best gun and most people think it has too much DPS. You can argue that the game is more fun if people don't use the AK-47, but the people who do are clearly playing the game as the designer intended. No matter how many times you say that it should do 30 damage per shot instead of 50 the fact remains that the people who made the game said it's 50.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'll use my favorite video game example:

Which is still just as wrong as it was every previous time you used it. The more accurate example would be an FPS video game where the AK-47 is considered the best gun and most people think it has too much DPS. You can argue that the game is more fun if people don't use the AK-47, but the people who do are clearly playing the game as the designer intended. No matter how many times you say that it should do 30 damage per shot instead of 50 the fact remains that the people who made the game said it's 50.

This doesn't change my point in the least. The same point obtains:

Nobody is forcing you to use the AK-47. You could easily use another gun. if you use an AK-47, that's on you, not the game designer.

Especially if we are playing split-screen and I've said: "Hey. No AK-47s. Use a different gun, eh?"

 Traditio wrote:
But so what?

So what? Do you honestly not see a difference between exploiting a glitch that was not supposed to exist (and probably would have been fixed if the creator knew about it) and playing according to the clearly-intended rules of the game in a way that you, Traditio, personally do not approve of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
This doesn't change my point in the least. The same point obtains:

Nobody is forcing you to use the AK-47. You could easily use another gun. if you use an AK-47, that's on you, not the game designer.

No, it's entirely on the game designer for creating a game that isn't the game you want to play. You don't get to blame the players who do enjoy that game for not voluntarily changing how they play to accommodate your preferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Especially if we are playing split-screen and I've said: "Hey. No AK-47s. Use a different gun, eh?"

And the response to that is why? Why should I use a different gun? Why shouldn't you be the one who gets to change your strategy and pick up an AK-47 of your own?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
But so what?

So what? Do you honestly not see a difference between exploiting a glitch that was not supposed to exist (and probably would have been fixed if the creator knew about it) and playing according to the clearly-intended rules of the game in a way that you, Traditio, personally do not approve of?

No. Intentional vs. unintentional is irrelevant to the point that I'm making.

My point is simply this:

In all of these cases: 1. GW codex options, 2. the glitch (though unintentional with respect to the designer) and 3. the AK-47 (intentional with respect to the designer), the construction of the game only provides the material cause of your choice.

A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

Nobody's forcing me to do anything, which you seem to be missing. No one is bound by your particular standard of an acceptable army, so you might as well come to terms with the fact people are going to play what they enjoy playing for any variety of reasons, and that having an elitist attitude about the right or proper way to build an army is going to do you no favours when finding gaming partners.

And frankly, if you had that kind of attitude if you saw my list, I'd be the first one to turn you down. I'm significantly more concerned with the person across from me than their list when it comes to my enjoyment of the game. Having an elitist attitude like yourself only makes you look like the donkey-cave.

Poeple play what they want, and they're perfectly entitled to it, just as you're entitled to say no. Being an ass about it helps no one.

Peregrine wrote:No, it's entirely on the game designer for creating a game that isn't the game you want to play. You don't get to blame the players who do enjoy that game for not voluntarily changing how they play to accommodate your preferences.

The game designer has created a game that can be either the game you want to play or not. If the game designer has given us both AK-47s and shotguns, and I like shot-guns, then I have been given the option to play a game that I want to play. I've also been given the option to play a game that I don't want to play.

Which game I play is up to me.

And the response to that is why? Why should I use a different gun?

Because if you don't, then I'll find someone else to play with, or else, a different game to play, or else, find a better way to spend my time.

It's that simple.

Why shouldn't you be the one who gets to change your strategy and pick up an AK-47 of your own?

See OP. The context of my comments is that the OP is saying: "I keep beating my opponent with my necrons. It's so unfair. I keep beating them and they don't even have a chance."

My answer? "That's your fault. Change your list."

 Traditio wrote:
No. Intentional vs. unintentional is irrelevant to the point that I'm making.

Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

(Of course we know the reason, you know that people hate glitch exploiters and you want to bring that sense of moral superiority into the discussion instead of talking about balance issues.)

A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

That's another terrible analogy. A lump of bronze doesn't come with instructions on its use. A game does.

 Blacksails wrote:
Nobody's forcing me to do anything, which you seem to be missing. No one is bound by your particular standard of an acceptable army, so you might as well come to terms with the fact people are going to play what they enjoy playing for any variety of reasons, and that having an elitist attitude about the right or proper way to build an army is going to do you no favours when finding gaming partners.

And frankly, if you had that kind of attitude if you saw my list, I'd be the first one to turn you down. I'm significantly more concerned with the person across from me than their list when it comes to my enjoyment of the game. Having an elitist attitude like yourself only makes you look like the donkey-cave.

Poeple play what they want, and they're perfectly entitled to it, just as you're entitled to say no. Being an ass about it helps no one.

Again, my comments must be understood in the context of the thread. Read the OP. Then read my comments.

Already did, and already did, but this is more of you dodging points.

Your comments are perfectly understood. If mine were too complicated for you, I can re-explain them to you.

If you don't want to discuss it, just say so.

Peregrine wrote:Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

The specifics of the analogy are irrelevant. The distinction is between material vs. efficient causality and the primacy of the efficient cause over the material cause.

Nobody is forcing the OP to play an army that stomps his opponents. He very easily could play a different Necron army. He could even play the same Necron army, but say: "Hey, just so you know, this isn't a decurion. This is a CAD."

If he chooses to run a decurion, that's on him.

That's another terrible analogy. A lump of bronze doesn't come with instructions on its use. A game does.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in the Space Marine codex where it says that my list must contain at least one librarius conclave. What page is that on?

 Traditio wrote:
Because if you don't, then I'll find someone else to play with, or else, a different game to play, or else, find a better way to spend my time.

It's that simple.

Ok, fine. Go play a different game. But stop acting like you're morally superior to the "glitch exploiter" who plays in a way that you don't enjoy.

See OP. The context of my comments is that the OP is saying: "I keep beating my opponent with my necrons. It's so unfair. I keep beating them and they don't even have a chance."

My answer? "That's your fault. Change your list."

Alternative answer: help them change their list. Why should the winning player have the entire obligation to do something different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
The specifics of the analogy are irrelevant.

Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

(Of course we know the reason, you know that people hate glitch exploiters and you want to bring that sense of moral superiority into the discussion instead of talking about balance issues.)

 Traditio wrote:
A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

And nobody is blaming the paper for the bad rules written on it, we're blaming the company responsible for writing them.

 Blacksails wrote:
Already did, and already did, but this is more of you dodging points.

Your comments are perfectly understood. If mine were too complicated for you, I can re-explain them to you.

If you don't want to discuss it, just say so.

Nothing I'm saying is elitist. Yes, you have the option to play 40k however the feth you want, provided that you can find like minded opponents. If Galef wants to spam scatter bikes and wraithknights and his opponents like to play, e.g., a white scars gladius with grav cannon spam or flyrant spam, and that's their idea of a good time, then so be it. If that's their thing, then that's their thing.

However, if you are concerned about the fact that there are massive internal and external imbalances, and if you find that you keep racking up unfair wins by exploiting them, then the solution is simple:

STOP DOING THAT!

It's not rocket science.

If you don't like the fact that you keep stomping your opponents with scatter bike spam, then stop using scatter bike spam.

GW isn't forcing you to do that. The decision to do that is on you.

That's the only point that I'm making.

Yeah, to be clear, the imbalances are the fault of the designer, but the players are left to solve the issue in many ways. Those ways include politely declining matches because one or both parties feel it'd be a slaughter one way or the other, tweaking one or both lists, agreeing to some sort of bonus for the weaker army, or just playing anyways and seeing what happens.

In the end, player attitude will always be one of the more important factors in game enjoyment. However, a poorly balanced match detracts from that experience (potentially for both parties), while a better balanced, close match typically enhances the enjoyment.

Simple stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:


That's the only point that I'm making.

You make it incredibly poorly with terrible analogies and with an attitude that comes across as distinctly elitist.

 Blacksails wrote:
Yeah, to be clear, the imbalances are the fault of the designer, but the players are left to solve the issue in many ways. Those ways include politely declining matches because one or both parties feel it'd be a slaughter one way or the other, tweaking one or both lists, agreeing to some sort of bonus for the weaker army, or just playing anyways and seeing what happens.

Yes.

I'm not saying anything substantially different from this.

You make it incredibly poorly with terrible analogies and with an attitude that comes across as distinctly elitist.

Oy vae.

That's it. I'm assigning you homework.

Aristotle, Physics II.3.

Have a 1 page summary in my PM box by midnight tomorrow.

Not helping with the elitist thing there.

Peregrine wrote:Alternative answer: help them change their list. Why should the winning player have the entire obligation to do something different?

A couple of points:

1. How is this substantially different from telling me: "Oh, you don't like AK-47s? Let me show you where you can find AK-47s on the map. They're great."

Ex hypothesi, I don't want to play with AK-47s.

2. Again, context is everything. The OP is complaining that he keeps stomping his opponents, and he's ultimately blaming codex imbalance for it.

That's just wrong. Codex imbalance isn't to blame for his unfair advantages. He has codex options which wouldn't provide him unfair advantages.

Codex imbalance likely isn't to blame for his wins.

Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

 Traditio wrote:

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

And when someone counters your point, counter what they said instead of going back to your topic. They proved you wrong, but yet you keep going back in circles. Rebuttal the countered point. Then maybe you can prove your point instead of you just going in circles where I am not even know what your original point is now.

Ne_Streets wrote:
So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines.

All of these codex have ridiculously imbalanced options that will give you easy wins.

They also have balanced options that will give you fair wins.

They also have terrible options that will make winning very difficult.

 Traditio wrote:

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

Which would be much easier to do if GW actually supplied balanced rules.

You can't expect players to self regulate to create balanced games. I still have disagreements with one of my mates on how to balance our 5th edition WHFB armies, he argues some of his units are underpowered, I argue that he's not using them properly

It is beyond the scope of a couple of players to create a balanced game, it takes work, research, testing... the sort of work, research and testing that one expects from a multi million dollar company releasing rulebooks at premium prices.

I think it's a bit silly to blame players for not being able to craft a good ruleset from a crap ruleset. When someone has a bad time playing a bad video game I don't blame the player for not being able to turn the bad game in to an enjoyable experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:
So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines.

All of these codex have ridiculously imbalanced options that will give you easy wins.

They also have balanced options that will give you fair wins.

They also have terrible options that will make winning very difficult.

So who decides which units are the balanced units? What if you think some options are terrible but I think they're balanced or even over powered and you just don't know how to use them?

I think it's a pretty universal thought that 40k has crap balance, but that doesn't mean it's a trivial matter to balance it.

Which would be much easier to do if GW actually supplied balanced rules.

I don't deny this for a moment. Going back to the video game example, if the AK-47 were properly balanced against the shotgun, then the shotgun would be a more viable option.

But so what?

Nobody is forced to take the AK-47.

You can't expect players to self regulate to create balanced games.

Yes, I can.

That's the great thing human beings being free, rational agents.

Sure, there are always going to be minor points of dispute, but there are obvious things that are clearly imbalanced which players can mutually agree not to use.

There's an entire list. There's even threads upon threads on dakka complaining about them.

Then there's always the "intent" check. If you tell me that you're running x because it's an unkillable blob of death, then you think it's unbalanced, and if we're self regulating, you shouldn't be running it.

I still have disagreements with one of my mates on how to balance our 5th edition WHFB armies, he argues some of his units are underpowered, I argue that he's not using them properly

It is beyond the scope of a couple of players to create a balanced game, it takes work, research, testing... the sort of work, research and testing that one expects from a multi million dollar company releasing rulebooks at premium prices.

The internet exists.

You understand that the internet exists, yes?

I think it's a bit silly to blame players for not being able to craft a good ruleset from a crap ruleset.

Again, how difficult is it?

"Hey, the AK-47 is unreasonably good." "Yeah, man, I agree. It's just unfair." "Yeah...hey, why don't we agree not to use AK-47s?"

When someone has a bad time playing a bad video game I don't blame the player for not being able to turn the bad game in to an enjoyable experience.

You've never played a fighting game, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:So who decides which units are the balanced units? What if you think some options are terrible but I think they're balanced or even over powered and you just don't know how to use them?

I think it's a pretty universal thought that 40k has crap balance, but that doesn't mean it's a trivial matter to balance it.

Communal consensus/public opinion.

In the SM codex, storm shields, bikes, grav, drop pods, librarians and white scars chapter tactics (and Khan) are considered auto-takes. As are formations.

Auto-take, for optional selections, usually equates to "imbalanced and OP."

Don't run those things if you're self-regulating.

 Traditio wrote:

Communal consensus/public opinion.

In the SM codex, storm shields, bikes, grav, drop pods, librarians and white scars chapter tactics (and Khan) are considered auto-takes. As are formations.

Auto-take, for optional selections, usually equates to "imbalanced and OP."

Don't run those things if you're self-regulating.

I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much. You said that, because the internet exists, it's easy to come up with a universally balanced game, but you also said that what people consider balanced is different from player to player.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to balance games yourself, but if the state of the tabletop competitive portion of the game is in such disarray it isn't the onus of the players to fix the problem. It really should be the creator's responsibility to make a game playable and balanced if it is meant to be even slightly competitive.

Ne_Streets wrote:I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much.

Like what? Provide examples.

You said that, because the internet exists, it's easy to come up with a universally balanced game, but you also said that what people consider balanced is different from player to player.

There's disagreement about what would make scatter bikes balanced. There is broad agreement that scatter bikes are imbalanced.

There's disagreement about what would make the necron decurion balanced. There's broad agreement that it's imbalanced.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to balance games yourself, but if the state of the tabletop competitive portion of the game is in such disarray it isn't the onus of the players to fix the problem. It really should be the creator's responsibility to make a game playable and balanced if it is meant to be even slightly competitive.

I'm not disagreeing that GW should balance the bloody game. They most certainly should.

However, given the fact that it's not, it's the player's prerogative to deal with it.

If that means not running storm surges or riptides, then that means not running storm surges or riptides.

You cannot control what others play and what others like.

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ). So what is the purpose of a game if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill. In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached. You have figuratively reached across the table and moved your opponents models for him. How is it that by preventing what your opponent can and cannot do, you have made his decisions for him? Why it is out of necessity. The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.


The rules need to make certain that armies and units are not absolutely advantageous in comparison to others, as the game is then essentially limiting itself as well.

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much.

Like what? Provide examples

I can only speak for the army I have been looking to use, because I'm new. That said, there are plenty of things I basically have to take to remain competitive against an opponent with any kind of strategy.

Units that have markerlights are essential. Otherwise, Tau are just IG. Other than that, I would assume things like formations and Commanders with Signature Systems would be more or less essential in most armies. General things, sure, but they go a long way in making the army unique.

If unique rules are imbalanced then you're just advocating for a Space Marine vs. Space Marines flavored like Necrons, or Tau, or what have you.

 Traditio wrote:
If that means not running storm surges or riptides, then that means not running storm surges or riptides.

Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You cannot control what others play

Except, that's the beautiful part of playing a game. Playing a game is a communal endeavor which is heavily based on mutual agreement and social custom.

I am fully entitled to say: "Alright. Either you cut out the wraithknights and scatter bikes, or find yourself another opponent."

And you, in turn, are entitled either to agree, or else, find a different opponent, or else, just not play.

Isn't that just wonderful?

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ).

Yes. There's nothing problematic about this. Your opponent dictates what you can and cannot do every single time you play a game, if only by saying: "Hey, would you like to play a game of warhammer 40k with no house rules?"

Had he asked you to play monopoly, you would be doing very different things.

So what is the purpose of a game

To provide amusement and leisure.

if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill.

Net-listing doesn't equate to intellect and skill. Sorry, buddy.

In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached.

In a microcosmic way, by asking to play monopoly instead of warhammer 40k, I have made a choice for my opponent and thereby perverted...

You understand how silly this is?

The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

Ignoring for a moment the existence of non-competitive games, I could easily grant what you are saying, but I only add the caveat: "Within the structure of any rules, whether official rules or house rules, written or unwritten, which may be in place."

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.

Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ne_Streets wrote:I can only speak for the army I have been looking to use, because I'm new. That said, there are plenty of things I basically have to take to remain competitive against an opponent with any kind of strategy.

The 40k community is absolutely schizophrenic on this point.

On the one hand, 40k players love to complain about game imbalances.

On the other hand, those same 40k players insist that they are correct to play with their imbalanced rule-sets in the name of being "competitive."

Do you want to be competitive or do you want to play fair?

If you want to be competitive, then there is no discussion to be had.

If you want to play fair, then see my comments. There is broad public agreement on the most egregiously OP things.

Units that have markerlights are essential.

Markerlights in and of themselves aren't game-breaking. Markerlights + riptides, stormsurges or death-stars are game-breaking. Don't bring those if you want to self-regulate.

Otherwise, Tau are just IG. Other than that, I would assume things like formations and Commanders with Signature Systems would be more or less essential in most armies. General things, sure, but they go a long way in making the army unique.

If you want to self-regulate, you may:

1. Only bring CADs (whether one or several is a matter of indifference).
2. Not bring death-stars or otherwise use combinations that exploit force multipliers.
3. You also may not bring riptides or SHCs or GMCs.

If you want to win by tactics, then win by tactics. Don't bring the win buttons.

If unique rules are imbalanced then you're just advocating for a Space Marine vs. Space Marines flavored like Necrons, or Tau, or what have you

Horus Heresy is broadly agreed to be much more balanced than 40k, with the exception of the non-marine factions. This is an indisputable fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

Both are viable options. Equally viable is me and my opponent simply not playing each other.

 Traditio wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You cannot control what others play

Except, that's the beautiful part of playing a game. Playing a game is a communal endeavor which is heavily based on mutual agreement and social custom.

I am fully entitled to say: "Alright. Either you cut out the wraithknights and scatter bikes, or find yourself another opponent."

And you, in turn, are entitled either to agree, or else, find a different opponent, or else, just not play.

Isn't that just wonderful?

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ).

Yes. There's nothing problematic about this. Your opponent dictates what you can and cannot do every single time you play a game, if only by saying: "Hey, would you like to play a game of warhammer 40k with no house rules?"

Had he asked you to play monopoly, you would be doing very different things.

So what is the purpose of a game

To provide amusement and leisure.

if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill.

Net-listing doesn't equate to intellect and skill. Sorry, buddy.

In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached.

In a microcosmic way, by asking to play monopoly instead of warhammer 40k, I have made a choice for my opponent and thereby perverted...

You understand how silly this is?

The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

Ignoring for a moment the existence of non-competitive games, I could easily grant what you are saying, but I only add the caveat: "Within the structure of any rules, whether official rules or house rules, written or unwritten, which may be in place."

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.

Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

Sledgehammer wrote:What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

I agree, but so what? I'm not disagreeing that GW has consistently dropped the ball on this.

What I am saying is that, given that GW has dropped the ball, there's nothing stopping us from self-regulating and having fair matches anyway.

In video games (e.g., Super Smash Brothers), this is even a part of the rule set.

Do you want random drops or no? You can turn that off if you want. That's up to you.

 Traditio wrote:
So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

Never going to happen. Getting tabled by Wraithknights is infinitely more fun than enduring the sheer misery of Monopoly. Please use a more plausible example next time?

Peregrine wrote:Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

Both are viable options. Equally viable is me and my opponent simply not playing each other.

Well, this is certainly progress! We've come so far from the days when you insisted that the person who wanted to use the more powerful units was a WAAC TFG and guilty of serious moral sins. I'm glad you now understand that it's possible for two people to have incompatible gaming goals without one of them being an awful person.

 Traditio wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

I agree, but so what? I'm not disagreeing that GW has consistently dropped the ball on this.

What I am saying is that, given that GW has dropped the ball, there's nothing stopping us from self-regulating and having fair matches anyway.

In video games (e.g., Super Smash Brothers), this is even a part of the rule set.

Do you want random drops or no? You can turn that off if you want. That's up to you.

I'm all for self regulating , but there must be a consensus for such acts to even take place. Generally the task of outlining the social agreement within a game, is placed upon the rules. When one challenges the rules and usurps them, there is a question as to where the new authority lies. Instead of dealing with the unknown, players tend to side with the devil they know.

Sledgehammer wrote:I'm all for self regulating , but there must be a consensus for such acts to even take place.

You mean, like, mutual agreement prior to a match? "Hey, want to play 40k?" "Sure, on condition that: 1. we both run only CADs, 2. we play at such and such a points limit, 3. that we do not use SHVs or GMCs...and by the way, what codex are you using? Tau? Yeah. No riptides."

This is less of an army issue and more of a player issue for me.

I haven't played Tournaments in years so all of my games are friendlies. And I generally expect the other person to be a gentleman when it comes to his army builds; basically nothing too dickish, but not a pushover either. I also don't care very much for winning either, more for the actual playing of the game (playing mostly "evil" factions help, since I can act like a saturday morning cartoon villain).

However if I meet someone who intentionally brings power lists and gloats after every win, that's when I whip out my own WAAC list (usually some combo of gargantuan creatures, superheavies or combo of broken units), table him in three turns, then never play him again.

Yes, I do bring a WAAC list on hand just specifically for this. No one bites me with impunity.

 Traditio wrote:
Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

On the other hand, those same 40k players insist that they are correct to play with their imbalanced rule-sets in the name of being "competitive."

Monopoly takes a lot more than 45 minutes, and, to be honest, I would rather play against an army with a 1000pt imbalance than play that game. A nitpick.

Markerlights in and of themselves aren't game-breaking. Markerlights + riptides, stormsurges or death-stars are game-breaking. Don't bring those if you want to self-regulate.

Markerlights are the distinguishing factor that puts Tau shooting above average. A single Riptide is a strong unit, but it can't ruin a game's balance alone. You need either number of Riptides or an opponent who wants to try an infantry-only IG squad to see it fall into the game-breaking category.

1. Only bring CADs (whether one or several is a matter of indifference).
2. Not bring death-stars or otherwise use combinations that exploit force multipliers.
3. You also may not bring riptides or SHCs or GMCs.

If you want to win by tactics, then win by tactics. Don't bring the win buttons.

I honestly don't believe in the "I win button" units. Even with my very limited experience, it seems like on a basic points cost versus value economy, you more or less get what you pay for. It's far too expensive to run a Riptide Wing or several Stormsurges in a standard 1500 point game.

Riptides don't auto-win games. They are a strong unit in an apparently strong codex, but they don't destroy game balance simply by being placed on the field.

Horus Heresy is broadly agreed to be much more balanced than 40k, with the exception of the non-marine factions. This is an indisputable fact.

Yeah, sure, but does that matter at all? We're not talking about Horus Heresy. It may be more balanced for every army to more or less have the same units and rules, but that eliminates all variety.

Ne_Streets wrote:Monopoly takes a lot more than 45 minutes, and, to be honest, I would rather play against an army with a 1000pt imbalance than play that game. A nitpick.

I have in mind one of the recent Dark Souls III videos by the Game Grumps. Apparently, if you play "by the book" and don't use house rules, it's supposed to be a 45 minute game.

Markerlights are the distinguishing factor that puts Tau shooting above average. A single Riptide is a strong unit, but it can't ruin a game's balance alone. You need either number of Riptides or an opponent who wants to try an infantry-only IG squad to see it fall into the game-breaking category.

Riptides have more durability, fire power, mobility, etc. than can be justified by their points cost. Therefore, they are OP, and if you want to play a fair game, you should not play them.

It's that simple.

Riptides don't auto-win games. They are a strong unit in an apparently strong codex, but they don't destroy game balance simply by being placed on the field.

Yes, they do. Insofar as you are fielding a model that has more durability, fire power, etc. than can be justified for its points cost, you have put me at a disadvantage and have imbalanced the game.

No riptides if you want to play a fair game. Not even one. Not even half of one. No riptides.

Again, read my lips:

"No. Riptides."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Well, this is certainly progress! We've come so far from the days when you insisted that the person who wanted to use the more powerful units was a WAAC TFG and guilty of serious moral sins. I'm glad you now understand that it's possible for two people to have incompatible gaming goals without one of them being an awful person.

1. The two claims are not incompatible.

2. I'd prefer to speak less of moral sins than of WAAC TFGs having serious personality defects, insofar as any donkey cave has a serious personality defect or defects.

What I initially said is basically self-evident. If I want to have a fair game, and you run wraithknights and scatter bikes, then we have 3 options:

1. You stop using that.
2. I run something that can beat wraithknights and scatter bikes.
3. We don't play.

All three of those are viable options.

The question of whether or not you are a WAAC TFG if you refuse to do 1 is another question entirely.

That said, I do seriously question the motives of a space marine player or a Dark Angels player who refuses to downgrade his battle company to a CAD.

What other motive could he have than "I am a donkey cave who would prefer to win rather than have a fair game"?

What motive could a Necron player have not to downgrade his decurion to a CAD?

 Traditio wrote:
I have in mind one of the recent Dark Souls III videos by the Game Grumps. Apparently, if you play "by the book" and don't use house rules, it's supposed to be a 45 minute game.

Which is still 44.5 minutes longer than it should take. The best way to play Monopoly is to throw the game in the trash and forget you ever had such a terrible idea. I stand by my claim that even the worst game of 40k is better than playing Monopoly.

Riptides have more durability, fire power, mobility, etc. than can be justified by their points cost. Therefore, they are OP, and if you want to play a fair game, you should not play them.

It's that simple.

Alternatively, Riptides are balanced, some other units (some of which you may wish to use) are too weak for their point cost, and if you want to play a fair game you should only play things that can compete with Riptides.

Insofar as you are fielding a model that has more durability, fire power, etc. than can be justified for its points cost, you have put me at a disadvantage and have imbalanced the game.

No, YOU put YOURSELF at a disadvantage by taking bad units and imbalancing the game. Perhaps if you want a fair game you should stop doing this?

What other motive could he have than "I am a donkey cave who would prefer to win rather than have a fair game"?

"I'm playing a reasonable list, why should I have an obligation to change my army? Change yours if you want the game to be fair."

"The units I want to use don't fit in a CAD, why don't you take a powerful formation yourself instead of crippling yourself before the game begins?"

"I love the awesome special rules these formations give my units, why should I give them up just because you refuse to do your part to make the game fair?"

I'm pretty sure that you're overreacting when you say Riptides are unfair. Strong units aren't inherently unfair. Maybe you wouldn't play with them, and that's fine.

Just another example of a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by simple player deliberation. If one party, especially one who advocates players coming to their own terms, won't even support a core codex option that's not even a LoW, how can a typical group deal with this sort of disagreement short of referring back to the rules?

Some things can be fixed. Some things can't. People with strong opinions on what is and isn't fair aren't going to be open to others bringing the units and models they want to bring, even if they are totall correct.

Peregrine wrote:Alternatively, Riptides are balanced, some other units (some of which you may wish to use) are too weak for their point cost, and if you want to play a fair game you should only play things that can compete with Riptides.

Balanced is a relative term. If Riptides and a select few other units are "balanced," and everything else is imbalanced, then it's pretty much self-evident that you've incorrectly assessed which units are and are not imbalanced.

Alternatively:

Shall I start another poll? I have no qualms about starting another poll.

No, YOU put YOURSELF at a disadvantage by taking bad units and imbalancing the game. Perhaps if you want a fair game you should stop doing this?

You're arguing over semantics. Because, once again, this is all relative. If I only spam OP bull gak and my opponent only spams OP bull gak, assuming that the bull gak is equally OP, then we'll have a balanced game, relatively to each other.

The assumption is that most things in the game are not OP bull gak.

Thus my comments:

You have two options:

Either you wish to use OP bull gak or you do not wish to use OP bull gak.

If you don't wish to use OP bull gak, then no riptides. OP bull gak doesn't cease to be OP bull gak simply because you only took one.

I assume you wouldn't be impressed if I told you that I only took a single free rhino in my gladius strike force. I mean, it's just 35 free points. Surely, that's not OP or game breaking. Right?

"I'm playing a reasonable list, why should I have an obligation to change my army? Change yours if you want the game to be fair."

Which, to my mind, translates to:

"Because I am a giant, stinking donkey cave who cannot bear the thought of having a fair fight."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ne_Streets wrote:
I'm pretty sure that you're overreacting when you say Riptides are unfair. Strong units aren't inherently unfair.

By definition, all strong units are unfair. The way that "strong" is usually used is: "By using this unit, I get a disproportionate advantage relative to the points cost I am paying."

By definition, that is unfair.

Also, this isn't just my opinion. If I made a public opinion poll right now, I can guarantee you that at least 50 percent of voters would agree that riptides are unfair.

Just another example of a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by simple player deliberation. If one party, especially one who advocates players coming to their own terms, won't even support a core codex option that's not even a LoW, how can a typical group deal with this sort of disagreement short of referring back to the rules?

Common public opinion. Again: the internet exists.

Apart from WAAC TFG tau players (note that I'm not saying that all tau players are WAAC TFGs), it's commonly agreed that riptides are OP.

Don't use them if you expect to make friends.

 Traditio wrote:
Balanced is a relative term. If Riptides and a select few other units are "balanced," and everything else is imbalanced, then it's pretty much self-evident that you've incorrectly assessed which units are and are not imbalanced.

This is not true at all. If I've decided that Riptides are the benchmark in creating new units then the fact that some 3rd edition leftovers don't compete well means that they need to be buffed up to Riptide level. The only way you can say that Riptides are overpowered is if you assume that the designers are using something else as the benchmark, and you don't know that.

Alternatively:

Shall I start another poll? I have no qualms about starting another poll.

Yes, we all know you enjoy abusing polls. Please don't.

The assumption is that most things in the game are not OP bull gak.

Yes, we all know that you assume that everyone plays (or should play) an army just like yours. This is part of the problem.

I assume you wouldn't be impressed if I told you that I only took a single free rhino in my gladius strike force. I mean, it's just 35 free points. Surely, that's not OP or game breaking. Right?

No, actually I would be impressed and would have much less of a problem with it than with the guy who took 10 of them.

Which, to my mind, translates to:

"Because I am a giant, stinking donkey cave who cannot bear the thought of having a fair fight."

You're right, that's exactly what you're saying. Stop taking weak units and making the game unfair for your opponent.

Peregrine wrote:This is not true at all. If I've decided that Riptides are the benchmark in creating new units then the fact that some 3rd edition leftovers don't compete well means that they need to be buffed up to Riptide level. The only way you can say that Riptides are overpowered is if you assume that the designers are using something else as the benchmark, and you don't know that.

I disagree with this. Once again, "balanced" is relative (and note that "relative" doesn't mean "subjective"; balance implies a relationship between at least two things; it signifies proportionate equality).

In fact, this is ultimately what allows you to engage in your little sophistic display. Consider:

"Mountains are very tall."
"No, YOU'RE just very short."

Short and tall are relative terms. A is short in relationship to some B, B being taller than A, which, in turn, is shorter than B.

Ditto for balance. What GW considers the "benchmark" is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not something is OP or balanced or under-powered. What matters is how it compares to other things in the game. Whether you want to say that Riptides are OP or everything else is underpowered, it all comes out to the same thing: Riptides are an outlier in terms of their points efficiency/in-game effectiveness.

Yes, we all know that you assume that everyone plays (or should play) an army just like yours. This is part of the problem.

I've literally said nothing of the sort. All that I've said is that if you remove the outliers, you end up with a much more balanced game. Of course, you'll disagree with me all day long, since you have a vested interest in so doing (remind me again, Peregrine, what was that quote: "Just take the most powerful stuff, paint it well and make up the fluff accordingly?" Is that how the quote went? Am I remembering correctly?).

But it's hardly disputable.

 Traditio wrote:

Also, this isn't just my opinion. If I made a public opinion poll right now, I can guarantee you that at least 50 percent of voters would agree that riptides are unfair.

Don't use a specific unit, which I'm taking because I enjoy the aesthetic, the long-range synergism, and their status as a heavy-hitter in lore. In the FE, they are unique in their use with Earth Caste members, something the Tau would typically never consider what with the caste system taking precedence. They are a cool and fun unit.

That said, it's not so powerful that you should never take one in a 1500 point game. Is taking on in a 500 point game a mean thing to do? A 1000 point game, even? Yeah, definitely. But by 1500 you should have answers.

Strong units aren't inherently unfair. A column of Hammerheads is strong, but it's never considered unfair. Similarly, many units can be situationally strong.

I can understand limiting certain units to certain point costs, but at a certain level every army needs to have an equivalent or an answer to the game's powerful units.

 Traditio wrote:
Whether you want to say that Riptides are OP or everything else is underpowered, it all comes out to the same thing: Riptides are an outlier in terms of their points efficiency/in-game effectiveness.

That depends on whether you look at the total list of units in the game (including a lot of older-edition relics that nobody uses anymore), or which units are most popular. If most people are playing Riptides/decurions/etc then the outlier is the weaker stuff.

I've literally said nothing of the sort.

You have, however, very clearly implied it. Your core premise here is that lists like yours are the default and the player with the more powerful list is an outlier and has an obligation to balance the game. If your list is not typical then perhaps the opposite is true: YOU are the balance outlier, and YOU have the obligation to fix your list so that the game is fair.

All that I've said is that if you remove the outliers, you end up with a much more balanced game.

It's also more balanced if you just play with Riptides and things that can compete with Riptides. Perhaps you should try doing this, it will make the game a lot fairer for everyone.

Of course, you'll disagree with me all day long, since you have a vested interest in so doing (remind me again, Peregrine, what was that quote: "Just take the most powerful stuff, paint it well and make up the fluff accordingly?" Is that how the quote went? Am I remembering correctly?)

You do realize that I was playing devil's advocate there, right? And that my own lists are not even closer to top-tier in power level, making your "vested interest" rather laughably wrong?

(Of course you do, because we've had this conversation already. But you'll keep dishonestly posting that quote on the assumption that people reading it won't know the context.)

Ne_Streets wrote:Don't use a specific unit, which I'm taking because I enjoy the aesthetic

You like the aesthetic and the lore? Great. I'm sure it would look great in a display case.

May I recommend getting a display case for that riptide where you can keep it safe and sound under lock and key? And by "key," I mean "throw away the key."

the long-range synergism

In other words, an in-game advantage which is not duly accounted for by their points cost.

Another reason you shouldn't run one if you want a fair fight.

and their status as a heavy-hitter in lore. In the FE, they are unique in their use with Earth Caste members, something the Tau would typically never consider what with the caste system taking precedence. They are a cool and fun unit.

Then read more novels about the Tau. And really admire that Riptide...in your display case...the key to which you will have flushed down your toilet.

That said, it's not so powerful that you should never take one in a 1500 point game.

At ANY points limit, a single riptide is unfair. Again, that puts you at a de facto points advantage over me.

Strong units aren't inherently unfair.

By "strong units," do you understand "a unit which has advantages which are disproportionate to its points cost"?

If you do, then please explain to me how it's not unfair for a unit to have advantages which are disproportionate to its points cost.

I'll be waiting for that one.

Similarly, many units can be situationally strong.

The key word is "situationally."

Riptides aren't situationally strong.

Each one is a steaming pile of OP bull gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:That depends on whether you look at the total list of units in the game

This is what I meant.

In my local group its kinda the inverse.
I have been almost entirely playing DE and Harlequins, and not super optimized for either, and my opponents are SM, Eldar, CSM. The SM and Eldar players generally bring absolutely weak lists, as in they've brought foot slogging infantry with no long range support before.
They aren't fun for me, or for them when I roll over their army with minimal casualties with my Venoms or Troupes.
So far, the only fun games where when I made the weakest list I could with my models, and kinda wasted my first couple turns so that it could be a challenge later on.

Yes there is a huge imbalance between codex's, but you can still make terrible lists with any codex, and those aren't fun unless you're against an equally weak list

 Traditio wrote:

Another reason you shouldn't run one if you want a fair fight.

You probably shouldn't play at a higher point level if you can't deal with a single Riptide. There's plenty of things more powerful than a Riptide, and if you can't deal with even that then it's you who'll have trouble finding games.

I mean, on paper, AP2 stuff should give it fits, even more so if it fails its NOVA or doesn't take Stims. It's not a god unit. It could be a Wraithknight, another model you should be prepared to deal with.

Ne_Streets wrote:You probably shouldn't play at a higher point level if you can't deal with a single Riptide.

There's a difference between "being able to deal with X" and "X being fair."

The question is whether riptides are fair, and the answer is clearly "no."

There's plenty of things more powerful than a Riptide

So what? The fact that there are things which are more OP than a riptide doesn't make the riptide less OP. It makes those other things more OP than a riptide.

There's no difficulty in this.

and if you can't deal with even that then it's you who'll have trouble finding games.

I'd prefer to have no game than to game against WAAC TFGs (whether they run scatter bikes, riptides, storm surges, or even scout bikes, for that matter). Just saying.

I mean, on paper, AP2 stuff should give it fits

Is a riptide really afraid of a lascannon?

Can you even say that with a straight face?

As I said before, you have two options:

1. You can either run a riptide

or

2. You can play fair.

Ultimately, the choice is yours, but you can't have it both ways.

 Traditio wrote:


Is a riptide really afraid of a lascannon?

To be fair, nothing is really afraid of a lascannon.
Either you're a single cheap model that isn't very important, and soak up that single shot, or you have an invul save, or a cover save and ignore it.

Riptides are strong, but unless you're running them cheesily (stimms for FNP and passing every nova charge,. or fighting an extremely weak list that refuses to change or adapt, they're far from unkillable. And just because someone brings one does not make their list an auto win unless all you do is avoid cover like the plague and bunch up like penguins huddling for warmth.

The onus is on both players. Neither player should expect the other to come completely down to their level. If one runs a riptide, it's not unreasonable to expect the other player to be able to deal with it. Otherwise, why can't both players put stupid restrictions on each other? I.E. "I don't like riptides." "Ok, I don't like rhinos or razorbacks." (obvious exception would be bringing a riptide/WK/etc to a game under ~750-1000pts)

To be fair, nothing is really afraid of a lascannon.
Either you're a single cheap model that isn't very important, and soak up that single shot, or you have an invul save, or a cover save and ignore it.

In non-competitive games, lascannons can put in work, especially with imperial fist chapter tactics.

 Traditio wrote:
You like the aesthetic and the lore? Great. I'm sure it would look great in a display case.

May I recommend getting a display case for that riptide where you can keep it safe and sound under lock and key? And by "key," I mean "throw away the key."

Yeah, how dare anyone remember that 40k is a game, not just a modeling hobby, and want to use the models they've bought and painted.

Again, that puts you at a de facto points advantage over me.

So stop putting yourself at a disadvantage. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take units that can't compete with Riptides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Is a riptide really afraid of a lascannon?

No, but why are we talking about the irrelevant example of a single lascannon? Your zero-point Rhino doesn't exactly fear a lascannon either, and I don't think you want to go down the path of establishing that your Rhino is overpowered.

As I said before, you have two options:

1. You can either run a riptide

or

2. You can play fair.

Ultimately, the choice is yours, but you can't have it both ways.

As I said before, you have two options:

1. You can either run a list that can't compete with a Riptide

or

2. You can play fair.

Ultimately, the choice is yours, but you can't have it both ways.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Riptides are strong, but unless you're running them cheesily (stimms for FNP and passing every nova charge,. or fighting an extremely weak list that refuses to change or adapt, they're far from unkillable.

Not unkillable =/= not OP.

If x has a greater in-game advantage than is reflected by its points cost, then it's OP or undercosted.

Period.

At 180 points, you get a T6 jump monstrous creature with FIVE WOUNDS, a 2+ armor save and 5+ invuln save with a ridiculous amount of fire power. For a minimal points increase, you can give it feel no pain and a 72 inch range gun.

I stand by my assertions:

No riptides. Not even one.

Bring all the crisis suits, kroot, fire warriors, vehicles, etc., you want.

But not a single anime fan gundam wannabe.

The onus is on both players. Neither player should expect the other to come completely down to their level. If one runs a riptide, it's not unreasonable to expect the other player to be able to deal with it. Otherwise, why can't both players put stupid restrictions on each other? I.E. "I don't like riptides." "Ok, I don't like rhinos or razorbacks." (obvious exception would be bringing a riptide/WK/etc to a game under ~750-1000pts)

Razorbacks and rhinos are not publicly recognized as being OP, unless they are taken for free in a battle company formation (at which point I'll admit that everyone should just stick to CADs if they want to play fair).

Riptides are publicly recognized as being OP. Therefore, they should not be used at any points level.

Leave them at home. In your display case. With the key to said display case safely hidden under several layers of sewage, deep, deep below the ground.

 Traditio wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Riptides are strong, but unless you're running them cheesily (stimms for FNP and passing every nova charge,. or fighting an extremely weak list that refuses to change or adapt, they're far from unkillable.

Not unkillable =/= not OP.

If x has a greater in-game advantage than is reflected by its points cost, then it's OP or undercosted.

Period.

At 180 points, you get a T6 jump monstrous creature with FIVE WOUNDS, a 2+ armor save and 5+ invuln save with a ridiculous amount of fire power. For a minimal points increase, you can give it feel no pain and a 72 inch range gun.

I stand by my assertions:

No riptides. Not even one.

Bring all the crisis suits, kroot, fire warriors, vehicles, etc., you want.

But not a single anime fan gundam wannabe.

The onus is on both players. Neither player should expect the other to come completely down to their level. If one runs a riptide, it's not unreasonable to expect the other player to be able to deal with it. Otherwise, why can't both players put stupid restrictions on each other? I.E. "I don't like riptides." "Ok, I don't like rhinos or razorbacks." (obvious exception would be bringing a riptide/WK/etc to a game under ~750-1000pts)

Razorbacks and rhinos are not publicly recognized as being OP, unless they are taken for free in a battle company formation.

Riptides are publicly recognized as being OP. Therefore, they should not be used at any points level.

Leave them at home. In your display case. With the key to said display case safely hidden under several layers of sewage, deep, deep below the ground.

See, now I have to ask when the riptides ever did a "bad touch" to one of your marines.

But really, if you can't deal with ONE riptide in a 1500pt game, I highly doubt you could deal with the broadsides/crisis suits I'd bring instead.

As for the rhinos/razorbacks, it was more of an example of stupid restrictions that are clearly due to one player being unwilling to change or try something different to deal with a problem they have.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I've set up against another player only to know I was going to lose before the first die was cast. That's not fun. Every little victory I had that game was cause for celebration though.

^This. The very fact that in many cases the outcome is decided before the game even begins just goes to show how terrible the rules are atm. Sure it will always be possible to make lists that are not ideal and inferior but when there is such a power disparity between top tier codex's and the rest of the codex's in most cases it doesn't matter what you bring. You are doomed before deployment.

I've been preaching this for months but 8th edition will not solve anything. Unless they plan to remove point values entirely. While many issues do exist within the rulebook, the major issue in 40k right now is codex balance. Point costs are all over the place. You can have 2 different armies with very similar units, with very similar functions, with nearly the same effectiveness differ in point value by as much as 50%+. As long as disparities like this exist there is no hope for balance. Formations solve nothing. If anything they only further dumb down the game & remove one of the only remaining fun elements left in the game which is list building.

Wolfblade wrote:See, now I have to ask when the riptides ever did a "bad touch" to one of your marines.

But really, if you can't deal with ONE riptide in a 1500pt game, I highly doubt you could deal with the broadsides/crisis suits I'd bring instead.

As for the rhinos/razorbacks, it was more of an example of stupid restrictions that are clearly due to one player being unwilling to change or try something different to deal with a problem they have.

Again, I'm making a very simple point:

If you wish to play fair, then you should not bring OP bull gak. Not even one. Not even in a 10,000 point apocalypse game.

If you want to determine what is OP bull gak, consult the internet. If people are constantly complaining that the thing in question has a set of rules advantages which are not adequately reflected by its points cost, or else, is otherwise "OP" or "competitive" or "very strong," then you can bet your bottom dollar that the thing in question is probably OP bull gak.

Riptides fall under this category.

Wraith knights fall under this category.

White scars bikes fall under this category.

Scatter bikes fall under this category.

Razorbacks and rhinos do not fall under this category.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, I'm making a very simple point:

If you wish to play fair, then you should not bring OP bull gak. Not even one. Not even in a 10,000 point apocalypse game.

Again, I'm making a very simple point:

If you wish to play fair, then you should not bring underpowered bull gak that can't compete with Riptides. Not even one. Not even in a 10,000 point apocalypse game.

If you want to determine what is OP bull gak, consult the internet.

Yes, because we all know that the loudest complainers on the internet are usually right...

 Traditio wrote:
If you want to determine what is OP bull gak, consult the internet. If people are constantly complaining that the thing in question has a set of rules advantages which are not adequately reflected by its points cost, or else, is otherwise "OP" or "competitive" or "very strong," then you can bet your bottom dollar that the thing in question is probably OP bull gak.

I don't know what you think about other games, particularly video games, but Overwatch had a bit of an uproar concerning Bastion that the more competitive people quickly put to rest. The point here is that, even in the face of overwhelming public opinion, the truth shines through and opinion remains just that. The players who are willing to field models that deal with Riptides will field them against Riptides, and all is balanced.

I can guarantee I can make a case for the Rhino being OP. I would be horribly and terribly wrong, but I could do it.

"Why aren't my Fire Warriors doing any damage to his squad of Rhinos?! I have a Cadre Fireblade, I'm at half range, and I've used fire invocation to boost shots! Shouldn't the other player consider my weak army before bringing terribly OP stuff like a Rhino?"

Force it to make a leadership roll. Force it to deal with things like invisibility, constant cover saves to deplete markerlights, and high-AP weaponry. As a newcomer it really looks like you are stuck in ages past.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:See, now I have to ask when the riptides ever did a "bad touch" to one of your marines.

But really, if you can't deal with ONE riptide in a 1500pt game, I highly doubt you could deal with the broadsides/crisis suits I'd bring instead.

As for the rhinos/razorbacks, it was more of an example of stupid restrictions that are clearly due to one player being unwilling to change or try something different to deal with a problem they have.

Again, I'm making a very simple point:

If you wish to play fair, then you should not bring OP bull gak. Not even one. Not even in a 10,000 point apocalypse game.

If you want to determine what is OP bull gak, consult the internet. If people are constantly complaining that the thing in question has a set of rules advantages which are not adequately reflected by its points cost, or else, is otherwise "OP" or "competitive" or "very strong," then you can bet your bottom dollar that the thing in question is probably OP bull gak.

Riptides fall under this category.

Wraith knights fall under this category.

White scars bikes fall under this category.

Scatter bikes fall under this category.

Razorbacks and rhinos also fall under this category.

Fixed for you.

Did you know that there is a reason that Eldar, Tau AND Space Marines are regarded the best three armies in the meta? I wonder why that could be?
It surely wouldn't have anything to do with the:
Grav-guns (which kill Riptides well enough, and should be classed as the de-facto MC killing weapons instead of the outdated lascannon)

Free Transports

Accurate Deep Strike potential (to get that grav in the right place)

Ready access to Bikes (with sweet sweet grav)

A powerful psychic formation

One of the best beatstick HQ options

Immunity to practically an entire section of the rules (Morale)

I mean, free tanks are so over powered. I know you like them, but if you REALLY liked them, you'd put them in a cabinet and never use them. Don't know about you, but I love using my £25 Razorback as a paperweight instead of actually using the model for it's intended purpose and playing a game with it.
If you ever asked me to practically throw away a unit because of your ineptitude to deal with it (and trust me - it can be dealt with), I would demand you refund me for it. Seems fair, no?

If you cannot kill a Riptide, or change your list to deal with one, at the 10k points level, how on earth would you ever kill a Knight? Or a Baneblade? Or a Warhound Titan? Or even a Tau'nar. Riptides suck at lower points, but at the 1500 level, whilst they will be the centerpoint of the Tau army, they are killable.

Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and then just seal the hole up with cement when you can't manage.

Ne_Streets wrote:I don't know what you think about other games, particularly video games, but Overwatch had a bit of an uproar concerning Bastion that the more competitive people quickly put to rest. The point here is that, even in the face of overwhelming public opinion, the truth shines through and opinion remains just that. The players who are willing to field models that deal with Riptides will field them against Riptides, and all is balanced.

1. Play-testing. Yes, right when a thing is released, it's easy to cry "OP!" or "UNFAIR!" However, this does not usually survive in long-term public consensus. If a thing genuinely is not OP, then there will be initial cries of "OP!" which will later die down as people realize that what looked OP at first isn't actually OP in practice.

In practice, Riptides have proven to be as OP in practice as they are on paper. Thus the fact that public opinion has prevailed, even in the long term, that riptides are OP. Again, I could easily make that public opinion poll if you want, and I guarantee at least a 50% vote that riptides are, in fact, OP.

Look, NE_Streets, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't both insist that riptides are not OP, and yet still maintain that you NEED a riptide for a Tau army to function in a competitive setting.

The two claims are necessarily inconsistent.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do you want to be competitive? Or do you want to play fair? If you want to be competitive, then you need 3 riptides for the riptide wing. If you want to play fair, then don't use riptides. It's really that simple.

2. I shouldn't have to list tailor specifically to deal with your riptide to deal with your riptide.

3. Please explain to me how I can, using the SM codex, reliably kill a riptide:

1. Without the use of grav, librarians or drop pods
2. Using 180 points worth of models or fewer (or however much your riptide costs)
3. While taking no more than 180 points worth of casualties in the process (or however much your riptide costs)

I can guarantee I can make a case for the Rhino being OP. I would be horribly and terribly wrong, but I could do it.

It wouldn't be corroborated by play-testing or public consensus.

"Why aren't my Fire Warriors doing no damage to his squad of Rhinos?!

Fire warriors glance rhinos on 6s.

Force it to make a leadership roll.

How?

Force it to deal with things like invisibility

IoW: "USE OP GAK OF YOUR OWN!"

Ex hypothesi, we want to have a fair fight and not use OP gak.

constant cover saves to deplete markerlights

???

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.

and high-AP weaponry

I assume you mean "low AP weaponry," i.e., AP 1 or 2.

Again, I ask:

Is your riptide really afraid of my lascannons, plasma guns and plasma cannons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Fixed for you.

They don't. Free rhinos and razorbacks fall under that category when you take a battle company, but if you pay the 35 points for a rhino or the 55 points for a razorback, nobody considers them OP. Consider the fact that they generally weren't spammed in 6th edition.

Did you know that there is a reason that Eldar, Tau AND Space Marines are regarded the best three armies in the meta? I wonder why that could be?
It surely wouldn't have anything to do with the:
Grav-guns (which kill Riptides well enough, and should be classed as the de-facto MC killing weapons instead of the outdated lascannon)

Free Transports

Accurate Deep Strike potential (to get that grav in the right place)

Ready access to Bikes (with sweet sweet grav)

A powerful psychic formation

One of the best beatstick HQ options

I agree. All of those things are OP. That doesn't make the riptide less OP.

Immunity to practically an entire section of the rules (Morale)

That's really not accurate. ATSKNF isn't the same thing as fearless. My marines run off the table often enough. I'd much prefer fearless.

I mean, free tanks are so over powered. I know you like them, but if you REALLY liked them, you'd put them in a cabinet and never use them. Don't know about you, but I love using my £25 Razorback as a paperweight instead of actually using the model for it's intended purpose and playing a game with it.

Feth it. At this point, I'm willing to admit it. Free tanks are OP. Pretty much all of the formations are OP. We need to go back to CADs. Enough with formations. Enough with allied detachments. Enough with unbound. CAD UBER ALLES!

 Traditio wrote:
Look, NE_Streets, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't both insist that riptides are not OP, and yet still maintain that you NEED a riptide for a Tau army to function in a competitive setting.

The two claims are necessarily inconsistent.

How so? You are saying that like it's self-evident. Like it's obvious and clear. That, and I never said I needed it to be competitive.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do you want to be competitive? Or do you want to play fair? If you want to be competitive, then you need 3 riptides for the riptide wing. If you want to play fair, then don't use riptides. It's really that simple.

You can do both. This is where your flawed logic really comes through. You can have a competitive, fair list. It's very possible. Unless you're talking about tournament play as the standard for competitive, fair, competitive lists really ought to be the standard (assuming they aren't, which they probably are).

2. I shouldn't have to list tailor specifically to deal with your riptide to deal with your riptide.

3. Please explain to me how I can, using the SM codex, reliably kill a riptide:

1. Without the use of grav, librarians or drop pods
2. Using 180 points worth of models or fewer (or however much your riptide costs)
3. While taking no more than 180 points worth of casualties in the process (or however much your riptide costs)

Why not just, I don't know, take grav, librarians, and drop pods? It's not possible to provide a list that costs exactly the same amount of points as a Riptide and is exactly as effective. Not because the Riptide is that broken, but because it's a flawed premise. Terrain, game type, and your opponent all tie into everything to the degree that being so specific is meaningless.

How?

I hear Psychic Scream works. If it brings drones, that works too.

IoW: "USE OP GAK OF YOUR OWN!"

That's just... playing fair. Just use what's at your disposal.

I assume you mean "low AP weaponry," i.e., AP 1 or 2.

Yeah, I did. Still new.

Again, I ask:

Is your riptide really afraid of my lascannons, plasma guns and plasma cannons?

It doesn't particularly want to take hits from plasma cannons or grav weaponry. Just bring that instead of whining that the opponent is being unfair. It's not going to hurt anything, promise.

I agree. All of those things are OP. That doesn't make the riptide less OP.

If the list of things you consider OP becomes big enough, you've admitted you're wrong. When enough things are available on the same power level as a Riptide, it's no longer broken but merely very good.

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:I don't know what you think about other games, particularly video games, but Overwatch had a bit of an uproar concerning Bastion that the more competitive people quickly put to rest. The point here is that, even in the face of overwhelming public opinion, the truth shines through and opinion remains just that. The players who are willing to field models that deal with Riptides will field them against Riptides, and all is balanced.

1. Play-testing. Yes, right when a thing is released, it's easy to cry "OP!" or "UNFAIR!" However, this does not usually survive in long-term public consensus. If a thing genuinely is not OP, then there will be initial cries of "OP!" which will later die down as people realize that what looked OP at first isn't actually OP in practice.

In practice, Riptides have proven to be as OP in practice as they are on paper. Thus the fact that public opinion has prevailed, even in the long term, that riptides are OP. Again, I could easily make that public opinion poll if you want, and I guarantee at least a 50% vote that riptides are, in fact, OP.

Look, NE_Streets, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't both insist that riptides are not OP, and yet still maintain that you NEED a riptide for a Tau army to function in a competitive setting.

The two claims are necessarily inconsistent.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do you want to be competitive? Or do you want to play fair? If you want to be competitive, then you need 3 riptides for the riptide wing. If you want to play fair, then don't use riptides. It's really that simple.

OR
Take an amount of Riptides proportional to the game size. A single Riptide per 1500 or 2000 points shouldn't give a competent list a complete smackdown. A single Riptide doesn't break a game. Putting a Riptide where is doesn't belong is.
I class my Riptide playing opponents as fair. And I think I'd rather play them any day than put up with a person telling me what I can and can't use because it doesn't fit their arbitrary rules of "fair".
The rules say I can take a Riptide. I will take my Riptide.

2. I shouldn't have to list tailor specifically to deal with your riptide to deal with your riptide.

I shouldn't have to list tailor to your sub-par list either.

3. Please explain to me how I can, using the SM codex, reliably kill a riptide:

1. Without the use of grav, librarians or drop pods
2. Using 180 points worth of models or fewer (or however much your riptide costs)
3. While taking no more than 180 points worth of casualties in the process (or however much your riptide costs)

Do the same for me with a Rhino. Any single UNIT in Codex Space Marines that costs 35 points or under, and can reliably kill it. No grav, psychic powers, or melta (seeing as we're banning certain equipment)

As for your example, by banning the use of certain things, you're effectively admitting that you won't use the right tools to do the job. It's like me telling you to kill a Land Raider, but you can't use anything that would actually have a chance of killing it. Thus, unfair premise.

My answer would be to ally in Guardsmen (because allying is a thing I can use) and drown it in Conscripts. They won't kill it, but the Riptide is rendered useless until the game ends.

Force it to make a leadership roll.

How?

Psychic shriek, kill any attached Drones, Fear tests.

Force it to deal with things like invisibility

IoW: "USE OP GAK OF YOUR OW
Ex hypothesi, we want to have a fair fight and not use OP gak.

IOW: "I won't use the actual resources given to me because I have an outdated view on the game and system and everyone else must accommodate my awkwardness."
We want a fair fight, and you enter it with all limbs tied behind your back.

Again, I ask:

Is your riptide really afraid of my lascannons, plasma guns and plasma cannons?

Nothing is afraid of lascannons and plasma cannons.

Instead, use something that actually WILL get results - grav.
Otherwise, what's to stop me saying "Is that Rhino really afraid of my bolters and lasguns?"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Nothing is afraid of lascannons and plasma cannons.

I am. My IG and CSM armies regularly get tabled by the end of turn 3 because of them. After tons of monetary investment, and waaaayy too many games, I have been unable to find anything in those codexes that helps me win a game.

I'm not even joking.

So does that mean lascannons and plasmacannons are op? HELL YES. I say we ban them.

NE_STREETS:

You've basically admitted my point. Which doesn't surprise me. You're new, and I'm much less new. The only real ways of effectively dealing with a riptide, in the SM codex, are:

A. Grav

and

B. Librarians (but even here, they likely won't do it on their own; they're only effective at killing riptides when used as a force multiplier).

Though even here, psychic shriek might not be as effective as you might think. Riptides are LD 9. The average damage on a shriek against a riptide, not taking into account invulns or FNP, is 1 wound.

When we take into account invulns and FNP, the number of wounds is even less.

And psychic shriek is 18 inch range. Even if I brought a librarius conclave and deepstruck them via drop pod, I can pretty much gaurantee that, not only would they not kill that riptide, but that, in the following player turn, there would be dead librarians. Even if I brought AHRIMAN HIMSELF, not only would your riptide not die to the awesome psychic shriek spam, but I would have a dead Ahriman on my hands (to the tune of 230 points (or more, depending on what I put with him).

And then consider how much it would cost to take as many librarians as would be required to kill a riptide vs. how many points a riptide costs.

The ONLY way to kill a riptide is 1. teleporting grav centurions or 2. drop-pod grav cannons (and at that point, points-wise, I find myself asking: "Was it even worth it?").

Unless I take one of those two very specific things, your riptide is going to be able to jump around and shoot things with complete impunity.

For only 180 points. 220 if you pay for the upgrades.

Sure, in principle, lascannons and plasma weaponry might be able to deal with your riptide. But when you take into account range, feel no pain and invulns, it's not a very effective solution.

Literally only grav cannons provide an answer to your riptide. Out of an entire codex of options, I have literally one against your riptide.

Yes. That's the very definition of OP bull gak.

But as I said, if you want to play with OP bull gak, that's your prerogative.

Just don't expect people like me to play against you.

 Traditio wrote:
Literally only grav cannons provide an answer to your riptide. Out of an entire codex of options, I have literally one against your riptide.

Yes. That's the very definition of OP bull gak.

No, it's the definition of "if you want to kill MCs then you take your codex's anti-MC weapon". In this case that means grav. If you refuse to take grav then you have only yourself to blame for making the game unfair, and you should apologize to your opponent then change your list to a fairer one (with grav).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Literally only grav cannons provide an answer to your riptide. Out of an entire codex of options, I have literally one against your riptide.

Yes. That's the very definition of OP bull gak.

No, it's the definition of "if you want to kill MCs then you take your codex's anti-MC weapon". In this case that means grav. If you refuse to take grav then you have only yourself to blame for making the game unfair, and you should apologize to your opponent then change your list to a fairer one (with grav).

Peregrine:

When were MCs introduced into the game?

When were grav weapons introduced?

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Literally only grav cannons provide an answer to your riptide. Out of an entire codex of options, I have literally one against your riptide.

Yes. That's the very definition of OP bull gak.

No, it's the definition of "if you want to kill MCs then you take your codex's anti-MC weapon". In this case that means grav. If you refuse to take grav then you have only yourself to blame for making the game unfair, and you should apologize to your opponent then change your list to a fairer one (with grav).

Peregrine:

When were MCs introduced into the game?

When were grav weapons introduced?

The problems you have with MCs didn't really become a thing until 6th edition. The same edition Grav-cannons came out.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Fixed for you.

They don't. Free rhinos and razorbacks fall under that category when you take a battle company, but if you pay the 35 points for a rhino or the 55 points for a razorback, nobody considers them OP. Consider the fact that they generally weren't spammed in 6th edition.

Precisely. I did think it was considered obvious I was talking about the free variant, but if there was confusion, I do apologise.
Nevertheless, you admit - free transports are OP.

Did you know that there is a reason that Eldar, Tau AND Space Marines are regarded the best three armies in the meta? I wonder why that could be?
It surely wouldn't have anything to do with the:
Grav-guns (which kill Riptides well enough, and should be classed as the de-facto MC killing weapons instead of the outdated lascannon)

Free Transports

Accurate Deep Strike potential (to get that grav in the right place)

Ready access to Bikes (with sweet sweet grav)

A powerful psychic formation

One of the best beatstick HQ options

I agree. All of those things are OP. That doesn't make the riptide less OP.

True. But it's all still evidence that Marines have tools that can also deal with Riptides. If every army was built at the same tier as Marines and Tau, would there be imbalance? No, because they're all the same tier.

Immunity to practically an entire section of the rules (Morale)

That's really not accurate. ATSKNF isn't the same thing as fearless. My marines run off the table often enough. I'd much prefer fearless.

Hence, "practically".

I'd still take ATSKNF, but that's personal preference. And I'd rather have ATSKNF over nothing.

I mean, free tanks are so over powered. I know you like them, but if you REALLY liked them, you'd put them in a cabinet and never use them. Don't know about you, but I love using my £25 Razorback as a paperweight instead of actually using the model for it's intended purpose and playing a game with it.

Feth it. At this point, I'm willing to admit it. Free tanks are OP. Pretty much all of the formations are OP. We need to go back to CADs. Enough with formations. Enough with allied detachments. Enough with unbound. CAD UBER ALLES!

Formations are fine. No-one is complaining massively about the Starter Box formations. I know of no-one who has complained at the First Company Strikeforce, or the Emperor's Shield IG formation, or the Raptor Wing.
Fix the broken ones, like the full Battle Company.

Allies are fine. Removed the combinations that break the game, and allies work fine for narrative, spectacular games.

Unbound is fine. Remove all scoring units in Unbound lists, and problem solved. That's why most competitive lists are not Unbound.

 Traditio wrote:
Peregrine:

When were MCs introduced into the game?

When were grav weapons introduced?

What's your point? I don't care how things used to work in 2nd edition, this is 2016 and 7th edition. And in 7th edition grav is your anti-MC weapon. If you refuse to take grav then you are making the game unbalanced and unfair for any opponent who brings MCs.

TheCustomLime wrote:The problems you have with MCs didn't really become a thing until 6th edition. The same edition Grav-cannons came out.

Basically. It's not difficult to see what was going on.

GW: "Hey, have some juicy 2+ armor save, multiple wound monstrous creatures that are darned near impossible to kill, for the low, low, low price of $90 a pop...oh, and by the way, here's this weapon that specifically kills those things, that you can buy at a rate of 1 per box, at the low, low, low price of $50 a pop!"

The idea that it's somehow appropriate that grav weapons should be the only weapon that's effective at dealing with MCs is a ridiculous notion. It's an obvious cash grab on GW's part. They released one OP thing and another OP thing to deal with that other OP thing, and to hell with the "legacy" weapons and models that preceded them.

 Selym wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Nothing is afraid of lascannons and plasma cannons.

I am. My IG and CSM armies regularly get tabled by the end of turn 3 because of them. After tons of monetary investment, and waaaayy too many games, I have been unable to find anything in those codexes that helps me win a game.

I'm not even joking.

So does that mean lascannons and plasmacannons are op? HELL YES. I say we ban them.

As we all are aware of, CSM are in a bad place. I can understand that.
My AM have never had such a massive problem with lascannons, and plasma cannons are still hamstrung by the inability to snap-fire, the poor Blast rules, and Get's Hot!

What is it specifically about the lascannons and plasma cannons that are so bad for your AM?
(CSM do need a new codex though)

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Literally only grav cannons provide an answer to your riptide. Out of an entire codex of options, I have literally one against your riptide.

Yes. That's the very definition of OP bull gak.

No, it's the definition of "if you want to kill MCs then you take your codex's anti-MC weapon". In this case that means grav. If you refuse to take grav then you have only yourself to blame for making the game unfair, and you should apologize to your opponent then change your list to a fairer one (with grav).

Peregrine:

When were MCs introduced into the game?

When were grav weapons introduced?

MC's have been around for ages. The current issues with them are often mitigatable. And at this point, not taking your specific anti-MC weapons is like not bothering with AT weapons "because Land Raiders are op".

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Precisely. I did think it was considered obvious I was talking about the free variant, but if there was confusion, I do apologise.
Nevertheless, you admit - free transports are OP.

Relatively speaking. Against other formations and codex options, free transports are fine.

Abstractly considered, free transports are completely OP and should never have been a thing.

True. But it's all still evidence that Marines have tools that can also deal with Riptides. If every army was built at the same tier as Marines and Tau, would there be imbalance? No, because they're all the same tier.

External balance vs. internal balance.

Formations are fine. No-one is complaining massively about the Starter Box formations. I know of no-one who has complained at the First Company Strikeforce, or the Emperor's Shield IG formation, or the Raptor Wing.

I vehemently disagree. Formations have introduced a much greater degree of OP bull gak than existed previously. Unbound introduced a much greater degree of OP bull gak than existed previously. Allied detachments allowed more OP bull gak than existed previously.

CADs are fine. There's nothing wrong with the CAD. All of the units need to be internally and externally balanced, and everyone needs to run CADs. It's that simple. You want to run an allied detachment? Fine. Then bring a minimum of 1 HQ and 2 troop choices.

 Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:The problems you have with MCs didn't really become a thing until 6th edition. The same edition Grav-cannons came out.

Basically. It's not difficult to see what was going on.

GW: "Hey, have some juicy 2+ armor save, multiple wound monstrous creatures that are darned near impossible to kill, for the low, low, low price of $90 a pop...oh, and by the way, here's this weapon that specifically kills those things, that you can buy at a rate of 1 per box, at the low, low, low price of $50 a pop!"

The idea that it's somehow appropriate that grav weapons should be the only weapon that's effective at dealing with MCs is a ridiculous notion. It's an obvious cash grab on GW's part. They released one OP thing and another OP thing to deal with that other OP thing, and to hell with the "legacy" weapons and models that preceded them.

You can get two Grav-cannons in the Devastator box and it's only $46. But that's true of all marine heavy weapons except the Missile Launcher. If you wanted to kill an MC with Lascannons you'd end up paying the same amount.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Nothing is afraid of lascannons and plasma cannons.

I am. My IG and CSM armies regularly get tabled by the end of turn 3 because of them. After tons of monetary investment, and waaaayy too many games, I have been unable to find anything in those codexes that helps me win a game.

I'm not even joking.

So does that mean lascannons and plasmacannons are op? HELL YES. I say we ban them.

As we all are aware of, CSM are in a bad place. I can understand that.
My AM have never had such a massive problem with lascannons, and plasma cannons are still hamstrung by the inability to snap-fire, the poor Blast rules, and Get's Hot!

What is it specifically about the lascannons and plasma cannons that are so bad for your AM?
(CSM do need a new codex though)

At this point I don't even know. Something about lascannons always seems to have them kill my stuff waay too easily. Like, it's not even funny anymore.

A typical game turn goes like this:

Opponent fires three lascannons, three of my Russes explode.
Opponent fires Plasmacannon at IG Vets. IG vets take three casualties and fail morale. Fail to regroup and run off table.

My IG suck.

Selym wrote:Opponent fires three lascannons, three of my Russes explode.

Is your opponent cheating? Russes have front AV 14, no? Lascannons only pen on 6s.

Opponent fires Plasmacannon at IG Vets. IG vets take three casualties and fail morale. Fail to regroup and run off table.

Are your IG vets properly spaced?

Why aren't they in a dedicated transport?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheCustomLime wrote:You can get two Grav-cannons in the Devastator box and it's only $46. But that's true of all marine heavy weapons except the Missile Launcher. If you wanted to kill an MC with Lascannons you'd end up paying the same amount.

Lolno.

Presumably, their customers already had lascannons. Thus the reason they needed to sell those grav-cannons.

By the time I disembark my Vets, they usually aren't capable of good spacing, and the lascannons are across multiple opponents.

I played a few games with just myself to recreate the effect, and it was still getting silly results.

Bought new dice. Same again.

 Selym wrote:
By the time I disembark my Vets, they usually aren't capable of good spacing, and the lascannons are across multiple opponents.

I played a few games with just myself to recreate the effect, and it was still getting silly results.

Bought new dice. Same again.

Selym, I'm sorry to tell you this...

...

...

...but I think that dice might hate you.

Normally, I'm not superstitious.

But the dice legit might just not like you.

What you're describing is statistically extremely unlikely.

 Traditio wrote:

 Selym wrote:
By the time I disembark my Vets, they usually aren't capable of good spacing, and the lascannons are across multiple opponents.

I played a few games with just myself to recreate the effect, and it was still getting silly results.

Bought new dice. Same again.

Selym, I'm sorry to tell you this...

...

...

...but I think that dice might hate you.

Normally, I'm not superstitious.

But the dice legit might just not like you.

What you're describing is statistically extremely unlikely.

Yeah...

I fixed it by being BT though. EC shanks everything.

Selym wrote:I fixed it by being BT though. EC shanks everything.

Seriously, though, if what you are saying is true:

Weighted dice. Check your opponent's dice to see if they have lead in them.

The chances of 3 lascannons hitting and exploding 3 Leeman Russes, assuming marines firing at normal BS...

He'd have to roll 6s no less than 6 times in a single sitting.

The chances of that are 1/6 to the 6th power.

1/45,656

That's not even taking into account the TO HIT rolls.

Your opponent might be cheating. No joke.

He usually uses MY dice.

I'll admit, the three lascannon shots = 3 kills is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not uncommon for him to fire a number of shots you can count on one hand, and score 2 or more kills.

Nobody is forcing the OP to play an army that stomps his opponents. He very easily could play a different Necron army. He could even play the same Necron army, but say: "Hey, just so you know, this isn't a decurion. This is a CAD."

If he chooses to run a decurion, that's on him.

So just a little context, from memory I have run the Decurion twice, both times at the request of my opponent. I personally find the Decurion very restrictive and boring, plus it limits what you can do with the army. I've never ran an orikan star, ran the d/lord&wraith star once only when my mate asked to fight the cheesiest list I could make (this was against his AdMech). I have inadvertently made lists that had combos that turned out to be very strong, and I don't run them anymore. When I play the weaker armies I go out of my way to make less powerful lists and try out different things. Also I don't run formations (I ran a szerath/Anrakyr combo with a squad of buffed up immortals as the centrepiece of my army in a CAD for example).

So no Traditio, I don't run Decurion, or Death Stars, or min max when fighting nids/IG/orks. Don't get me wrong, I do do all of these things when I am power gaming against the stronger armies my mates have (tau, AdMech etc) but so are they in those games.

I'm not trying to have a "woe is me, it's getting boring stomping my friends constantly" post. I was just wondering if other people are in the same boat as I have been feeling lately. I feel bad fielding my necrons, even with sub optimal lists, against weaker armies. E.G I play against my mates tyranids. I have army wide FNP, 3+ armour saves on average, AV13 vehicles, gauss, lots of mobility, powerful shooting, solid CC abilities AP3-4 consistently (all without adding Relentless, MTC, formation bonuses and so on) as basic rules for my army. He has t-shirt saves on his troops, BS3, synapse headaches etc. the deck is stacked in my favour even when I make weaker lists because of the power difference in the codex's.

I see a lot of power gaming and competitive stuff on here. I also see people with lower teir codex's rightfully complain about the shortcomings and imbalances in their armies. I guess I just wanted to see if there was other people on the other side of the coin, not enjoying playing the stronger armies because of the imbalance.

Edited'd to add more context

So lemme get this right traditio, no one should have to include anything to ever deal with riptide or other MC/GMC? You shouldn't have to "list tailor"(despite including options to kill a riptide also being good at killing tons of other things), but the opponent should list tailor to your sub par list that refuses to change for any reason whatsoever to give you a chance?

(Also, are you saying in a 10kpt game, no one should bring a riptide? No one should be forced to spend points on something that can kill a riptide? That in 10000 points you literally would be so tight on points you couldnt get anything to deal with it? Really? Are you even listening to yourself?)

 Wolfblade wrote:
So lemme get this right traditio, no one should have to include anything to ever deal with riptide or other MC/GMC? You shouldn't have to "list tailor"(despite including options to kill a riptide also being good at killing tons of other things), but the opponent should list tailor to your sub par list that refuses to change for any reason whatsoever to give you a chance?

(Also, are you saying in a 10kpt game, no one should bring a riptide? No one should be forced to spend points on something that can kill a riptide? That in 10000 points you literally would be so tight on points you couldnt get anything to deal with it? Really? Are you even listening to yourself?)

If it has a 2+ armor save and a power fist, lascannon or plasma weapon cannot reliably kill it, it shouldn't exist in this game, and granted that it does, you shouldn't use it.

That is my position.

At any rate, you are trying to turn the tables on me by saying: "Oh, you shouldn't have to list tailor for us, but we should have to list tailor for you?"

No. I'm saying that nobody should field OP gak.

THOU SHALT NOT POWER GAME.

If you would be embarrassed to use it against a casual orks or CSM player, then you shouldn't field it. Period.

That's all that I'm saying.

I'm totally fine with admitting I'm wrong here. There's just nothing that seems to scream "They're unbeatable! Run for the hills!" when is comes to the Riptide.

Tough, cheap creatures are powerful. Totally uncontested. Unbeatable and unfair? I don't think so.

The thing is GW, especially JJ will argue that the game is about using the rules as a guideline.

Essentially, following the rules to the letter is wrong.
Min maxers are as wrong as someone hamstringing their list by not taking up codex options (Trad I'm looking at you here).

It is surprising, given the rules, that pick up and play is even possible.

I feel bad if your codex is lower tier, but GW gives not one gak.

Ne_Streets wrote:
I'm totally fine with admitting I'm wrong here. There's just nothing that seems to scream "They're unbeatable! Run for the hills!" when is comes to the Riptide.

Tough, cheap creatures are powerful. Totally uncontested. Unbeatable and unfair? I don't think so.

Playtesting over time, as evidenced by long-standing popular opinion, strongly indicate that riptides are unfairly points efficient and, in a word, OP.

Are they unbeatable? No.

Are they unfair? You bet. No question.

I understand that you'll want to disagree with me, given your Tau colored lenses, but, again, popular consensus agrees with me.

There is nothing wrong with power gaming, if both parties agree and are happy doing it. People do enjoy this, it's competitive and fun creating crazy cheese lists at times.

otherwise I 100% agree with you Traditio, if the armies aren't equal in power or it's just a casual game amongst friends, then power gaming is bad and shouldn't be done.

If it's a competition, go nuts and power game. If it's a Sunday arvo game with the lads around having a bit of banter, don't power game. But what I'm trying to say is that even when not trying to power game, I fee it isn't enjoyable for either party when the armies are on completely different power levels

Don't you yourself field a full battle company from time to time?

So, are you saying a aun'va is OP then? A powerfist or Lascannon has fairly bad chance of killing him. Also by what standard are we going with? A 1A marine with a powerfist not charging? A raging space sharks chapter master with 2 powerfists on the charge? How many lascannons/plasma weapons/attacks are we talking about? I would never expect one or two, or even 5 to reliably kill ANYTHING, not even a 10man marine squad in one round.

Also, didn't you say playing competitively is fine, just as playing for fun or the "spectacle" is too? (Aka the format where you can expect the most powerful gaming to be done)

If you're accusing me of tau colored lenses, then you're still looking at the game as if it was 5th edition. The time for lascannons/ PF sgts has long passed, sorry to break that to you. Times change and if you're unwilling to adapt you'll probably end up complaining about every other army.

Also, whether or not the "popular consensus" agrees with you, we're at the very least a strong minority, so you have to consider our opinion!

 Traditio wrote:
I understand that you'll want to disagree with me, given your Tau colored lenses, but, again, popular consensus agrees with me.

You're making up your own standard.

 Traditio wrote:
If it has a 2+ armor save and a power fist, lascannon or plasma weapon cannot reliably kill it, it shouldn't exist in this game, and granted that it does, you shouldn't use it.

IOW: "I refuse to use the appropriate counter for a unit, and if I can't kill it with these other random things you shouldn't use it".

THOU SHALT NOT POWER GAME.

And now we're back to "THOU SHALL NOT PLAY THE GAME IN WAYS THAT I DO NOT ENJOY".

If you would be embarrassed to use it against a casual orks or CSM player, then you shouldn't field it. Period.

If you would be embarrassed to use it against a competitive Tau or Eldar player, then you shouldn't field it. Period. Stop making the game unfair and unbalanced by bringing armies that can't compete with Riptides/Wraithknights/etc. That is, if fairness is really your concern and not your vendetta against competitive players.

 Traditio wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So lemme get this right traditio, no one should have to include anything to ever deal with riptide or other MC/GMC? You shouldn't have to "list tailor"(despite including options to kill a riptide also being good at killing tons of other things), but the opponent should list tailor to your sub par list that refuses to change for any reason whatsoever to give you a chance?

(Also, are you saying in a 10kpt game, no one should bring a riptide? No one should be forced to spend points on something that can kill a riptide? That in 10000 points you literally would be so tight on points you couldnt get anything to deal with it? Really? Are you even listening to yourself?)

If it has a 2+ armor save and a power fist, lascannon or plasma weapon cannot reliably kill it, it shouldn't exist in this game, and granted that it does, you shouldn't use it.

That is my position.

At any rate, you are trying to turn the tables on me by saying: "Oh, you shouldn't have to list tailor for us, but we should have to list tailor for you?"

No. I'm saying that nobody should field OP gak.

THOU SHALT NOT POWER GAME.

If you would be embarrassed to use it against a casual orks or CSM player, then you shouldn't field it. Period.

That's all that I'm saying.

I've had Riptides tarpitted and rendered useless by Orks. I've seen Riptides slaughtered by Daemon Princes. So no - I'd still take a Riptide in points-appropriate games against CSM and Orks. However, it should also be noted that both codexes should be brought up so they are no longer the measuring stick of badness.

Bringing a single Riptide is not power gaming at 10k points. If you genuinely think a single Riptide at those points is too far, I have nothing else to say.

Your point on "if a power fist, lascannon or plasma gun can't kill it, it's op" is an incorrect logic.
A power fist needs to get into CC, and largely depends on the wielder of the fist - an IG Sergeant or Space Marine Chapter Master?
Lascannons are single shot weapons that cannot ID T5 units.
Plasma guns need to be in 24 inches, and cannot ID T4 units.

All of these are outclassed by grav, which is the new metric by which we should measure from.

You are still demanding other players to tailor to your inability to adapt and embrace the new meta of the game.
You don't to change your list to deal with things that are now commonplace (formations, allies, Tau, Eldar). Why should someone tailor to you instead?

 Wolfblade wrote:
Don't you yourself field a full battle company from time to time?

I field a battle company and get free transports if and only if I know in advance that my opponent is fielding a formation.

And even then, we're talking about rhinos.

Let me repeat that:

Rhinos.

And only 6 of them.

When I field a CAD (which is normally), do you know what changes?

I drop a couple of melta bombs and a captain and chaplain that I didn't want in the first place.

At any rate, you want me to make a poll of this?

"Which do you find more threatening or unfair? Free rhinos or riptides?"

So, are you saying a aun'va is OP then? A powerfist or Lascannon has fairly bad chance of killing him.

Pedro Kantor is a 185 point model with a 2+ armor save, 4+ invuln and a 5+ feel no pain. A single wound from a power fist will one shot him.

Do tell me about this aun'va of yours.

Also, didn't you say playing competitively is fine, just as playing for fun or the "spectacle" is too? (Aka the format where you can expect the most powerful gaming to be done)

Yes. If you are going to a grand tournament, then by all means, bring the riptide wing. Bring a storm surge. Cheese like it's going out of style.

Everyone else is going to be doing the exact same thing.

If you're playing a casual game against a random opponent, shame on you if you dare to place even a single riptide on the table.

"DISHONOR! Dishonor on you. Dishonor on your family. Dishonor on your cow!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:All of these are outclassed by grav, which is the new metric by which we should measure from.\

Or maybe, just maybe, grav is yet more OP bullgak that should be avoided in casual games.

Just a thought. If it outclasses all other comparable shooting, then maybe that's a flaw in game design.

You don't to change your list to deal with things that are now commonplace (formations, allies, Tau, Eldar). Why should someone tailor to you instead?

I'm sure that there are a ton of people like me who want to play the armies that we actually want to play and don't like the codex/power creep which began in 6th edition.

This is evidenced by the drop in revenue for GW once 6th edition dropped.

Why should you avoid OP gak? Because the more people like you play OP gak, the less likely people like me are to bother with this game, and the less likely you are to get a casual game.

 Stormonu wrote:

Oh, so blame the players and not the game? Fiiiiiiine. Guess we won't see any more Tau or Eldar threads from you, huh?

Was that from the guy who claimed you CANNOT make non-cheesy list from eldar or did I mix him with another eldar whiner?

Yea but where do you draw the line Traditio? Wraith knights? Imperial Knights? D weapons? Anything that can stomp? Grav? Formations? Free/extra points? Lords of war?

Aun'VA has anot item that gives him an invul/cover save (forget which) that equal to the AP of the weapon that's shooting at him. Good luck killing him with that lascannon. Bolters or shootas however...

In my casual games people can deal with a riptide because they've adapted their armies. Go figure.

As for a poll, we all know they're meaningless. And you'd skew the vote options to be in your favor ("what's more OP a rhino or an IA riptide?")

Also, are you mad at the IA, or the riptide? HBC riptides aren't scary in anyway honestly.

Still have to consider my opinion right? We're a strong minority!

Klowny wrote:
Yea but where do you draw the line Traditio? Wraith knights? Imperial Knights? D weapons? Anything that can stomp? Grav? Formations? Free/extra points? Lords of war?

None. No shenanigans. Not even a single bit.

I've said this before, and I'll say it now:

If it's an "optional" auto-take, don't you dare.

If you so much as smile when you contemplate running it, re-think it, and chances are, you should pick something else.

No. Shenanigans.

Build something that actually looks like an army. No fewer than 50 models at 1850 points. And no "auto-takes." No superheavies. No gargantuan monstrous creatures. No grav. None of it. And it had all better come in CAD form, for feth's sake.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Aun'VA has anot item that gives him an invul/cover save (forget which) that equal to the AP of the weapon that's shooting at him.

Yes. Don't run him. Run something else that doesn't involve shenanigans.

 Traditio wrote:
At any rate, you want me to make a poll of this?

"Which do you find more threatening or unfair? Free rhinos or riptides?"

The Rhinos. Riptides are 180 points each, compared to 350+ points worth of free Rhinos/Razorbacks/pods. So for the Riptide to be more threatening you'd have to argue that the "fair" cost for the Riptide is 500+ points, which is absolutely absurd. A player who brings hundreds of points worth of free transports is getting way more "extra" points worth of stuff than a Tau player who brings a single Riptide.

Do tell me about this aun'va of yours.

He gets a save equal to the AP of the weapon, which makes him really durable against AP 2 weapons. However, he's a pretty weak unit except for the save gimmick and sees very little use. But he does rather effectively disprove your idea that a unit is overpowered if plasma/power fists/etc can't kill it easily.

If you're playing a casual game against a random opponent, shame on you if you dare to place even a single riptide on the table.

Why are you assuming that a game against a random opponent is "casual"? Shouldn't the definition of "random" imply that the opponent could be casual, competitive, or any other style of play?

Just a thought. If it outclasses all other comparable shooting, then maybe that's a flaw in game design.

Grav outclasses all other comparable shooting against this kind of unit. Have fun bringing grav spam against a green tide army. Complaining about how grav is the best anti-MC weapon makes about as much sense as calling it a flaw in game design that melta is the best option against AV 14.

I'm sure that there are a ton of people like me who want to play the armies that we actually want to play and don't like the codex/power creep which began in 6th edition.

I see, so now you've abandoned the idea of "fairness" and revealed your true reason: you don't want to have to change the army you've been playing with, even if it makes the game unbalanced and unfair when you bring it.

Why should you avoid OP gak? Because the more people like you play OP gak, the less likely people like me are to bother with this game, and the less likely you are to get a casual game.

Alternatively, once we remove you (and people like you) from the community the rest of us can play casual games with our "overpowered" armies without any fairness issues at all.

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:
Yea but where do you draw the line Traditio? Wraith knights? Imperial Knights? D weapons? Anything that can stomp? Grav? Formations? Free/extra points? Lords of war?

None. No shenanigans. Not even a single bit.

I've said this before, and I'll say it now:

If it's an "optional" auto-take, don't you dare.

If you so much as smile when you contemplate running it, re-think it, and chances are, you should pick something else.

No. Shenanigans.

Build something that actually looks like an army. No fewer than 50 models at 1850 points. And no "auto-takes." No superheavies. No gargantuan monstrous creatures. No grav. None of it. And it had all better come in CAD form, for feth's sake.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Aun'VA has anot item that gives him an invul/cover save (forget which) that equal to the AP of the weapon that's shooting at him.

Yes. Don't run him. Run something else that doesn't involve shenanigans.

shenanigans
ʃɪˈnanɪɡ(ə)nz/
noun/informal
secret or dishonest activity or manoeuvring.
"the chairman was accused of financial shenanigans"
silly or high-spirited behaviour; mischief.

How is a riptide dishonest? We know everything about them. A quick lookie on Dakka will give you the mathammer on it. It's really not difficult to make a list that can handle it out of a codex that GW didn't gak on.

No quantum shielding? No RP? No special wargear of any kind? No c'tan Deciever? No tervigons? No GK turn 1 deep strike? No flyrants? No lukky stik? No psychic powers that can move terrain/make av15 land raiders?

Klowny wrote:
No quantum shielding? No RP? No special wargear of any kind? No c'tan Deciever? No tervigons? No GK turn 1 deep strike? No flyrants? No lukky stik? No psychic powers that can move terrain/make av15 land raiders?

Not a single one.

Get 50-100 dudes. Give them guns. Put them in the tanks of your choice. And call it a day.

Cover is a part of the game. I call shenanigans if it is made redundant.

BAN ALL FLAMERS.

 Traditio wrote:
If you so much as smile when you contemplate running it, re-think it, and chances are, you should pick something else.

Ah yes, the classic "40K IS NOT MEANT TO BE FUN. IF YOU ENJOY BUILDING YOUR ARMY YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. MISERY FOR ALL" argument. Thank god most of us don't actually play the game that way.

Build something that actually looks like an army. No fewer than 50 models at 1850 points. And no "auto-takes."

IOW "build something that looks like Traditio's army". My IG armored company has way less than 50 models at 1850 points, and yet it looks exactly like a fluffy army should.

No superheavies.

Ah yes, because that Malcador is just too terrifying to face. Do we have to repeat the entire conversation we had about how blanket bans on LoW are bad, or can we just skip to the conclusion where you admit that you were wrong?

Yes. Don't run him. Run something else that doesn't involve shenanigans.

Well, you're certainly demonstrating your ignorance of the Tau here. Aun'va is a bad unit, if you're calling it such "shenanigans" that you should be banned from taking him then you really don't understand how the game works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Not a single one.

Get 50-100 dudes. Give them guns. Call it a day.

Thank god the rest of us don't play your boring as hell stripped-down version of 40k where everyone lines up a bunch of tactical marines and rolls dice until one side is defeated.

Wait, did you GENUINELY just call Aun'Va OP? I'm actually speechless.

Your moaning about Kantor is not warranted. ID is part of the game. Nearly EVER Space Marine character can be Insta-killed. Sicarius. Tigurius. Hell, I could make one more expensive than Kantor, and would still die like that.
Chapter Master with Thunder Hammer, Armour Indomitus, power fist, digital weapons. More expensive, but he'll die just as easily.
This is universal of most special characters across all codices. No EW means you pay a lot of points for something that dies just as easy. Instead of moaning about Kantor, consider what IG players feel about Creed or their other characters?
RIP Special Characters.

A tervigon has free unit shenanigans, yet Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would get mad if they fought against one. KDK are built on shenanigans, don't take them as an army?

Double post.

And we've returned to the realm of "shenanigans".
This is completely subjective - shenanigans are not universal.

Klowny wrote:
A tervigon has free unit shenanigans, yet Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would get mad if they fought against one. KDK are built on shenanigans, don't take them as an army?

NONE!

NO SHENANIGANS!

If the ENTIRE CODEX is shenanigans, then buy another codex.

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:
A tervigon has free unit shenanigans, yet Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would get mad if they fought against one. KDK are built on shenanigans, don't take them as an army?

NONE!

NO SHENANIGANS!

If the ENTIRE CODEX is shenanigans, then buy another codex.

Make a list of what you consider to be shenanigans, or your argument is pointless yelling.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes. Don't run him. Run something else that doesn't involve shenanigans.

Well, you're certainly demonstrating your ignorance of the Tau here. Aun'va is a bad unit, if you're calling it such "shenanigans" that you should be banned from taking him then you really don't understand how the game works.

Aun'va isn't bad, per se, but he's certainly not good and absolutely not good for his stupid shield. His "invoke all the things that can't be denied" is what makes him decent, as is his ld bubble.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is completely subjective - shenanigans are not universal.

Nah, it's entirely objective:

Shenanigans (noun): any 40k army that does not consist of a captain and a bunch of tactical squads in Rhinos, just like Traditio's army.

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:
No quantum shielding? No RP? No special wargear of any kind? No c'tan Deciever? No tervigons? No GK turn 1 deep strike? No flyrants? No lukky stik? No psychic powers that can move terrain/make av15 land raiders?

Not a single one.

Get 50-100 dudes. Give them guns. Put them in the tanks of your choice. And call it a day.

Because absolutely nothing can be fun or unique in any way, and shame on you if you want to play anything but Guard on Guard mirror matches all day. Quit your bitching.

So don't play necrons, any psychic army, any army with special rules, tyranids, orks, KDK space marines of any kind, imperial guard, eldar, dark eldar, tau, CSM, demons, AdMech or any W40K army at all?

Ne_Streets wrote:Aun'va isn't bad, per se, but he's certainly not good and absolutely not good for his stupid shield. His "invoke all the things that can't be denied" is what makes him decent, as is his ld bubble.

Given LOS shenanigans? I can absolutely see Aun'va being a complete pain in the bung hole. AP 4 or worse? Ok. 3+ save.

Oh dear, AP 1 or 2? LOS! Ok. Aun'va takes that. 2+ invuln.

I can imagine all kinds of shenanigans being used here.

Cheers for completely derailing this thread BTW dude. I hope you had a fun time

Guys can we stop feeding the troll now?

Chapter tactics are free silly bs that grants undeserved stuff to an army.

Psychic powers are unpredictable af, and while some ore okay, others are op af. So none of those as you can't ensure that you don't bring op powers.

Flyers can only be effectivley countered with one class of weapon, and Lascannons, Plasmacannons and Powerfists are hard-pressed or unable to kill them. No flyers or FMC's or FGMC's.

I honestly can't tell if he's being serious anymore.

He probably is. This tallies with previous posts.

Also: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/697130.page

 Traditio wrote:
I can imagine all kinds of shenanigans being used here.

So what? Who cares if Aun'va is a little harder to kill than some infantry units? Do you actually have a balance argument against this, or just crippling anxiety about the thought of your opponent doing something more than rolling an armor save just like your tactical marines, no matter how weak or strong the ability actually is?

(You are aware that Aun'va is not an IC, right? And therefore can't join any unit besides his melee bodyguards?)

 Selym wrote:
Chapter tactics are free silly bs that grants undeserved stuff to an army.

Psychic powers are unpredictable af, and while some ore okay, others are op af. So none of those as you can't ensure that you don't bring op powers.

Flyers can only be effectivley countered with one class of weapon, and Lascannons, Plasmacannons and Powerfists are hard-pressed or unable to kill them. No flyers or FMC's or FGMC's.

With the exception of chapter tactics (they're not really free; 14 ppm and all), I think you fully understand my intent!

The exception to this being psychic powers: if you pick the non-OP primaris powers, it's all good in my book.

Let's get WWI up in this bazizzle.

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:Aun'va isn't bad, per se, but he's certainly not good and absolutely not good for his stupid shield. His "invoke all the things that can't be denied" is what makes him decent, as is his ld bubble.

Given LOS shenanigans? I can absolutely see Aun'va being a complete pain in the bung hole. AP 4 or worse? Ok. 3+ save.

Oh dear, AP 1 or 2? LOS! Ok. Aun'va takes that. 2+ invuln.

I can imagine all kinds of shenanigans being used here.

What is the point of that? Why would you shoot that unit if you were competent in any way? It poses no threat to you.

 Traditio wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Chapter tactics are free silly bs that grants undeserved stuff to an army.

Psychic powers are unpredictable af, and while some ore okay, others are op af. So none of those as you can't ensure that you don't bring op powers.

Flyers can only be effectivley countered with one class of weapon, and Lascannons, Plasmacannons and Powerfists are hard-pressed or unable to kill them. No flyers or FMC's or FGMC's.

With the exception of chapter tactics (they're not really free; 14 ppm and all), I think you fully understand my intent!

The exception to this being psychic powers: if you pick the non-OP primaris powers, it's all good in my book.

Let's get WWI up in this bazizzle.

This is not WWI. If you want a game with 50 dudes with guns in tanks, play Bolt Action.

 Traditio wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Chapter tactics are free silly bs that grants undeserved stuff to an army.

Psychic powers are unpredictable af, and while some ore okay, others are op af. So none of those as you can't ensure that you don't bring op powers.

Flyers can only be effectivley countered with one class of weapon, and Lascannons, Plasmacannons and Powerfists are hard-pressed or unable to kill them. No flyers or FMC's or FGMC's.

With the exception of chapter tactics (they're not really free; 14 ppm and all), I think you fully understand my intent!

The exception to this being psychic powers: if you pick the non-OP primaris powers, it's all good in my book.

Let's get WWI up in this bazizzle.

Lemme guess, you also think that IG and CSm shouldn't have a CT equivalent?

Due to having different prices?

And, your restrictions are silly. If both players agree on the lists, or if they both want to be competitive, or if they have ready counters tothe opposing units in their codex, there really shouldn't be an issue.

 Verviedi wrote:
What is the point of that? Why would you shoot that unit if you were competent in any way? It poses no threat to you.

Clearly the thought of Tau killing his poor tactical squads with swords is just so utterly terrifying that he has to throw every AP 2 shot at Aun'va, regardless of how effective it is. And you know that his lascannons and power fists have to be able to kill everything, so you for taking shenanigans and keeping Aun'va alive.

shenanigans shenanigans shenanigans...

I don't think there is much point shouting over the internet about what exactly causes such huge imbalances across the codices; this whole "shenanigans" crap is such a subjective and pointless waste of breath.

The game is unbalanced 100% - there isn't much you can do about it other than leaving and finding something else that will be fun for you. That's what I did, and now I see why; people argue about this day in, day out. But it's like a microwave - all very heated but only going round in circles.

What you shouldn't do is tell other people how to play the game. It's everyone's individual decision, to play the game or not and what to run in their lists (if it's legal). Saying ridiculous things like "Get 50-100 dudes. Give them guns. Put them in the tanks of your choice. And call it a day." is just a demeaning argument that isn't really an argument at all.

I wasn't happy about leaving 40K because I used to love playing it, but I took my bags and left for the better of everyone; I no longer got frustrated at unbalanced games and people stopped hearing me whine about it. I'd recommend you do the same if you feel so passionately about it.

G.A

Selym wrote:Lemme guess, you also think that IG and CSm shouldn't have a CT equivalent?

Review my posting history. You'll find me claiming, for the longest time, that CSM should cost 14 ppm and have chapter tactics.

I fail to see why a 5 ppm guardsmen should have them, especially given the fact that they already have orders.

 Verviedi wrote:
This is not WWI. If you want a game with 50 dudes with guns in tanks, play Bolt Action.

Exactly. I play 40k for the tanks, aircraft, etc. If I wanted giant blocks of basic infantry marching towards each other I'd play WHFB.