So this was spawned by a discussion about statistics in another thread but I wanted to make a larger thread about it.

Is listbuilding and army choice a part of the game?

For example, if you have two players who are equally skilled on the tabletop but one of them is better at building lists, then the player who is better at building lists will win the game, surely? Listbuilding is a player skill that affects the game, and so having a better list means you're a better player (provided we accept the competitive hypothesis that winning = better player, that's important to note!).

It does mean that if lists were swapped then the other player would win - after all, their skill is equal, so all that's determining outcome is the list.

Now if we zoom out one more step, army choice affects the list options one has: e.g. I want to play mono- Ordo Hereticus Inquisition. This means that I will not likely win a tournament, even if I am 100% the best listbuilder ever and 100% the best player ever, simply because the faction lacks options.

I recognize that there are many many many many factors that go into army choice (aesthetics, narrative (in my case), money, emotional investement, etc etc.) that are divorced from the purely competitive element, but if we're abstracting enough...

... wouldn't a player's choice of army be part of "player skill at Warhammer" all other things being equal?

(This is part of the reason I believe I am not a good warhamer player (well, that and I'm also not good at listbuilding or playing!): My army choices, even when I decide to start a new project, are almost always sub-par.)

By the rulebook's definition; it's part of Matched Play and thus a relevant part of the skills involved in the competition mind set.

I certainly know a number of players who bought factions to win, and sell them, more than once on the spot, when they lose effectiveness at the standard competition point grade.

It's part of the hobby, and in a big way keeps the second hand market well stocked

List building absolutely. Army choice? It shouldn't be, but it is also a huge factor.

Obviously, yes.

Edit. Listbuilding yes.

Army selection, somewhat.

List building? Yes. You should know the strong points of your army and the weak ones, and by this I don't mean "Spam the OP units and avoit the useless ones", but "Tau are a shooting army, you should try to make that your strategy at the same time that you try to play around your weakness like fragility and meele with Alien Auxiliaries"
Should the player with the better list win if both players have the same skill set? It doesn't has too. Is not a black or white situation. Having a better list, with a better strategy in mind, vs a opponent with a similar skill could give you a 10-15% advantage in the probability of winning, making the 50-50 a 60-40 for example.

Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

Thats right. Theres a reason TIER's exist in EVERY competitive game. Heck, even in real life games like F1 or Golf not everyone competes in the same conditions. Do you believe F1's cars of the Ferrari team are the same as others? No, they are normally better.

Theres a reason why Fox was used in 78% of the Smash Bros Meele Tournaments.
But we should try to reach the point where a player, by pure skill, can win with a less powerfull faction. But in tournaments people will always want the smaller advantage possible, because when you are playing agaisn't the "pros", a 2% can be the difference between being first or second.

Thats why I don't play to win. With how expensive, time consuming, etc... are Warhammer armies to make, I have 0 interest in changing them. Playing other games like MOBA's I just have to change the hero if it sucks. It cost me like 10.000 gold or the random ingame currency they are using, and 0 time.

Emphasis on listbuilding over playbooks is a sign the actual game itself has limited options. Listbuilding should matter to some extent, but it shouldn't be the most emphasized option.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

Thats right. Theres a reason TIER's exist in EVERY competitive game. Heck, even in real life games like F1 or Golf not everyone competes in the same conditions. Do you believe F1's cars of the Ferrari team are the same as others? No, they are normally better.

Theres a reason why Fox was used in 78% of the Smash Bros Meele Tournaments.
But we should try to reach the point where a player, by pure skill, can win with a less powerfull faction. But in tournaments people will always want the smaller advantage possible, because when you are playing agaisn't the "pros", a 2% can be the difference between being first or second.

Thats why I don't play to win. With how expensive, time consuming, etc... are Warhammer armies to make, I have 0 interest in changing them. Playing other games like MOBA's I just have to change the hero if it sucks. It cost me like 10.000 gold or the random ingame currency they are using, and 0 time.

This is my conclusion, essentially, as well - questioning the wisdom of players who are play to win but don't seek every advantage.

One could make the argument that if you're not willing to hop armies to the most powerful, then you're not a very competitive player, because you're throwing away an advantage (not that it's easy, mind you! Buying and painting a whole new army in a month is way more than I would ever consider!)

Doesn't this also put the kabosh to tournament results determining how good a faction is? Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?

As it stands now, yes it is an intrinsic part of the game.

Ideally, no, it would be a far smaller part of the game.

However, even games with better balance (many historical wargames) can be skewed and destroyed if players willfully screw themselves over with list composition. Playing a game set in WW2 for instance, you could arbitrarily take nothing but infantry units and machine gun teams - fail to equip them with any anti-tank weapons and you could then run into an armored company and struggle to win a game.

I do wish there was a more historical-wargame-esque full narrative version of 40K (I play it that way anyway, but I'd be fine with a separate product).

Yes, but IMHO it shouldn't be. Not to the extreme it is in 40k (or even AOS) where huge swathes of the codex are not worth taking because something else is objectively better.

I preferred how Warmahordes did list building; it was still a part of the game, and there were still a handful of things that just didn't work (however their CID open beta testing was meant to help that), but for MOST things you could find ways to synergize and make them work at least decently, instead of being "Why would you ever take this?". In 40k though, if you want to be "good" then not only is listbuilding probably the most important skill in the game, but also it makes it so there are only few actual choices to be made in the listbilding process.

"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

And in list-building as others have said you can be screwed if you go full rocks. I remember a Heroes of the Storm game where we played literally with 5 invisible assasin's and the other team has the ONLY hero on the game that can reveal invisible heroes every 15s in a gigant area, on a map with neutral units that you can capture that reveal invisible heroes too. We were hard countered because we were playing a "spam" hero composition. We did get totally destroyed.

 Overread wrote:
"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

I understand all of what you're saying - so what is an "unfair" level of balance? Is the disparity between mono-Imperial Guard and mono-Inquisition fair? I believe so, as the Inquisition player (and a Guard player, full disclosure) because the Inquisition, in the narrative, is suppose to soup from other forces and the Imperial Guard is not.

And yes, I agree about the "who is a competitive person" comment. I'm not a competitive person, and I admit that. But I think it is funny that so many "not competitive" people care so much about competition - e.g. some users on this forum, who apparently lose constantly and are upset by this, but refuse to take the necessary improvements in player skill to do it, including playing a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Wouldn't part of "player skill" be identifying that this army of amazing doomcultists was the best army, and switching over to play it?

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Wayniac wrote:
I preferred how Warmahordes did list building; it was still a part of the game, and there were still a handful of things that just didn't work (however their CID open beta testing was meant to help that), but for MOST things you could find ways to synergize and make them work at least decently, instead of being "Why would you ever take this?". In 40k though, if you want to be "good" then not only is listbuilding probably the most important skill in the game, but also it makes it so there are only few actual choices to be made in the listbilding process.

Warmachine explicitly spells out many of its synergies for you, where the fact some of the stated synergies explictly don't work led to the term Skornergy.

The main advantage WMH has (whether or not it still has this in Mk 3 is debatable) over 40k is the emphasis on positional play, or options. A Warnoun can Slam or Headbutt just by being big, or can Trample if Heavy. Open Fists allow for Arm Locks or Throws, which can be used to nullify your opponent's weapons/shields, or to chuck troublesome solos towards your own army to finish the job.

The fact you can attack your own models also allows for additional shenanigans, be it slamming your models backfield to auto-KD hi-defense models in front, arm-locking your own jacks to prevent them from being Pushed off a control-point, or throwing your own "Explode on Death" solos as makeshift grenades.

The introduction of Colossals, and the subsequent increase in "no-sell" casters has arguably done a fair bit to weaken this type of play, in favor of gunline attrition.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Emphasis on listbuilding over playbooks is a sign the actual game itself has limited options. Listbuilding should matter to some extent, but it shouldn't be the most emphasized option.

List building should really mean just making sure your list has the right tools to deal with an opponent. It shouldn't mean excluding 85% of your choices because they aren't optimal.

Or excluding 100% if we are talking BA-specific units, lol.

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Overread wrote:
"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

I understand all of what you're saying - so what is an "unfair" level of balance? Is the disparity between mono-Imperial Guard and mono-Inquisition fair? I believe so, as the Inquisition player (and a Guard player, full disclosure) because the Inquisition, in the narrative, is suppose to soup from other forces and the Imperial Guard is not.

And yes, I agree about the "who is a competitive person" comment. I'm not a competitive person, and I admit that. But I think it is funny that so many "not competitive" people care so much about competition - e.g. some users on this forum, who apparently lose constantly and are upset by this, but refuse to take the necessary improvements in player skill to do it, including playing a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Wouldn't part of "player skill" be identifying that this army of amazing doomcultists was the best army, and switching over to play it?

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Martel732 wrote:40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

I disagree with this point, actually, mostly because narrative is "what you make of it." Some people saying 5 Space Marines smashing an entire army is narrative and fluffy, others say that 5 Space Marines should be defeated by one Imperial Guard colonel, and both happen in the books. So I think there's space in the narrative for the events that happen in the tabletop to fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

 Galas wrote:

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Are you talking about two different games now, though?

It sounds like your "narrative" game is drastically different from your "matched play" game - different enough that it deserves its own rulebook and perhaps version of the codex.

Yeah. I believe the "three ways to play" should have much more effort than "Ey guys here you have some random campaing rules!".

They could make Narrative and Matched their own kind of game with their own feeling. But being this the GW we know, Narrative could be better as the "dumper" where they put all those faction-specific bonuses that are totally inbalanced and by existing make some factions impossible to balance (Like GK)

And about the Mono-Inquisition vs Mono-IG: As they are now, they can't be balanced because Inquisition has no options. The ideal scenario would be to expand Inquisition with more options to make them viable as their own army: Servitors, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, special Inquisitorial Vehicles, Xenos Retinues, Kroot mercenaries, Inquisitors in Terminator and Power Armour, etc, etc...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

It depends on what one defines as balance. I personally prefer a "flexible" engine where you can do unorthodox things with the rules. I was actually reading an old Fanatic Magazine article the other day about adding more action-types for Necromunda, be it flamers being allowed to start fires, being able to prime grenades with a delayed fuse (so they explode at the end of your *next* turn), taunting enemy gangers, dragging objects (whether a crate or another Ganger) while moving backwards, attempting a "jury-rigged reload" (putting a lighter under your lasgun), or "emptying your weapon" (aka full dakkadakkadakka, but automatically fail your ammo check).

(The article is here, for those interested: http://www.specialist-arms.com/fanatic/81sa.pdf )

You know, allowing more nuance beyond "I move and shoot." Even if those specific options wouldn't apply at 40k-scale, the same principal applies.

Martel732 wrote:
40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

You need to forge the narative harder man. When your marines get wiped in a single round of shooting come in like this....BUT THE BULLETS ALL BOUNCED OFF THE MIGHTY POWER ARMOR and the sargent burned the entire heretical cultist horde with a single pass - then in a single bound with his jump pack he stood face to face with the aspiring champion on korne. That's how you forge the narrative dude. Ignore the games rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

I disagree with this point, actually, mostly because narrative is "what you make of it." Some people saying 5 Space Marines smashing an entire army is narrative and fluffy, others say that 5 Space Marines should be defeated by one Imperial Guard colonel, and both happen in the books. So I think there's space in the narrative for the events that happen in the tabletop to fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

 Galas wrote:

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Are you talking about two different games now, though?

It sounds like your "narrative" game is drastically different from your "matched play" game - different enough that it deserves its own rulebook and perhaps version of the codex.

Not everyone has time to switch, then build, then paint.

Plus you got people who won't switch out of principle. That's how you end up with the few people that get lucky on occasion. Did you know in 6th/7th, there was a topping list at one point that used 3 9-man squads of Rubric Marines and Ahriman? Nobody used it as proof that Rubric Marines were good, and like I predicted it fell to the side as just one of those odd things that happen on occasion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

Is the Samurai Master that spend his last years on the forest less competitive that the young and brave Samurai that doesn't even know what the pointy side of a katana is but is willing to have a fight with anyone?

A true competitive gamer knows that not every competition is worth it.

Right, not everyone has time to switch, build and paint.

They have other priorities, and that's okay - because winning at 40k has exactly as much priority as you give it. It's a hobby!

But, my question is: why do people (like me!) who make it less of a priority get upset when people who make it a much higher priority beat the tar out of them?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

It depends on what one defines as balance. I personally prefer a "flexible" engine where you can do unorthodox things with the rules. I was actually reading an old Fanatic Magazine article the other day about adding more action-types for Necromunda, be it flamers being allowed to start fires, being able to prime grenades with a delayed fuse (so they explode at the end of your *next* turn), taunting enemy gangers, dragging objects (whether a crate or another Ganger) while moving backwards, attempting a "jury-rigged reload" (putting a lighter under your lasgun), or "emptying your weapon" (aka full dakkadakkadakka, but automatically fail your ammo check).

(The article is here, for those interested: http://www.specialist-arms.com/fanatic/81sa.pdf )

You know, allowing more nuance beyond "I move and shoot." Even if those specific options wouldn't apply at 40k-scale, the same principal applies.

I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

Is the Samurai Master that spend his last years on the forest less competitive that the young and brave Samurai that doesn't even know what the pointy side of a katana is but is willing to have a fight with anyone?

A true competitive gamer knows that not every competition is worth it.

Yes, I see your point, and it's a good one.

We can move the discussion away from that, then, to "why do people get upset when they get beaten by a stronger army, if they aren't competitive enough to play the stronger army themselves?"

You're not serious are you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not serious are you?

No, this is a discussion forum. I'm just stirring the pot with discussion.

I played armoured company since 3rd, and lost every game of 5th (actually, no, that's a lie. I'm sure I had some wins and draws, but since I was unable to score on objectives ever, I lost probably in excess of 70% of my games!) and a ton of games in 6th and 7th, and I was fine with my army and never once talked about balance unless I was asked my opinion.

So I am trying to get at why that sweet spot doesn't seem to exist for others.

People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

The most competitive players are surely hopping from faction to faction for advantage, yeah. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about this as "skill", though, at least in most cases. The obstacle here are mainly money and time and willingness to play a faction you just don't enjoy very much -- it's not like faction-hoppers are the only ones who have figured out that you can do this to gain an advantage.

But sometimes there's quite a bit of skill involved. Any game with a meta, like 40k, is going to create opportunities for players to try to predict the meta and counter-pick. I don't know if this is still true, but at one point we were seeing some Imperium armies with significant numbers of GKs doing pretty well. Most people didn't really see that coming. What happened here is that a couple players realized that the relative strength of lists using many daemons would mean that the GK special rules would come in handy in a large number of the hardest matches. That was clever.

I think what many people who would consider themselves fairly competitive want is for there to be lots of viable factions, with each having lots of viable lists. They then want to feel like they're exercising skill in list construction, by finding non-obvious combinations of units which produce powerful overall lists, and skill in actually playing the game with that list and against other lists.

But of course this is somewhat arbitrary. It's a game. All games are arbitrary in terms of what sorts of things you're supposed to be able to do to gain an advantage and what sorts of things you shouldn't be willing/allowed to do. In many sports you're supposed to go to great lengths preparing for games. You should study the opposing team, you should train hard, etc. But for some reason it's frowned on to bribe the referee. There is certainly an element of skill involved in doing this and not getting caught. Likewise using PEDs. But most people would not consider these skills to be part of being good at the sport. We make these distinctions on the basis of what we think will produce the best game.

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?

"Every" scenario may be a bit of a stretch, but making the game operate as a fairly unified set of rules rather than having numerous bespoke bolt-ons would definitely help in that regard. I know "emergent gameplay" is a buzzword but when you can put a few *core* moving parts into a greater battleplan, then that adds even more of a sense of accomplishment than "my list was better."

Breath of the Wild is arguably the best recent example. A wide open world, without the degree of bugginess that plagues Bethesda games, where you aren't locked into the old Zelda trap of "use the treasure in the Dungeon to solve all the puzzles and slay the boss of said Dungeon," where things like shield+bomb+glider=liftoff, etc.

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

You pretty much said what I was about to, except I was gonna use golf as my example due to it being more...expensive.

MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?

"Every" scenario may be a bit of a stretch, but making the game operate as a fairly unified set of rules rather than having numerous bespoke bolt-ons would definitely help in that regard. I know "emergent gameplay" is a buzzword but when you can put a few *core* moving parts into a greater battleplan, then that adds even more of a sense of accomplishment than "my list was better."

That's a good point, and probably would be a more engaging and better designed game than 40k is!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

You pretty much said what I was about to, except I was gonna use golf as my example due to it being more...expensive.

Presumably, both in golf and in 40k, what army you play / clubs and balls you pick is one of your "actions" that lost you the game?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

Yes, which is why I always say you should pick a faction based on something other than competitiveness, because competitiveness changes. But if you are picking a faction based on factors other than "I want to win!" then why does winning matter so much? Or, I should say, why does "having fun" with your chosen faction depend on how badly it gets beaten on the tabletop?

So basically you're saying "Too bad, wait your turn and maybe you can compete. Maybe".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

Yes, which is why I always say you should pick a faction based on something other than competitiveness, because competitiveness changes. But if you are picking a faction based on factors other than "I want to win!" then why does winning matter so much? Or, I should say, why does "having fun" with your chosen faction depend on how badly it gets beaten on the tabletop?

I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.
As I said before, one can argue about a player that switch factions every six months to the new hotness is more competitive. But at the end, the day has only 24 hours. If you want to be competitive at that level of extreme, do it in the real life, make yourself rich, not in a hobby and game like this.

As with most anything, it depends on what you're talking about.

"The game" could even be scouting different FLGSes to find one you're most likely to win at. That's fairly deep, and I don't want to play those people, but if that's the game they are playing, then yes. Or engineer who they play at their FLGS.

For some people, army choice is part of it. I think at the tourny level, it currently is, but that feels dirty.

For I think most, list building itself is part of the game.

For some, the game starts at deployment.

What matters is that (1) you're having fun, and (2) your fun isn't at the expense of someone elses. That second one is a really, really hard line to draw, but the first is obvious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So basically you're saying "Too bad, wait your turn and maybe you can compete. Maybe".

No! Not at all! I'm instead saying "why do you care so much about competition at all, if you chose your faction (or list or whatever) for other reasons?"

Galas wrote:I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.

But I am trying to get to the crux of this issue, because I am usually on the receiving end of the "chose a faction and list for reasons other than competitiveness" and lose a good bit of games, the worst example being my Armoured Company in 5th, but I was alright with it.

I'm struggling to see why someone who cares about aesthetics or playstyle so much would concern themselves with winning or losing - surely there's fun to be had regardless of W/L ratio or how badly beaten you were / how badly you won?

 Galas wrote:
As I said before, one can argue about a player that switch factions every six months to the new hotness is more competitive. But at the end, the day has only 24 hours. If you want to be competitive at that level of extreme, do it in the real life, make yourself rich, not in a hobby and game like this.

Why shouldn't people be that competitive in a hobby? That's just judgemental. I don't begrudge people who are like that at all, even though they routinely give my army wedgies!

Bharring wrote:
What matters is that (1) you're having fun, and (2) your fun isn't at the expense of someone elses. That second one is a really, really hard line to draw, but the first is obvious.

I agree, which is why I am so shocked that people consistently stay with bad armies who obviously aren't having fun with them.

I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.

But I am trying to get to the crux of this issue, because I am usually on the receiving end of the "chose a faction and list for reasons other than competitiveness" and lose a good bit of games, the worst example being my Armoured Company in 5th, but I was alright with it.

I'm struggling to see why someone who cares about aesthetics or playstyle so much would concern themselves with winning or losing - surely there's fun to be had regardless of W/L ratio or how badly beaten you were / how badly you won?

Is that hard to believe that some people likes aesthetics and playstile, but don't like to be beaten without a chance in a game that normally consumes 2-3 hours of a day after a week or two of planification for people with families and jobs, and precious little free time?

Fundamentally, game design is simple if you're looking for a competitive (in that two or more players are competing against one another for mutually exclusive victory) pick up game.

In terms of what affects the outcome, the order of impact should be (in order, but with no specific percentage or impact)

1. Player decision making on the table
2. Player decision making before the game
3. Luck
4. The inherent faction/unit imbalances

Player decisions before the game range from list construction (throwing darts a wall for a poorly optimized/cohesive list vs. spending time on a cohesive list with a clear plan) to what shoes or booze you brought, and deployment/mission selection/terrain set up.

As for balance, faction balance should be a strong priority as no player should be punished for liking the aesthetics of their chosen faction. This encourages diversity in factions in groups. Then, internal balance should be achieved to encourage list diversity within the factions. This forces players to make interesting decisions; making lists that strive to be TAC, or making 'spoiler' armies that focus on one or two things at a loss of many other aspects, and the whole spectrum in between.

Of course actually doing all the above is difficult, but mostly achievable. Plenty of acceptably balanced games exist and have achieved a decent 'critical mass' of popularity.

Infinity sums it up best; "Its how you play, not what you play."

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

In an ideal world, it'd be like WOW was back in the day. Wait a month. Then your weak class/army will be on top again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

I don't whine and complain agaisn't the person. I complain agaisn't the Company that has sell me(For a good amount of money) a flawed game.

 Blacksails wrote:
Fundamentally, game design is simple if you're looking for a competitive (in that two or more players are competing against one another for mutually exclusive victory) pick up game.

In terms of what affects the outcome, the order of impact should be (in order, but with no specific percentage or impact)

1. Player decision making on the table
2. Player decision making before the game
3. Luck
4. The inherent faction/unit imbalances

Player decisions before the game range from list construction (throwing darts a wall for a poorly optimized/cohesive list vs. spending time on a cohesive list with a clear plan) to what shoes or booze you brought, and deployment/mission selection/terrain set up.

As for balance, faction balance should be a strong priority as no player should be punished for liking the aesthetics of their chosen faction. This encourages diversity in factions in groups. Then, internal balance should be achieved to encourage list diversity within the factions. This forces players to make interesting decisions; making lists that strive to be TAC, or making 'spoiler' armies that focus on one or two things at a loss of many other aspects, and the whole spectrum in between.

Of course actually doing all the above is difficult, but mostly achievable. Plenty of acceptably balanced games exist and have achieved a decent 'critical mass' of popularity.

Infinity sums it up best; "Its how you play, not what you play."

I think you have a lot of assumptions here which the 40k designers might not hold, including:

1) Diversity in lists and armies in a competitive environment is good
2) By extension, perhaps, that competition is good or important at all.

Presumably, if you disregard competitive play, then you'll see plenty of different things - in fact, there's an entire world of narratives and aesthetics out there for people to build around. But the key is that those people then can't go into the competitive scene and be upset when they lose (or perhaps the 40k designers think).

I do agree that a well-designed game should balance the factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

I don't whine and complain agaisn't the person. I complain agaisn't the Company that has sell me(For a good amount of money) a flawed game.

If 40k is marketed to the competitive player, then yes, it's an awful awful advertising gimmick.

40k has always struck me as being marketed less for competition and more for narrative/fun play.

Yeah, thats why I have said that this is the first edition they are actually trying to be a balanced and competitive game. "The Most Balanced and Play-Tested Edition yet", do you remember? And I have defended GW many times in this forum, and I believe in 8th they are doing much better. But theres a huge room for improvement.

But lets be honest here. They didn't marketed themselves as a competitive game as an excuse for their sloopy rules-writting. The term "hard-ass" was created by them to put the blame on the players and not on their own ineptitude. The game hasn't never be actually good as a narrative game either. The amount of options and actions you can do on the table is normally very, very small. Necromunda and Mordheim where proper narrative games.

Rules-writing has a lot of theory and knowledge. You need to study a LOT to do it properly. GW, on the beginning, where just a bunch of nerds doing their best.

I agree the game is not well designed.

But, I think people who are not new should understand that, and not be upset when the ill-designed-for-competition game proves that it is, in fact, ill-designed for competition. (People who are new to 40k have every right to feel cheated and deceived, if they came in believing that mono-Inquisition could win tournaments. But I think a purely new player interested in the competitive scene would gravitate towards e.g. a "soup" list, even if they wanted to play the Inquisitor Greyfax model for aesthetic or narrative purposes).

It's certainly possible to compete in 40k, if you're willing to shell out the cash, time, and effort for a new army every time the meta shifts.

I don't mind losing, but I do mind feeling that I had no chance to win in the first place. I.e. my decisions during the game don't really matter at all. And by the way. it is same even if my win is preordained; steam-rolling the opposition because the game is unbalanced gets old pretty fast, at least to me. I think the game is most fun when either side has reasonable chance of winning.

Furthermore, the game it self tells you that it is supposed to be somewhat balanced; there are point costs. So if one army of equal points is massively better than another, then the game makers have basically lied to us.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't mind losing, but I do mind feeling that I had no chance to win in the first place. I.e. my decisions during the game don't really matter at all. And by the way. it is same even if my win is preordained; steam-rolling the opposition because the game is unbalanced gets old pretty fast, at least to me. I think the game is most fun when either side has reasonable chance of winning.

Furthermore, the game it self tells you that it is supposed to be somewhat balanced; there are point costs. So if one army of equal points is massively better than another, then the game makers have basically lied to us.

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

Your point 2) I also agree with - it's part of the reason I was so happy to see power levels. I was like "yay, GW finally recognizes that points are stupid." But I play points now anyways because it is convention, even though they essentially just outright lie, as you point [heh] out.

And can't one consider List-Building a part of the proper game but not army choice?

In MTG or Hearthstone it shouldn't matter what "hero" or "summoner" you chose. The decks you build? Absolutely.

Yes. Duh?

How you build your list creates the gameplay style you will use to try to win. It's like in league of legends; selecting a proper team of champions and building their equipment properly is part of having a winning play.

 Galas wrote:
And can't one consider List-Building a part of the proper game but not army choice?

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Fundamentally, your army list is based on your faction (or lack thereof for some soup lists!) so a person willing to soup in, say, an entire 2k points of Imperial Guard into a 2250 point game has more listbuilding options than a person who only wants to play, say, mono Inquisition.

The line between "army list" and "faction choice" is very blurry atm.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

-Imperium
-Chaos
-Aeldari
-Tau
-Necrons
-Orks

Those are the factions of 8th by how the rules work. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe the sub-factions (Space Marines: Salamanders, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, White Scars, etc.., Imperial Guard: Cadian, Vostroyan, etc... and the rest) should be totally playable by their own.
But you are right, right now faction choice and army list is very blurry. But thats a problem by own GW making. They should be the ones to fix it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Inquisition is a bit of a red herring here, it is a support faction just like the Assassins or the Ynnari characters, and doesn't need to be viable on its own (and GW should state that explicitly.)

I believe Inquisition should work with Inquisitors, Grey Knights, Assasins and Deathwatch, with the possibility for allyng SoB. But SoB are a much broader army with much more variety and wider personality than Anti-Daemon and Anti-Xenos marines. So they deserve be a full faction with much more options like SM or IG.
But even then you could expand the Inquisition options as I said before to make their proper faction even with support of those other factions.

 Galas wrote:
-Imperium
-Chaos
-Aeldari
-Tau
-Necrons
-Orks

Those are the factions of 8th by how the rules work. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe the sub-factions (Space Marines: Salamanders, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, White Scars, etc.., Imperial Guard: Cadian, Vostroyan, etc... and the rest) should be totally playable by their own.
But you are right, right now faction choice and army list is very blurry. But thats a problem by own GW making. They should be the ones to fix it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

The army lists being blurry with your faction isn't exactly a problem, unless you see it as one. I, for one, am okay with it.

As for Inquisitorial Acolytes, there's no reason they should be bad, but they're always going to be a bit worse than just taking Imperial Guardsmen, because Guardsmen just have access to so much more stuff (same statline, but with orders, regimental doctrines, and the Troops battlefield role).

 Galas wrote:


Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

Exactly this. The point cost exist for a reason. Inquisitorial Acolytes are a cool unit, it's just that they're too expensive for what they do, and that is very easy to fix (they could also have veteran stats; I think that would actually make sense.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Inquisition is a bit of a red herring here, it is a support faction just like the Assassins or the Ynnari characters, and doesn't need to be viable on its own (and GW should state that explicitly.)

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Theres no reason for Inquisitorial Acolytes to not have their own special bonuses, equipement and rules compared with Imperial Guardsmen.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:


Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

Exactly this. The point cost exist for a reason. Inquisitorial Acolytes are a cool unit, it's just that they're too expensive for what they do, and that is very easy to fix (they could also have veteran stats; I think that would actually make sense.)

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Obviously GW decides that and I think they should be more transparent about that. I don't think anyone expects Officio Assasorinum to be a viable faction on its own either. Inquisition has couple of units, and in the fluff any larger 'Inquisition army' will contain elements of other imperial forces; it is like the whole point of the Inquisition, that they can take command of any imperial assets. Though I feel their rules could reflect this better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

If they can't then their point cost should reflect that, how hard can this to be to understand?

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Obviously GW decides that and I think they should be more transparent about that. I don't think anyone expects Officio Assasorinum to be a viable faction on its own either. Inquisition has couple of units, and in the fluff any larger 'Inquisition army' will contain elements of other imperial forces; it is like the whole point of the Inquisition, that they can take command of any imperial assets. Though I feel their rules could reflect this better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

If they can't then their point cost should reflect that, how hard can this to be to understand?

1) I agree, though I don't think it should be written into the rules anywhere - players should look to the narrative for guidance. It's clear from the narrative that Inquisition is a soup!

2) We're getting into details, but fundamentally, I believe Inquisitorial Acolytes should be worse than trained, veteran soldiers, while simultaneously not becoming a horde army.

Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

Breng77 wrote:
Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

If I said "Grey Knights aren't designed to work on their own as an army and therefore have significant engineered weaknesses that they cannot compensate for in a mono-list." then how would you reply?

Then GW should give a massive discount on GK models.

Martel732 wrote:
Then GW should give a massive discount on GK models.

You mean points wise or price wise, and if so, why?

Physical price wise because they are an inferior product. Also, if your point were to be true, they should not have their own codex.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

I'd prefer if they would just say so. But failing that the number of units available is a pretty good indicator.

Martel732 wrote:
Physical price wise because they are an inferior product. Also, if your point were to be true, they should not have their own codex.

Does having a codex mean you're supposed to be a mono-capability force? Will the Harlequins codex be like this? Or the Inquisiton/Imperial Agents/whatever codex?

And I don't think it's inferior, because winning is not the measure of a faction for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

I'd prefer if they would just say so. But failing that the number of units available is a pretty good indicator.

Sisters have, I think, 19? If you include everything?

HQ:
Celestine, Canoness

Troops:
Battle Sisters

Elites:
Celestians
Imagifier
Hospitaller
Dialogus

Fast Attack
Seraphim
Dominions

Heavy Support:
Exorcist
Retributor

Dedicated Transport:
Repressor
Rhino
Immolator

so... like 12? I must be missing some... anywyas, are they stand alone?

I'd argue that to have a codex, that force should stand as a mono-capable force. Otherwise, they should be packaged into a codex that makes them viable.

I don't care about GW's measures. So I stand by GK being an inferior product in your model of the game.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue that to have a codex, that force should stand as a mono-capable force. Otherwise, they should be packaged into a codex that makes them viable.

I don't care about GW's measures. So I stand by GK being an inferior product in your model of the game.

Then, perhaps, people won't buy GK. GW charges what the market will bear, after all, and imho game rules should not affect the price of a model (whether it does or not is an entirely different kettle of fish!).

So what codex would you package Inquisition into? Codex: Adepta Sororitas for the Ordo Hereticus? Codex: Grey Knights for the Ordo Malleus? Codex: Ordo Xenos with the Deathwatch?

Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

Martel732 wrote:
Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

Fair enough! Then if that happens, I'll agree that having a codex = this army should be mono-competitive.

As it stands, though, things are not like that. So how do you decide if an army should be able to fight on its own?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sisters have, I think, 19? If you include everything?

HQ:
Celestine, Canoness

Troops:
Battle Sisters

Elites:
Celestians
Imagifier
Hospitaller
Dialogus

Fast Attack
Seraphim
Dominions

Heavy Support:
Exorcist
Retributor

Dedicated Transport:
Repressor
Rhino
Immolator

so... like 12? I must be missing some... anywyas, are they stand alone?

Considering that they've multiple options for most slots (except LoW), seems pretty decent stand alone for me. (I think hey have flyers via FW) If they had plastic models and proper army traits and relics, I'm sure they'd be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

I think the 7th edition 'Imperial Agents' book was a fine concept, though the execution was just a lazy copy-paste job. But a book of minifactions you can use to add to your Imperial armies if fine. I guess they could do similar book for Eldar containing the Ynnari and the Harlequins.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

If I said "Grey Knights aren't designed to work on their own as an army and therefore have significant engineered weaknesses that they cannot compensate for in a mono-list." then how would you reply?

I would agree because I don't think they were originally designed as a stand alone army and lack the depth and breadth of choices. I have previously advocated for rolling several imperial factions together to make for more complete factions. I like the old daemon and witch hunter style books (or even the 5th ed GK codex) because they included more options for those armies. Personally I would use the inquisition to flesh out factions like GK, Deathwatch, sisters and include in the Inquisition things like the custodies, SOS, assassins.

Then if you want to Run Mono GK you are knowingly giving up options in your own book. Then if GW wants these to factions to stand alone they should flesh out their model line/ unit selections.

GK have very few actual units they have what 1 fast attack option.

As for the way things are now, i guess moni-viability has to be empirically determined.

Any discussion of balance aside, Because just spam the most OP unitin the codex is not truly list bulding. Army choice is important for what kind of choices are on offer but shouldn't be a deciding factor in chance to win a game, or codices should be externally balanced.

List building as in: Read your codex and find interesting combo's, cover weaknesses ,and building out a working cohesive force. That should definitely be a part of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is listbuilding and army choice a part of the game?
...
Now if we zoom out one more step, army choice affects the list options one has: e.g. I want to play mono- Ordo Hereticus Inquisition. This means that I will not likely win a tournament, even if I am 100% the best listbuilder ever and 100% the best player ever, simply because the faction lacks options.

I recognize that there are many many many many factors that go into army choice (aesthetics, narrative (in my case), money, emotional investement, etc etc.) that are divorced from the purely competitive element, but if we're abstracting enough...

... wouldn't a player's choice of army be part of "player skill at Warhammer" all other things being equal?

(This is part of the reason I believe I am not a good warhamer player (well, that and I'm also not good at listbuilding or playing!): My army choices, even when I decide to start a new project, are almost always sub-par.)

I think you're missing the answer to your question because you've missed something in your defintion of the problem - Is having "fun" dependant solely on winning? For those who answer "Yes", then you are correct in your assumptions that chosing the optimal models from the optimal faction is the only consideration since nothing else matters. Given that 40k is a very silly hobby for someone who has no concern with the sundry other factors involved with building an army beyond what the mathhammer says is best, it's safe to assume that most* people will be somewhere on the sliding scale of WAAC'er vs Casual Scum Winning is the only thing that matters vs I have fun just putting my models on the table.

List-building is a skill, possibly the most important skill and, due to the nature of the game, can often be where games are won or lost, though there are more subtleties to it in that you have not only the "best" units, but you also need to consider not only how they interact with each other, but how they will interact with your opponents forces. No point bringing a plethora of lascannons, no matter how great they are against a tank army if you're facing a green tide. You also run into the issue of "borrowed skill" where people who lack the list-building skills get outside help. That can be as overt as directly copying the latest tournament winners build, requesting peer review on your list here on the forums or asking your opponent what you could have done better after a game. All are using other peoples efforts to improve your own army beyond your skill level, though usually only the copy/paste type is looked down upon.

Army selection, again, like list-building, can often be where games are won or lost, due to simple codex imbalance (see Tau vs DE in 6/7th for extreme example). However, the reason why it's not a "skill" is because either you care enough about winning that list-building declares what army you will take (because it's the "best") and therefore there is no choice to make or you have enough consideration for how you derive your "fun" that the various other aspects of the army mean that the equation says that maximum "fun" is achieved when you play the army you like (for whatever reason). What's the point of a hobby is you don't get any enjoyment out of it, especially if, as with many hobbies, time spent playing is relatively small against time spent preparing to play?

It's the same as asking why people don't drive to work in formula 1 cars. Yes, they'd get you there the quickest, but it ignores the multitude of other factors that makes it impractical. You could probably distil everything down to an equation (if you didn't mind assigning arbitrary values to non-quantifiable things): Fun = ([army effectiveness as % of optimal army**] * [enjoyment derived by winning]) + [enjoyment derived by painting] + [enjoyment derived by tactical decisions being correct] + ... + [enjoyment derived by adherence to fluff standards]***
You basically decide how important only running the "best" units, regardless of faction or personal bias is by solving to maximise the "Fun" value. In your example of running Armoured Company and getting repeatedly stomped, your equation would have been high on being able to put tanks on the field with low emphasis on anjoyment derived by winning (thereby making the army effectiveness % nigh irrelevant).

As to your follow up "why do people (like me!) who make it less of a priority get upset when people who make it a much higher priority beat the tar out of them?", Only you can answer that, but if I had to guess, it's human nature to not like losing, and even less when the contest wasn't "fair" to begin with, doubly so if you think it is fair when you enter. The whole premise of points is that 2 forces are meant to be equal and a game will be fair/balanced/even with both players skill (and a bit of RNG) deciding the outcome. Unfortunately, that premise is flawed because points aren't balanced and there are very clear cases where units are too good for their point/exceptionally bad for their points, however, points are how we have decided to play, and thus, you feel that equal points values should mean an even playing field, even if you know subconciously that the forces arrayed against each other are not actually equal at all.

It all boils down to playing against like-minded people since I suspect that what the majority of us want is to have good, close games where win/loss is decided by player skill during the game, not stacking the deckto the point where the outcome is almost predetermined.

*Not all, there are some people who will be at the extreme ends of the spectrum, as with anything else
** Where the value of the "optimal" army = 1
*** Where the total value of the various "enjoyment" categories = 1

I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game. If all unit entries had great internal codex balance, I feel like any two lists paired with generals of equal measure, playing a well designed mission should have an even chance of winning. However internal balance in codex is poor at best. Durning 7th ed I played a single mutilator once in a while in lists I would build just to vary my CSM lists. Players would often ask what the model was because no one ever played them they were so bad. Compared with obliterators which were virtually the same price and performed adequately in the same role AND were great at shooting, there was no reason to take a mutilators ever. They are still rubbish in 8th ed.

I also feel that balance between codex is terrible, though better so far in 8th than in previous editions. Eldar have been noticeabley OP in 6th with their wave serpent spam. Anyone could, and did go out and buy six wave serpents, some wraith knights and some D Scythes and they could easily annihilate players of much greater skill. So, some would claim that the army you choose is also emblematic of a good player. I would argue the opposite. That players who require a broken army to ensure that they win are not skilled at all, rather they are seeking any crutch they can to prove themselves.

Just my .02$

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

Sorcererbob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

The formations in 7th were basically "pre-made lists", and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Sorcererbob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

The formations in 7th were basically "pre-made lists", and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that.

Formations were a great idea that was terribly implemented. I'd love to go back to them - if they were handled well.

Army choice and list building are certainly a part of the game, both competitive or otherwise.

Yet even with two equally skilled players, I don't think there's a single all conquering list because at any level of competitiveness it's still a game of rock, paper, scissors, further swayed by the dice gods.

The only way of getting close to perfect balance is to put two identical lists on a symmetrical battlefield in mirrored deployment and players alternate taking one action with each unit which are determined not by dice but set outcomes. Then we might as well paint one side black, the other white, and call it '40k Chess'.

I love the almost infinite options and randomness (within reason) of 40k - I'd say the inherent imbalance that brings is really unavoidable, and even in many cases a part of the fun?

 Drasius wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Sorcererbob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

The formations in 7th were basically "pre-made lists", and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that.

Formations were a great idea that was terribly implemented. I'd love to go back to them - if they were handled well.

I think it's worthy of a separate idea, but one showerthought I've had in the back of my head is a flexible "Reverse Decurion" of a sort. Rather than "Take a core, take an auxiliary, tada, yer done," you link a bunch of small, relevant detachments into a larger semi-cohesive whole, and purchase their benefits as they scale upward.

For example, an Armored Spearhead and Superheavy Tank could have "one degree of separation," but adding in Flyers would require an Officer of the Fleet or so, and you would need to unlock a certain amount of a given army before being able to field said army's Lord of War. (Ex: No "Magnus just shows up to chill with Morty" or so).

Again, superearly, and probably better-implemented by adapting the Kings of War army structure to 40k, but half the issue with 8e souplists is the ease of cherry-picking, making it ironically closer to Unbound than 7e armies.

I agree that if well handled Formations could be a good thing but there were to many problematic rules interactions. It was not well thought out or represented.

I don’t play AOS but I know that’s when it was first released they had Formations of a sort where if you take this formation you get these bonuses. Not over the top but bonus for taking a fluffy mixed list. I feel like that was the best that GW has ever done at creating balance in this way.

They also used to have strict limits on the number of certain units you were allowed to include like 0-1. There was lots of teeth bashing about that thought.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So this was spawned by a discussion about statistics in another thread but I wanted to make a larger thread about it.

Is listbuilding and army choice a part of the game?

For example, if you have two players who are equally skilled on the tabletop but one of them is better at building lists, then the player who is better at building lists will win the game, surely? Listbuilding is a player skill that affects the game, and so having a better list means you're a better player (provided we accept the competitive hypothesis that winning = better player, that's important to note!).

It does mean that if lists were swapped then the other player would win - after all, their skill is equal, so all that's determining outcome is the list.

Now if we zoom out one more step, army choice affects the list options one has: e.g. I want to play mono- Ordo Hereticus Inquisition. This means that I will not likely win a tournament, even if I am 100% the best listbuilder ever and 100% the best player ever, simply because the faction lacks options.

I recognize that there are many many many many factors that go into army choice (aesthetics, narrative (in my case), money, emotional investement, etc etc.) that are divorced from the purely competitive element, but if we're abstracting enough...

... wouldn't a player's choice of army be part of "player skill at Warhammer" all other things being equal?

(This is part of the reason I believe I am not a good warhamer player (well, that and I'm also not good at listbuilding or playing!): My army choices, even when I decide to start a new project, are almost always sub-par.)

Is this a rhetorical question?

List building has always been a core element of the game and one of the reasons why its popular. By list-building I mean designing your units and making careful choices. I think its quite deliberate. The ability to customize your list is one of the major attractants. I have almost as much fun preparing for a tournament or game as I do playing the game. The game rules and supplements have certainly reinforced this over the years. You can absolutely hurt your chances with poor list-building and increase your chances with smart list-building.

I do not think that Army Selection is a core element. By Army Selection I mean selecting Dark Angels over Blood Angels. Its an important decision on a personal level given the subsequent investment of time and money, but it is not intended to be a determinant of future on-table success.

Cheers,

Some good input but I would like to reiterate a question from earlier in the thread:

How do you divorce army choice from listbuilding? It seems rather obvious to me that your army choice affects your list options much like your in-game options!

E.g. A Space Marine "list" could include Astra Militarum - but a "Space Marine army" may or may not. Does that make sense? My question?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some good input but I would like to reiterate a question from earlier in the thread:

How do you divorce army choice from listbuilding? It seems rather obvious to me that your army choice affects your list options much like your in-game options!

E.g. A Space Marine "list" could include Astra Militarum - but a "Space Marine army" may or may not. Does that make sense? My question?

To me, list building means picking the units in your army. You have choices, bounded by constraints and restraints. The ability to have that choice is part of the fun, and is a design feature of the game. It absolutely has a effect on game performance.

Army choice, to me, means picking your Army/Faction. So I choose to play Orks and then get on with list construction. Or I choose to play Dark Angels. I think that the Armies/Factions are intended to be balanced and not factor into table-top performance. List-building that plays to the strengths of an Army, though, does matter. List-building that plays to the player's appreciation of the Army's fluff without reference to in-game effectiveness may lead to on-table frustration. While it is not the only determinant of success, list-building is important.

Having said all that, I don't think that I am understanding your question. Is this about the key-words and the flexibility of Imperium?

Cheers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some good input but I would like to reiterate a question from earlier in the thread:

How do you divorce army choice from listbuilding? It seems rather obvious to me that your army choice affects your list options much like your in-game options!

E.g. A Space Marine "list" could include Astra Militarum - but a "Space Marine army" may or may not. Does that make sense? My question?

In a game where list building is how you get a Army on the table, I feel that you cannot divorce yourself. The only way you could do that is if you had randomized unit choices in a chart and each player rolled 5 dice and then had to play with what ever you rolled. Or if you had to take preset lists, then in both cases you would not be building anything. It would remove choice from army creation. Most people would hate this.

However, if all codex had great internal balance and all codex had great beteeen each other, then list building and codex selection wouldn’t comprise what I see to be 50% of what people try to claim is there skill at the game.

For example. I looked at the point per point kill ratio of the chaos cultist vs space marine.
It takes about 37 pts of cultists to kill 1 marine per turn, where it only take a bit more than 14 pts of marines to kill a cultist.
So for every 10 cultists basically 1 dead marine and for every marine a dead cultist approximately. Balancing the chaff aspect of cultists is a bit tough to figure out pt vs pt wise.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some good input but I would like to reiterate a question from earlier in the thread:

How do you divorce army choice from listbuilding? It seems rather obvious to me that your army choice affects your list options much like your in-game options!

E.g. A Space Marine "list" could include Astra Militarum - but a "Space Marine army" may or may not. Does that make sense? My question?

To me, list building means picking the units in your army. You have choices, bounded by constraints and restraints. The ability to have that choice is part of the fun, and is a design feature of the game. It absolutely has a effect on game performance.

Army choice, to me, means picking your Army/Faction. So I choose to play Orks and then get on with list construction. Or I choose to play Dark Angels. I think that the Armies/Factions are intended to be balanced and not factor into table-top performance. List-building that plays to the strengths of an Army, though, does matter. List-building that plays to the player's appreciation of the Army's fluff without reference to in-game effectiveness may lead to on-table frustration. While it is not the only determinant of success, list-building is important.

Having said all that, I don't think that I am understanding your question. Is this about the key-words and the flexibility of Imperium?

Cheers

No, my question is about people who play, say, mono-<insert army here> being upset that mono-<insert army here> isn't competitive. I can understand not wanting to change factions because of time & money spent, but surely if the codices are unbalanced, than you're deliberately harming yourself by playing a given faction, and if you're unwilling to change, it would perhaps be healthy to accept a few losses?

sennacherib wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some good input but I would like to reiterate a question from earlier in the thread:

How do you divorce army choice from listbuilding? It seems rather obvious to me that your army choice affects your list options much like your in-game options!

E.g. A Space Marine "list" could include Astra Militarum - but a "Space Marine army" may or may not. Does that make sense? My question?

In a game where list building is how you get a Army on the table, I feel that you cannot divorce yourself. The only way you could do that is if you had randomized unit choices in a chart and each player rolled 5 dice and then had to play with what ever you rolled. Or if you had to take preset lists, then in both cases you would not be building anything. It would remove choice from army creation. Most people would hate this.

However, if all codex had great internal balance and all codex had great beteeen each other, then list building and codex selection wouldn’t comprise what I see to be 50% of what people try to claim is there skill at the game.

For example. I looked at the point per point kill ratio of the chaos cultist vs space marine.
It takes about 37 pts of cultists to kill 1 marine per turn, where it only take a bit more than 14 pts of marines to kill a cultist.
So for every 10 cultists basically 1 dead marine and for every marine a dead cultist approximately. Balancing the chaff aspect of cultists is a bit tough to figure out pt vs pt wise.

I think you may understand what I'm getting at.

If listbuilding is part of the game, and the faction you play is part of listbuilding, then by bringing a bad faction, you're bringing a bad list, and that's a player choice that lost the game. Does that make sense?

Yep. That summarizes my intent.

Lots of tourni players openly scoff at people who aren’t tournis bringing their favorite codex army instead of the new hotness. I have always advocated playing what you enjoy.

However, if you intend to win LVO and you want to win you will be playing Guard or Chaos soup. Lots of tournament players are buying Guard models right now so they can assemble Guard armies to win tournaments with. I think hobby scores would help tone down these sort of players by making 1/3 of your score based on paint jobs etc, but most competitive players freak about about hobby scores and sportsmanship scores since they don’t believe that’s part of the Sport. But that’s off topic.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

What if someone makes tactical decisions based on a running narrative, instead of based on what is objectively the best tactical decision? Does that mean they're not playing the game, because it's "narrative"?

While I don't do tournaments, I also don't ever imagine to expect to win a tournament using a fluffy or cool army. I'm fine letting the super-comp folks do their own thing. I can enjoy my narrative games and scenarios.

Would I love to see an increase in large narrative events? Well, hell yeah I would. It'd be awesome to see more side-rooms at large conventions with huge beautiful tables dedicated to narrative events -- but I don't see it happening.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, my question is about people who play, say, mono-<insert army here> being upset that mono-<insert army here> isn't competitive. I can understand not wanting to change factions because of time & money spent, but surely if the codices are unbalanced, than you're deliberately harming yourself by playing a given faction, and if you're unwilling to change, it would perhaps be healthy to accept a few losses?

Sometimes the only way to win is to not play. A few losses is one thing, continual losses until you buy a different army is a great way to get players to quit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In a game where list building is how you get a Army on the table, I feel that you cannot divorce yourself. The only way you could do that is if you had randomized unit choices in a chart and each player rolled 5 dice and then had to play with what ever you rolled. Or if you had to take preset lists, then in both cases you would not be building anything. It would remove choice from army creation. Most people would hate this.

However, if all codex had great internal balance and all codex had great beteeen each other, then list building and codex selection wouldn’t comprise what I see to be 50% of what people try to claim is there skill at the game.

For example. I looked at the point per point kill ratio of the chaos cultist vs space marine.
It takes about 37 pts of cultists to kill 1 marine per turn, where it only take a bit more than 14 pts of marines to kill a cultist.
So for every 10 cultists basically 1 dead marine and for every marine a dead cultist approximately. Balancing the chaff aspect of cultists is a bit tough to figure out pt vs pt wise.

I think you may understand what I'm getting at.

If listbuilding is part of the game, and the faction you play is part of listbuilding, then by bringing a bad faction, you're bringing a bad list, and that's a player choice that lost the game. Does that make sense?

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

What if someone makes tactical decisions based on a running narrative, instead of based on what is objectively the best tactical decision? Does that mean they're not playing the game, because it's "narrative"?

Prior to moving to the east coast, I used to be part of a Very narrative group in California called G3. It really effected how I played games. I have always enjoyed having themed armies but they take things to a whole new level. I played narrative games and after moving to the east coast I realized people in my local meta cared nothing for narrative gaming. The only thing that matters is winning. It’s a while different mind set.

While playing games where the only thing that matters is winning, myself and many in the hobby don’t feel the same way. Usually when I go to a tournament it’s to have 3-5 games and meet new people more than winning the tournament.

Of course it's a part of the game. You can't play a game without a list so you have to build it to play a game. This process can be either just throwing down whatever you have on hand or carefully selecting units and considering how they work together. Do note that list building is not the be all, end all when it comes to playing the game. A good list helps but you have to know how to use it.

Also, I'm afraid that the bit about "when all other things are equal" is a flawed thought model when it comes to this game because all other things are hardly ever equal. Recognizing this is important. This game is not played by perfect, completely predictable automatons and because of dice, outcomes of pieces clashing together aren't predetermined like in chess. In the end, how you command your forces on the table is what ultimately counts.

That said, winning isn't the only thing that counts in the game and other aspects are just as enjoybale. Still, I find the game much more interesting when both parties are doing their best to win, all in good sportsmanship, of course. Figuring out how your list works together is one of the cornerstones of success.

Either way, I don't consider picking the army as part of the skill. You should pick whatever army you fancy the most. Sure, I'm a devoted IG-player and they are now strong but this is the army I picked about 10 years ago when I first dabbled in 40k. I would have picked Guard even if 7th edition was still going on.