So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

Counts as.

Suck it up and keep playing. But us sisters playera have been long time masochists.

Do you only ever play pick up games or do you play with a regular group? If it's the latter then just agree that you get some kind of % additional points. Play a few games to fine tune what seems to be reasonable to make a more even game. Alternatively play some deliberately one sided narrative games or kill team or combat patrol or planetstrike or spearhead or some other custom variant of the game that you can enjoy as a challenge with your opponents rather than simply stand up knock down games.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?

You lose

Ask your buddies to play less competitive lists. An A+ on your army might only be a B- for theirs, find a middle ground for maximum fun.

But if they just say "git gud", they have every right to. Don't think they HAVE to change for you, just know that it's a possibility.

It really depends. If it's only you that's bottom tier, it's no fun to be a punching bag. But if it's you, and another army, you can play nerf darts together. At least in a competitive play environment.

But if I talk it over with folks that I play, and say 'hey, let's do some fun narrative stuff' then it can go over well, especially if we use the Narrative rules, and have a good time screwing around and all.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Ask your buddies to play less competitive lists. An A+ on your army might only be a B- for theirs, find a middle ground for maximum fun.

But if they just say "git gud", they have every right to. Don't think they HAVE to change for you, just know that it's a possibility.

Issues is im never going ask someone to play a toned down list, because i dont wanna ask for a handicap.

More or less do most people just wait it out? or do you just hop on the band wagon army. Its gotten to the point now where i dont even really wanna play the game anymore because nothing is an appealing army to me, and anything that is at this point is horrible, and or not going to want to be played against.

Like a bane blade list, or a knight list.

 Flinty wrote:
Do you only ever play pick up games or do you play with a regular group? If it's the latter then just agree that you get some kind of % additional points. Play a few games to fine tune what seems to be reasonable to make a more even game. Alternatively play some deliberately one sided narrative games or kill team or combat patrol or planetstrike or spearhead or some other custom variant of the game that you can enjoy as a challenge with your opponents rather than simply stand up knock down games.

This is what I would try to do. If my army was so weak that I didn't think it would have any sort of chance I suggest to my opponent coming up with ideas to make the game something where it could go either way or at least only slightly favor theirs. Pick up games are usually hard to alter points as reducing the points of the opponent could cripple their list too much, and you never can quite expect an opponent to agree to a set amount (or any) so any additions aren't going to be as effective. If it was a regular group I would ultimately suggest having a default system where every loss add additional points to a player's force and every win reduces by the same amount until back to the default. After a few games, the point totals should more or less balance themselves out.

Otherwise, I really like custom scenarios which can be done to give the weak army an advantage and/or weaken the strong army. Plus, I found it much easier to introduce house rules to many players if you just call them 'scenario rules'. Once I get a good understanding of a system, I usually prefer custom scenarios anyways where they can be tailored to highlight what each player's force does well and keep the game interesting (read: close) for as long as possible.

This topic right here is why i got out of tournament play. I got tired of having to play armies i didn't care about just so I could win games since my armies that I loved were all mid to low tier and playing powergamers 24/7 crushed me unless I was also running a powergamer army.

What do I do now? I play in campaigns and casual narratives.

 auticus wrote:
This topic right here is why i got out of tournament play. I got tired of having to play armies i didn't care about just so I could win games since my armies that I loved were all mid to low tier and playing powergamers 24/7 crushed me unless I was also running a powergamer army.

What do I do now? I play in campaigns and casual narratives.

This is kinda where i am at, problem is even in taht im boned, I play T sons, and ravenwing deathwing which i was not even playing before the beta rule, but with it, was just a final nail in the coffen so they set up on a shelf.

Im looking at knights hoping that codex creep is real and they cant stand up to them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Ask your buddies to play less competitive lists. An A+ on your army might only be a B- for theirs, find a middle ground for maximum fun.

But if they just say "git gud", they have every right to. Don't think they HAVE to change for you, just know that it's a possibility.

Issues is im never going ask someone to play a toned down list, because i dont wanna ask for a handicap.

More or less do most people just wait it out? or do you just hop on the band wagon army. Its gotten to the point now where i dont even really wanna play the game anymore because nothing is an appealing army to me, and anything that is at this point is horrible, and or not going to want to be played against.

Like a bane blade list, or a knight list.

...What are you playing anyways? Because i've yet to see many factions that have NO way of winning. Unless you're playing something like imperial knights or death watch, there really shouldn't be much reason that by changing units in your army you couldn't at least increase your chances of winning. Some units are bad, but no army is devoid of good components, for the most part. If you aren't willing to tell them to tone it down, then tell yourself to look deeper into your own codex. The way you play doesn't win? Then change the way you play. Only a few codexes have "one way" to play, like Admech.

*edit* I completely missed the watermark you have. Salamanders as an army are...Fairly bad. Like, down there with Death Watch bad. I will admit you will actually find a hard time finding anything good to face your competition with.

I stopped playing 40k and swapped to better games.

Fekke getting this mess to work.

Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

Tsons is literally holding up Chaos in the meta atm look up the London GT army lists.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

Tsons is literally holding up Chaos in the meta atm look up the London GT army lists.

IIRC those lists are not longer viable they were using "CHAOS" as a tag to create the army, but FAQ Changed that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

Tsons is literally holding up Chaos in the meta atm look up the London GT army lists.

IIRC those lists are not longer viable they were using "CHAOS" as a tag to create the army, but FAQ Changed that.

What on earth are you talking about? Re-read the rule. That stuff is only for detachments. You can have a detachment of T-sons, a Detachment of DG and it's all fine. What you CAN'T have anymore, is a unit with Rubric Marines in the same detachment as Plague Marines, just because they share chaos.

This was changed because Imperium was doing some pretty dumb crap with IG units.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

Tsons is literally holding up Chaos in the meta atm look up the London GT army lists.

IIRC those lists are not longer viable they were using "CHAOS" as a tag to create the army, but FAQ Changed that.

What on earth are you talking about? Re-read the rule. That stuff is only for detachments. You can have a detachment of T-sons, a Detachment of DG and it's all fine. What you CAN'T have anymore, is a unit with Rubric Marines in the same detachment as Plague Marines, just because they share chaos.

This was changed because Imperium was doing some pretty dumb crap with IG units.

thats what i mean, the lists im finding, maybe its the wrong ones. Are doing stuff like HQ "Ahriman" "Renegade commander" troops "Brim stone"

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756135.page

Peep this.

 vaklor4 wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756135.page

Peep this.

Ok see im looking at blood of kittens which has zero results for T sons and 2 wins for Dark angels.

http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

Your first mistake is trusting Bloodofkittens plebians, when us Dakkadakka are the MASTER RACE of snarky Warhammer players.

Maybe this will help

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/05/05/thousand-sons-tactica-magnus-and-the-rehati-war-sect-8th-edition-post-faq/

Well, I play WE. Which in my area has been fine in friendly games, but mediocre in competitive. I get almost victories frequently. I've played upwards of 30 games of 8th and I've only won 4. But I'm of a mind that winning isn't everything. It's a game, we play to have fun.

Heck, even in tournaments I don't expect to win. I play for the experience. With the exception of this year's Gencon. I'm doing lots of testing for that event, because I want to do well.

I play in a very relaxing meta so we never have problems with weak factions or powerfull factions.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maybe this will help

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/05/05/thousand-sons-tactica-magnus-and-the-rehati-war-sect-8th-edition-post-faq/

Well this looks pretty interesting

I’m fairly sure Tzeentch is a faction keyword so Ahriman + brims would be legal. Ravenwing can be reasonably good as well. Seems to me like you are either tied to your particular build, or not understanding the rules very well.

Grit my teeth and force my army to work, I have been a deathwing player since 3rd and we have NEVER been even remotely top tier, but I’ve persevered for a looooong time and can pull wins against top tier armies and players due to knowing my army inside and out... then 8th dropped and I’ve been hard pressed to even compete with the sheer amount of alpha strike insanity this ed has brought, and the final nail in the coffin was the new trial rules in the FAQ, that rule of 3 and deep strike restriction REALLY hurts my deathwing.

But I will persevere and continue to force my army to work, because I like hard games, and deathwing has always been 40k On hard mode.

We had this problem in my gaming group. Friend of mine loves Grey Knights but just kept losing no matter which of my armies Id throw at him. Eldar, IG (scions only), Custodes etc.

We had fun in our games but they weren't even close, and you could tell he was a bit out of it.

So I built a list to play his. Its an all primaris Iron Hands army featuring 2 Redemptors and a Leviathan. Its a pretty mediocre list but damn we had an absolute blast in our first game vs his GK. It came down to the wire and he won on the last turn.

However we are purely garage hammer players who find 8th perfect for what we do. We got out of the "meta" crap a long time ago and honestly enjoy the game ten times more. Play how you want but list tailoring down to an armies level has made for some amazing games.

I started playing when Tau were released and kept getting my butt handed to me. After a while I realized that it wasn't that I was a bad player but that 3rd ed was heavily geared to CC and the Tau were very limited in versatility beyond Crisis Suits, so I decided to look for a different army.

I decided to go for Chaos as this was 3.0 so no one actually played them around me. They weren't top tier but I could actually pull off wins against a good player who was paying attention, something that was nearly impossible for Tau. Chaos grew on me and I still consider them my primary faction even though I still fight for the underdog Tau.

Since you're aren't seeing anything catching your eye as another faction, I'd say consider playing something no one really plays in your area. I was happy with the results.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

I just roll dice and hope for the best. Luckily the kind of army(greentide) for the chosen army I like to play(orks) is at least the semi competive version inside it and can get at least draws and maybe eek out win with maelstrom cards so it's not quaranteed massacre loss.

If you have got codex already that sucks more since new codex will be some way away. IF you are still at index not long to see if you are going to be screwed for a long time or not

Only index left are wolves, orks, sisters, genecults...
Harlequins and knights are literally weeks away

I’m hoping for an inquisitor codex but I doubt it due to lack of models.

There also might be a random new army like world eaters with angron primarch as well.

Regardless not a whole lot of index armies left.

I really don’t see the point in spending your hard earned money and finite hobby time on models, armies, tactics, fluff, etc... that you don’t like. I tried this once in WFB but when the enthusiasm isn’t there it’s practically impossible to stay engaged.

Besides, that shiny new army you just spent the last 3 months buying, assembling, and painting could just as easily end up in the same situation.

If the meta is just not producing a good outcome for what you want to do, either seek alternate formats or take a break until things change.

My best friend plays Primaris and Tau and I play guard. Before the Tau codex I think he took between 2-300 extra points and our games were pretty fun then. We did the same with his Primaris until he got 2 flyers and they kind of balance the forces out a bit more now.

Doesnt matter.
Its a greater challenge to play it.
I usually play to fulfill the mission objectives and nothing else.
Then low tier is not so low tier as one might think.

I would rather play an army that is lower tier than one which is easy win. There's no glory in winning with a baneblade list, but when playing with low tier armies (which DA and TS are not btw lol) you've got nothing to lose and much glory to gain.

DA and TS might not be top-of-the-tables atm, but no way are they even near the bottom. Probably half the armies in the game would have a better claim. I'd say just keep working on your list building and keep working on your tactics would be all that's required.

I don't think that playing any army is a guaranteed loss. Not if the missions you're playing are varied and interesting. Not if you're willing to re-think your list and tactics.

Ksons aren't low tier. Neither are Dark Angels. If you want to play only a certain narrative style army then you need to play against other people doing the same thing.

I would suggest you look at successful builds and work towards having a competitive list and one you prefer to play more casually.

superwill wrote:
I would rather play an army that is lower tier than one which is easy win. There's no glory in winning with a baneblade list, but when playing with low tier armies (which DA and TS are not btw lol) you've got nothing to lose and much glory to gain.

DA and TS might not be top-of-the-tables atm, but no way are they even near the bottom. Probably half the armies in the game would have a better claim. I'd say just keep working on your list building and keep working on your tactics would be all that's required.

TS are probably top tier if London GT entries are any indication. Smite spam, great psychic disciplines, and a good faction keyword.

Explain to your opponent that you're army is very weak and ask them to be considerate. Send them your list and see if they can't make a list of comparable strength.

I have several lists I play; one is a list so fluffy it's a bunny wrapped in cotton candy, the other is harder than Guilliman looking at Mitt Romney's binder collection. I also working on a Narrative list with a slightly higher power level, as my bunny list is a touch too far on the soft side.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Suck it up and keep playing. But us sisters playera have been long time masochists.

Sisters are not weak this edition, especially with the changes to Deep Strike in the FAQ removing their Achilles' heel. Try Dominion squads in Immolators.

Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

Of course that's not much of a thousand son army. So thousand sons suck, tzeentch rock.

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

The foot tzaangors actually aren't very good any more because they can't reliably get the charge off from webway infiltration/DMC post-faq. Enlightened and Shamans are still fine, of course.

tneva82 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

Of course that's not much of a thousand son army. So thousand sons suck, tzeentch rock.

Tzaangors and and such are Thousand Sons units. There's no need to pretend like there isn't.

That's like me saying "I want to play Space Marines, so I'm not allowed to take Scouts, Scout Bikers, and any of the vehicles, because they're not actually Space Marines."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

Of course that's not much of a thousand son army. So thousand sons suck, tzeentch rock.

Tzaangors and and such are Thousand Sons units. There's no need to pretend like there isn't.

That's like me saying "I want to play Space Marines, so I'm not allowed to take Scouts, Scout Bikers, and any of the vehicles, because they're not actually Space Marines."

...Except those are Space Marines? It's more like saying "I want to play Space Marines, so I don't want to have to take any Servitors."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

Of course that's not much of a thousand son army. So thousand sons suck, tzeentch rock.

Tzaangors and and such are Thousand Sons units. There's no need to pretend like there isn't.

That's like me saying "I want to play Space Marines, so I'm not allowed to take Scouts, Scout Bikers, and any of the vehicles, because they're not actually Space Marines."

"Space marines are fine, there's Guillimann". Ok whatabout Salamanders?

 grouchoben wrote:
Your army is great - Thousand Sons are not a low tier army whatsoever.

You may well be suffering from Tzangaphobia. Exposure therapy is the way forward! Buy yourself 2 boxes of enlightened and a shaman, and 2-3 boxes of tzaangors.

Darkmatter crystal on a brayhorn blob in round 1 is a legit opener. Your DPs are the best in the game, and Ahriman is one of the best casters in the game.

Yeah how very rare they want to use rubrics instead of spam beast men, the nerve of some people.

Here are a few thoughts...
1. I don't think Ksons or RW are low-tier, but your build might be. I had the same issues with DA, honestly, and I had to mix in some competitive units and take out fluffier stuff I liked better. I didn't go full WAAC, but I compromised after getting tabled more than once.
2. Your scene has a lot to do with your perception of fun. It sounds like you have a FLGS where players do a lot of tournament matches, even if it is not a tournament day. This is just my guess, of course I have no idea. But I think playing less competitive builds vs high competitive builds will make you a better player overall. But you may need to change your perception of winning when you're up against a super competitive army.
3. I agree with other that say that you should consider playing in some less traditional matches- use the narrative missions, play apocalypse games, or just try anything other than 2K ITC mission packs-- try to recapture that bit of wonder that drew you to 40K in the first place.

hobojebus wrote:

Yeah how very rare they want to use rubrics instead of spam beast men, the nerve of some people.

"My codex has good units but I refuse to use them so my codex is low tier"

If you choose to handicap yourself then suck it up. I'm not complaining that an all-armour IG list is bad even though that's what I want to play - I play it for less competitive games and I take screens for more competitive games.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like a bane blade list, or a knight list.

If you think a knight list is good let alone that knights are in the same league as baneblades then I don't know what to tell you...

Depends. If I can still have fun with them, I play them but not against super competitive armies. I played wych cults and Harlequins from the release of the clowns until right now.

If they aren't fun at all - like my orks right now which are just a slog to play, I shelf them.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Yeah how very rare they want to use rubrics instead of spam beast men, the nerve of some people.

"My codex has good units but I refuse to use them so my codex is low tier"

If you choose to handicap yourself then suck it up. I'm not complaining that an all-armour IG list is bad even though that's what I want to play - I play it for less competitive games and I take screens for more competitive games.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like a bane blade list, or a knight list.

If you think a knight list is good let alone that knights are in the same league as baneblades then I don't know what to tell you...

In the GT lists there are more rubrics than Tzaangors, just saying.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

gungo wrote:
Honestly unless you are playing the add on niche armies like sisters of silence, deathwatch, harlequins etc. or you are an army without a codex such as orks, sisters. I’d even give you a pass with greyknights. Your army is playable and can win.

Right now you have Marine players crying thier army sucks, chaos players crying thier army sucks because of the faq and eldar players saying they were nerfed as well. Everyone is saying thier army is awful right now. You need to suck it up and play better or build a better list. Ffs most clubs have people playing the same army themes just freakin list tailor against the people you play against. You are obviously not trying to win a grand tournament here. I play orks and I still win. Sometimes it means you got to change your list up and make it stronger!

Tsons, so i guess niche?

Tsons is literally holding up Chaos in the meta atm look up the London GT army lists.

IIRC those lists are not longer viable they were using "CHAOS" as a tag to create the army, but FAQ Changed that.

nope. The FAQ prevents a DETACHMENT from being "Chaos" not an ARMY. Otherwise, allies in general would be illegal.

To the THousand Son Discussion in general: The lists in the london GT show Rubric squads outnumbering Tzaangor squads 2 to 1 both in points and number of units taken. The two most viable builds for thousand sons right now appear to be Smite spam (of which the non-souped version revolves heavily around taking Ahriman on disc, optionally Magnus, Daemon Princes of Tzeentch, Tzaangor Shamans and Exalted Sorcerors) and a Daemon Engine centric list with Defilers, Contemptors and Heldrakes.

Tzaangor Spam (the footslogging kind at least) is toast, and Enlightened Spam doesn't hold up well on its own without it. Enlightened are a solid anti-horde auxiliary, Shamans contribute to a smitespam build, but the core of the army is what the strength of the thousand sons should be: Their psykers.

Hey man, don't worry about 40K. I have two armies, a full Emperor's Children list which I play for fun, and an Eldar army that will make rounds for tournaments and whatnot.

I've got armies in a lot of different systems, the 9th age, Malifaux, Bolt Action. Of all of the games I play, Warhammer 40K is probably the least balanced at a competitive level. Playing Warhammer 40K competitively is about being able to read the rules, identify what is good, and building those models that maximize the synergies thereof. Its also why really competitive players who build their entire army around a tournament competitive gimmick get so upset at a codex release or edition update- "their whole army was ruined".

Warhammer 40K is not balanced. In any Index or Codex the difference between a competitive list and a non competitive list is like night and day. It doesn't matter what faction you play, if you aren't fielding a competitive list vs someone who is you are going to have a bad day. List building is so important in 40K that many players can accurately predict the outcome of a game just by looking at the lists alone. Looking at high scoring tournament lists and comparing them to your own collection can go a long way to eeking out a bit of performance from your models.

Also don't be ashamed of asking people to tone down their list. When I bring out my Emperor's Children, I tell people to tone down their lists 100%. I could certainly build a competitive Emperor's Children List, but I don't want to because building that list would void the whole reason I started playing Chaos in the first place.

If my don't want to play a fluffy list vs my fluffy Emperor's Children, that is their prerogative. In that case they can either choke on my Eldar, or I can find someone else to play against.

I guess what I am saying, is if you want to play competitive 40K. You need to sacrifice what you love about the codex and focus on learning what works, why it works, and how it works. Most Codex's can put out a pretty competitive list. Its just a matter of figuring out what build that is and choking your pride as you put your fluffy choices in the display case and out of the army list.

Even the tournaments here are casual enough that you can easily place with an army that Dakka dismisses as trash tier, so I don't worry about it - I'm not playing at any major events anyway.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who think Baneblade armies are too good have actually played them. Shadowswords are very good, but the other superheavies? Less good by quite a margin.

As for the actual OP: I just keep playing. I've been a treadhead since I started playing, and playing tanks has been a rollercoaster ride of "OP->UP->OP" with every codex and edition change. I was kinda okay in 3rd, had a blast in 4th, plummeted to a 98% loss rate in 5th when tanks stopped being able to score, then in 6th with hull points I still was kinda bad, in 7th I played superheavy tanks in the Heresy which was rockin', but inflexible. Now in 8th the superheavies are good, but still lose out compared to their "lesser" counterparts (i.e. Leman Russes) point for point. So I just keep on keepin' on.

I got through 5th edition, especially, by accepting a loss before the game started, setting my own objectives (that weren't the mission objectives usually, like "kill big enemy tanks so I can paint kill-rings on my barrels" or "destroy the enemy mobility so they'll be pinned on this hypothetical battlefield after it is over" or whatever). That way, I could still feel like I was accomplishing things even though it was almost invariably a victory for my opponent when we shook hands at the end of the game.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

I don´t buy this top/low tier nonsense. It´s just whining on a grand scale. You have a very obvious low/high tier system in Blood Bowl with stunty and non-stunty teams. In 40K there are no such extremes like in this sports game.

Your friends should understand army tiers and play appropriate tiers against each other. That is the best advice I can give. If all you have is low tier armies - maybe find one competitive army you like or just make an imperial soup addition to your DA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

I don´t buy this top/low tier nonsense. It´s just whining on a grand scale. You have a very obvious low/high tier system in Blood Bowl with stunty and non-stunty teams. In 40K there are no such extremes like in this sports game.

Nah - high tier armies blow low tier armies off the table in a single turn or at worst 2 turns. It's kind of fun for the guy winning but not really. It's totally unfun for the guy getting waxed.

Was going to mimic what xeno said, there are clear cut differences between low and high teir armies. IG being the worst offenders with their criminally low cost for the basalisk and Russ platforms.

Personally I'm in a rock and a hard place, after spending several hours yesterday looking up lists reading more strats, I either have to play cheeky build or fluff crap. Really it's more of a, "I'm annoyed by the fact that in order for this army to be useable you are shoe horned into a few units." Ultimately I'll keep playing it just makes painting harder to want to do.

Narrative games are the way to go.

I played CSM in 6th/7th edition, where they were one of the worst armies in the game, my opponents fielded Tau and Necrons - 2 of the best armies.
We solved the problem by not taking the decurion detachment so Necrons got toned down, also playing maelstrom or our own scenarios helped a lot.

8th edition has a much better balance than those two prior editions, it should be possible for you to adapt. There are more armies than IG out there.

Nah - high tier armies blow low tier armies off the table in a single turn or at worst 2 turns. It's kind of fun for the guy winning but not really. It's totally unfun for the guy getting waxed.

I don't understand why people are still playing games with such little terrain that armies are dying turn 1 or 2. I play Tau and I prefer for there to be 1-2 large LOS blocking pieces (usually ruins) in the middle and then more LOS blocking pieces (ruins/hills) scattered around the map with woods/other cover available too. It makes the game more interesting when both teams have to actually move and figure out how they're going to cover objectives based on the opponents army.

Part of your strategy should be giving gunlines targets that they aren't effective at shooting. Example: Put your terminators where there are only 0 to low AP D1 weapons shooting at them so they laugh with their 2+ save. Or put your devestators squads with a few ablative bolter wounds in range of their Las-preds or equivalent so that they can't even get to the juicy heavy weapons on the team for at least a turn.

Pieceocake wrote:

Nah - high tier armies blow low tier armies off the table in a single turn or at worst 2 turns. It's kind of fun for the guy winning but not really. It's totally unfun for the guy getting waxed.

I don't understand why people are still playing games with such little terrain that armies are dying turn 1 or 2. I play Tau and I prefer for there to be 1-2 large LOS blocking pieces (usually ruins) in the middle and then more LOS blocking pieces (ruins/hills) scattered around the map with woods/other cover available too. It makes the game more interesting when both teams have to actually move and figure out how they're going to cover objectives based on the opponents army.

Part of your strategy should be giving gunlines targets that they aren't effective at shooting. Example: Put your terminators where there are only 0 to low AP D1 weapons shooting at them so they laugh with their 2+ save. Or put your devestators squads with a few ablative bolter wounds in range of their Las-preds or equivalent so that they can't even get to the juicy heavy weapons on the team for at least a turn.

That can be atested to the horrible terrain rules this Ed. I actually had a conversation with one of the guys I play, he was saying man our terrain looks great, but it sucks game wise. He was saying if you look at tournaments they have really ugly terrain but it blocks full LoS

Enjoy the challenge. There's a lot of room to optimize even top tier armies, you best believe a low tier one is not as defined, find your strongest units and squeeze what you can out of them. The gap between almost all armies is not so large you cannot play the game.

You won't below tier forever, just play this edition with the tools you are given.

I personally prefer an army that is around low tier. Makes victory taste so much sweeter.

I'm laughing that so many responses are just accepting of the status quo.

Reemule wrote:
I'm laughing that so many responses are just accepting of the status quo.

Not really accepting the status quo, was more or less, a question of do you wait it out with your army? Or invest in one that's good, but you have no vested interest in.

You just need to house rule ruins so that the first floor always blocks LOS. Really simple and very practical since ITC plays that way and you dont have to buy more terrain to change things up.

I would say to wait it out and play what you like. Try to figure out what works and make sure you aren’t just playing kill missions.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Pieceocake wrote:

Nah - high tier armies blow low tier armies off the table in a single turn or at worst 2 turns. It's kind of fun for the guy winning but not really. It's totally unfun for the guy getting waxed.

I don't understand why people are still playing games with such little terrain that armies are dying turn 1 or 2. I play Tau and I prefer for there to be 1-2 large LOS blocking pieces (usually ruins) in the middle and then more LOS blocking pieces (ruins/hills) scattered around the map with woods/other cover available too. It makes the game more interesting when both teams have to actually move and figure out how they're going to cover objectives based on the opponents army.

Part of your strategy should be giving gunlines targets that they aren't effective at shooting. Example: Put your terminators where there are only 0 to low AP D1 weapons shooting at them so they laugh with their 2+ save. Or put your devestators squads with a few ablative bolter wounds in range of their Las-preds or equivalent so that they can't even get to the juicy heavy weapons on the team for at least a turn.

That can be atested to the horrible terrain rules this Ed. I actually had a conversation with one of the guys I play, he was saying man our terrain looks great, but it sucks game wise. He was saying if you look at tournaments they have really ugly terrain but it blocks full LoS

You mean the shoebox terrain rules of 8th edition.
I get that GW was trying to speed up the game and get away from the 20 zillion special rules that made learning 7th edition a chore and needing to know all those USR of by heart ment it was only the dedicated that stuck with it and the balance being well cliff like.
But 8th edition is too simple terrain outside of the shoebox LOS blocking tournament style may aswell not exsist for all its gameplay effect.

Terrain rules are garbage anyone who bought gw terrain over the last few editions has virtually no buildings that block los.

Even third party stuff tends to have windows.

You mean the shoebox terrain rules of 8th edition.
I get that GW was trying to speed up the game and get away from the 20 zillion special rules that made learning 7th edition a chore and needing to know all those USR of by heart ment it was only the dedicated that stuck with it and the balance being well cliff like.
But 8th edition is too simple terrain outside of the shoebox LOS blocking tournament style may aswell not exsist for all its gameplay effect.

First off, LOS blocking terrain ALWAYS effects gameplay.

Secondly, you don't need to always have boxes. There are plenty of L-shaped or even 3-walled LOS blocking ruins that allow you to benefit from cover (for infantry on it at all, or even vehicles if they're on it and obscured) while shooting out 2 sides.


Edit: You can also board up your windows with extra bits/plasticard if you feel the need to actually play LOS without house ruling the terrain, but I don't see the point if your terrain looks cool as it is.

Pieceocake wrote:

You mean the shoebox terrain rules of 8th edition.
I get that GW was trying to speed up the game and get away from the 20 zillion special rules that made learning 7th edition a chore and needing to know all those USR of by heart ment it was only the dedicated that stuck with it and the balance being well cliff like.
But 8th edition is too simple terrain outside of the shoebox LOS blocking tournament style may aswell not exsist for all its gameplay effect.

First off, LOS blocking terrain ALWAYS effects gameplay.

Secondly, you don't need to always have boxes. There are plenty of L-shaped or even 3-walled LOS blocking ruins that allow you to benefit from cover (for infantry on it at all, or even vehicles if they're on it and obscured) while shooting out 2 sides.

Problem is even if there is a little pin hole that let's you see the model you can legally shoot everything though that hole.

Exactly if your a necron player gl getting all 20 warriors perfectly in cover.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Problem is even if there is a little pin hole that let's you see the model you can legally shoot everything though that hole.

Play ITC rules and that goes away.

It depends how hard and how often I'll be canned in the local meta.

Right now it happens a lot.

Necrons
Chaos
IG players

...are the majority where I am. I'm honestly LUCKY when the person I play is something besides those three.

Played a Tyranid player as my last game, it was fun seeing something new. But I just can't compete with competent players who build lists meant to take on other above average codices.

Even my other armies don't really work. Ravenguard, Imperial Knight/Scion House footmen, Deathwatch. I don't actually play a GOOD army and its finally got to me. Sold off a Knight, about half of my Grey Knights (I have a lot still have enough to field a full army), the Ravenguard weren't that big so I'm keeping my custom Shrike and Vanguard Assault. Never selling my Scions. Just putting those playing hours into painting hours for the few bits of grey plastic I have left.

Oh sold my Admech, keeping the Onager Dunecrawlers because I painted them to match my Scions and Imperial Knight so it was kind of a armored company.

A game just isn't worth the time when a nicely painted model you want to show off is useless.

Yeah, you guys are being intentionally stubborn about this rule and then complaining that it removes the fun from the game. You are going to have to help yourself if you want to have fun. lol

Pieceocake wrote:

Nah - high tier armies blow low tier armies off the table in a single turn or at worst 2 turns. It's kind of fun for the guy winning but not really. It's totally unfun for the guy getting waxed.

I don't understand why people are still playing games with such little terrain that armies are dying turn 1 or 2. I play Tau and I prefer for there to be 1-2 large LOS blocking pieces (usually ruins) in the middle and then more LOS blocking pieces (ruins/hills) scattered around the map with woods/other cover available too. It makes the game more interesting when both teams have to actually move and figure out how they're going to cover objectives based on the opponents army.

Part of your strategy should be giving gunlines targets that they aren't effective at shooting. Example: Put your terminators where there are only 0 to low AP D1 weapons shooting at them so they laugh with their 2+ save. Or put your devestators squads with a few ablative bolter wounds in range of their Las-preds or equivalent so that they can't even get to the juicy heavy weapons on the team for at least a turn.

Look man - a melle army will table/ lock up your entire army in a single turn too. The issue is not firing lanes. In fact we are probably using too much terrain in comparison to what tournaments are using. ITC has made up house rules that turn every first floor of a ruin into a brick wall but if you think that solves anything all you need to do is look at what armies start dominating in that scenerio (it's the exact same stuff that dominates without LOS blocking too) Really fast jetbike melle units with double moves/and or insane durability and weapons that don't need LOS (Basalisks, manticores, hive gaurd, reaper tempest launchers). I mean - you can charge someone without LOS and they can't even overwatch you. It just tilts the balance in the other direction where shooting armies without LOS ignore become useless because they can't even shoot before their whole army gets charge.

Ultimately - the problem is undercosted units doing too much damage for their cost. It's really easy to see how things can snowball. RTS players understand this. If you have 8 zerglings going up against 4 zerglings - you don't trade 4 for 4 zerglings. The side with 8 zerglings is unlikely to lose more than 1 zergling because they get wrap around overrun the 4 units. The same principle applies in 40k. Undercosted units are realistically producing situations like this.

Pieceocake wrote:

You mean the shoebox terrain rules of 8th edition.
I get that GW was trying to speed up the game and get away from the 20 zillion special rules that made learning 7th edition a chore and needing to know all those USR of by heart ment it was only the dedicated that stuck with it and the balance being well cliff like.
But 8th edition is too simple terrain outside of the shoebox LOS blocking tournament style may aswell not exsist for all its gameplay effect.

First off, LOS blocking terrain ALWAYS effects gameplay.

Secondly, you don't need to always have boxes. There are plenty of L-shaped or even 3-walled LOS blocking ruins that allow you to benefit from cover (for infantry on it at all, or even vehicles if they're on it and obscured) while shooting out 2 sides.


Edit: You can also board up your windows with extra bits/plasticard if you feel the need to actually play LOS without house ruling the terrain, but I don't see the point if your terrain looks cool as it is.

Locally we have house ruled terrain even further than ITC to make it more part of the game and a lot less ignorable. Being on/in ground floor of ruins is essentially RAW impossible with GW or mantic terrain as neither have bases. No one but infantry can be on upper floors, and even a solid wall can't stop you being shot at if you have even an arial or banner showing RAW the entire squad can die.
But this is playing way outside the 40k as GW intended.

8th can be made a lot better, but at a certain point your not really playing 8th edition anymore its more of a 7.9 or 8.2 depending on your point of view.

When we play tournament or practice games the amount terrain impacts the game really noticeably drops

Space wolves were my first army. I love the lore, the looks, the style, everything. I just love my Space Wolves.

They are rumored to be the last imperial index, and currently the "competitive" way to run them is spamming storm bolters on EVERYTHING. Which doesn't really appeal to me. I've ran them a few times in 8th, and all the cool stuff I really love to use fell flat, all my plans failed, and nothing went the way I expected it to.

Thinking back to how much my daemon army improved with a codex, as well as how fun the stratagems are for death guard, I've just been leaving my wolves on the shelf. Patiently awaiting their codex. I paint a few every now and then, but I'm OK with waiting for them to get a codex.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Space wolves were my first army. I love the lore, the looks, the style, everything. I just love my Space Wolves.

They are rumored to be the last imperial index, and currently the "competitive" way to run them is spamming storm bolters on EVERYTHING. Which doesn't really appeal to me. I've ran them a few times in 8th, and all the cool stuff I really love to use fell flat, all my plans failed, and nothing went the way I expected it to.

Thinking back to how much my daemon army improved with a codex, as well as how fun the stratagems are for death guard, I've just been leaving my wolves on the shelf. Patiently awaiting their codex. I paint a few every now and then, but I'm OK with waiting for them to get a codex.

Off topic, but Can you give me a rough competitive SW list ATM?

Look man - a melle army will table/ lock up your entire army in a single turn too. The issue is not firing lanes. In fact we are probably using too much terrain in comparison to what tournaments are using. ITC has made up house rules that turn every first floor of a ruin into a brick wall but if you think that solves anything all you need to do is look at what armies start dominating in that scenerio (it's the exact same stuff that dominates without LOS blocking too) Really fast jetbike melle units with double moves/and or insane durability and weapons that don't need LOS (Basalisks, manticores, hive gaurd, reaper tempest launchers). I mean - you can charge someone without LOS and they can't even overwatch you. It just tilts the balance in the other direction where shooting armies without LOS ignore become useless because they can't even shoot before their whole army gets charge.

Ultimately - the problem is undercosted units doing too much damage for their cost. It's really easy to see how things can snowball. RTS players understand this. If you have 8 zerglings going up against 4 zerglings - you don't trade 4 for 4 zerglings. The side with 8 zerglings is unlikely to lose more than 1 zergling because they get wrap around overrun the 4 units. The same principle applies in 40k. Undercosted units are realistically producing situations like this.

If you need, I can help you out with strategy. If they have a bunch of jetbikes, put small forward screening units far enough outside walls so that if they charge your screen, they can be shot next turn. If they ignore the screen and go for the second ranks, you get to fire overwatch at least. Make sure the tanks or artillery are more than 12" from anywhere the bikes could land first turn. The first part applies to any melee. Make sure you are okay with the closest unit dying and then shoot them after the squad is gone, or can fall back.

Units that don't need LOS suffer from 4+ BS and Chapter tactics like Ravenguard will likely always affect them too (except reaper tempest launchers, but you can only take 3 now). Its really easy to get cover since they are very likely to not have 50% of the unit they are shooting at. (not as helpful against basilisks, but could still save damage. And obviously you'll want to get in close against those basilisks and try to tie them up or shoot them with melta. There are many ways to get to them. Play with fliers and hover next to them the whole game, clear screen and deepstrike, deepstrike shooty units and shoot over their screen, etc etc.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Space wolves were my first army. I love the lore, the looks, the style, everything. I just love my Space Wolves.

They are rumored to be the last imperial index, and currently the "competitive" way to run them is spamming storm bolters on EVERYTHING. Which doesn't really appeal to me. I've ran them a few times in 8th, and all the cool stuff I really love to use fell flat, all my plans failed, and nothing went the way I expected it to.

Thinking back to how much my daemon army improved with a codex, as well as how fun the stratagems are for death guard, I've just been leaving my wolves on the shelf. Patiently awaiting their codex. I paint a few every now and then, but I'm OK with waiting for them to get a codex.

Off topic, but Can you give me a rough competitive SW list ATM?

Sure, at a high level:

Thunderwolf Cavalry /w storm shields
Wolf lords on thunder wolf
Hellblasters (using outflank)

Supported by Custodes bike captains & imperial guard. <--- every single space marine list needs this. These two things on their own are super competitive so you can add whatever you want and at least be decent.

Essentially you have a ton of 3++ characters and 3++ cavalry which move quickly and are devastating in melee.. as well as mobile dice to clear chaff, since your cavalry can take chainswords, + the wolf attacks, as well as the custode bike captains. You also pack a punch to clear bigger things.

And you have standard guard cheese so you'll never be table even if you roll awful, and can artillery slap anything dangerous.

Ice_can wrote:

Pieceocake wrote:

You mean the shoebox terrain rules of 8th edition.
I get that GW was trying to speed up the game and get away from the 20 zillion special rules that made learning 7th edition a chore and needing to know all those USR of by heart ment it was only the dedicated that stuck with it and the balance being well cliff like.
But 8th edition is too simple terrain outside of the shoebox LOS blocking tournament style may aswell not exsist for all its gameplay effect.

First off, LOS blocking terrain ALWAYS effects gameplay.

Secondly, you don't need to always have boxes. There are plenty of L-shaped or even 3-walled LOS blocking ruins that allow you to benefit from cover (for infantry on it at all, or even vehicles if they're on it and obscured) while shooting out 2 sides.


Edit: You can also board up your windows with extra bits/plasticard if you feel the need to actually play LOS without house ruling the terrain, but I don't see the point if your terrain looks cool as it is.

Locally we have house ruled terrain even further than ITC to make it more part of the game and a lot less ignorable. Being on/in ground floor of ruins is essentially RAW impossible with GW or mantic terrain as neither have bases. No one but infantry can be on upper floors, and even a solid wall can't stop you being shot at if you have even an arial or banner showing RAW the entire squad can die.
But this is playing way outside the 40k as GW intended.

8th can be made a lot better, but at a certain point your not really playing 8th edition anymore its more of a 7.9 or 8.2 depending on your point of view.

When we play tournament or practice games the amount terrain impacts the game really noticeably drops

It's not ignorable - terrain gives you +1 armor. In game terms that is like having a 1 point stratagem on every unit for free if you utilize the terrain. You want terrain to do more than this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pieceocake wrote:

Look man - a melle army will table/ lock up your entire army in a single turn too. The issue is not firing lanes. In fact we are probably using too much terrain in comparison to what tournaments are using. ITC has made up house rules that turn every first floor of a ruin into a brick wall but if you think that solves anything all you need to do is look at what armies start dominating in that scenerio (it's the exact same stuff that dominates without LOS blocking too) Really fast jetbike melle units with double moves/and or insane durability and weapons that don't need LOS (Basalisks, manticores, hive gaurd, reaper tempest launchers). I mean - you can charge someone without LOS and they can't even overwatch you. It just tilts the balance in the other direction where shooting armies without LOS ignore become useless because they can't even shoot before their whole army gets charge.

Ultimately - the problem is undercosted units doing too much damage for their cost. It's really easy to see how things can snowball. RTS players understand this. If you have 8 zerglings going up against 4 zerglings - you don't trade 4 for 4 zerglings. The side with 8 zerglings is unlikely to lose more than 1 zergling because they get wrap around overrun the 4 units. The same principle applies in 40k. Undercosted units are realistically producing situations like this.

If you need, I can help you out with strategy. If they have a bunch of jetbikes, put small forward screening units far enough outside walls so that if they charge your screen, they can be shot next turn. If they ignore the screen and go for the second ranks, you get to fire overwatch at least. Make sure the tanks or artillery are more than 12" from anywhere the bikes could land first turn. The first part applies to any melee. Make sure you are okay with the closest unit dying and then shoot them after the squad is gone, or can fall back.

Units that don't need LOS suffer from 4+ BS and Chapter tactics like Ravenguard will likely always affect them too (except reaper tempest launchers, but you can only take 3 now). Its really easy to get cover since they are very likely to not have 50% of the unit they are shooting at. (not as helpful against basilisks, but could still save damage. And obviously you'll want to get in close against those basilisks and try to tie them up or shoot them with melta. There are many ways to get to them. Play with fliers and hover next to them the whole game, clear screen and deepstrike, deepstrike shooty units and shoot over their screen, etc etc.

I'm not talking about a specific problem I am having - I am talking about general issues with the game as a whole. The units that are strong - are so much stronger than the units that aren't strong for the cost - tactics really don't have a lot to do with anything at that point. Every army has a competitive option that is true but for most armies it is to soup in a stronger arm - then you have to ask yourself why you are even including your weaker army contingent at all. Serious question have you ever seen what quickened shinning spears can do? There is nothing you can do to prevent them from charging your best stuff - other than cancel the spell.

It isn’t true that you can do nothing to stop quickened spears from charging your best stuff. How to do it depends on your army and the terrain though.

1.) you already mentioned denying the spell
2.) with the new FAQ you can fill up a ruin level and make them unable to charge if your good stuff can go up on levels.
3.) you can in a sizable enough screen to deny them space to move over said screen forcing them to charge the screen.
4.)now that they cannot deepstrike and quicken you can hit them first, they cannot assault after fall back so you can tie them up, or shoot them to death.
5.) DE can cancel the advance and charge strat, which reduces their move, or denies them the charge

They are super good, but not unbeatable

hobojebus wrote:
Terrain rules are garbage anyone who bought gw terrain over the last few editions has virtually no buildings that block los.

Even third party stuff tends to have windows.

Anyone building GW ruins who didn't build them with at least one ground floor wall solid wasn't thinking it through. Even in previous editions there was a big difference between LoS blocking and cover.

In competetive context, playing an underdog army is where you actually learn to play instead of just copypaste strong and forgiving list and roll dice. Of course you'll get beating after beating with only occasional sparks of draws or close wins, but when the time comes you either change faction or get new, top tier codex, then you should be already a better player overall.

Or you can use this opportunity to take on an entirely different path and explore 40K where it trully shines - beyond matched play and tournament prep games, where there are no meaningfull 'tiers' or tears of frustration at GW indolence, just loads of great and intelectually involving fun with one-off custom asymmetric scenarios instead of reprtetive EW, interesting and unique terrain setups/dioramas instead of 'fair' bowling ball planets and where every model/unit can be made not only viable to play but even crucial to victory and you can ballance every game to match skill levels, playstyles, collections and codices for mutual enjoyment.

One of the saddest things that happened to 40k between 2nd and 8th editions was this huge shift towards "only competetive meta is 'true 40k'" with everything else possible with this game being frown upon or marginalised, as was with 2/3rds of 8th BRB or CA contents...

When you drop the need and obsession of winning, you can actually have fun even when losing.

If your faction is what you like - if your armylist includes models and weapons you like - I dont see why the game result would destroy your backbone to this extent.

I don't know - guess I simply just enjoy the playing part enough that I bare no attention to this "which tier my army is and why it ruins my experience" -thought process.

I play/collect Space Wolves if it matters.

People want competitive 40k because they want balance. People want to be able to show up see a random guy play a game without knowing anything about each other and have fun. Which is most likely to happen if it is balanced.

nou wrote:
One of the saddest things that happened to 40k between 2nd and 8th editions was this huge shift towards "only competetive meta is 'true 40k'" with everything else possible with this game being frown upon or marginalised, as was with 2/3rds of 8th BRB or CA contents...

Let's not overstate the problem. "Only competitive meta is 'true 40k' when it's discussed online with everything else..." would be a more accurate statement.

The Internet had a big impact in the growth of competitive 40k, and sometimes we mistake online discussion for the reality most players inhabit. Very different things.

For me, 40k is only fun to play when others are enjoying it, otherwise I retreat back to painting and modelling. There needs to be some payoff besides rolling dice. 7th edition went terribly for Chaos Space Marines so I mostly skipped it.

Once you've played 40k for a few editions, you know what it's like to have the rules working against you. A few people mentioned they would never want to ask for a handicap, I offer them when I know someone is playing a weak Codex. My army lists are tiered so that I'm not just steamrolling other players and can experiment with units I don't usually take.

There is nothing wrong with tailoring the rules to make the game competitive for both sides.

The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

It actually depends on your meta. If you are into 40k because you love the hobby and just want an occasionally clash with your friends' miniatures then the game is amazing. If you want to compete and to prove you're good at it the game is horrible, as always. Tailor a game with your opponent if you don't want to invest tons of money into miniatures that you wouldn't buy just for being competitive. IMHO that's exactly how 40k should be played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Space wolves were my first army. I love the lore, the looks, the style, everything. I just love my Space Wolves.

They are rumored to be the last imperial index, and currently the "competitive" way to run them is spamming storm bolters on EVERYTHING. Which doesn't really appeal to me. I've ran them a few times in 8th, and all the cool stuff I really love to use fell flat, all my plans failed, and nothing went the way I expected it to.

Thinking back to how much my daemon army improved with a codex, as well as how fun the stratagems are for death guard, I've just been leaving my wolves on the shelf. Patiently awaiting their codex. I paint a few every now and then, but I'm OK with waiting for them to get a codex.

Off topic, but Can you give me a rough competitive SW list ATM?

Sure, at a high level:

Thunderwolf Cavalry /w storm shields
Wolf lords on thunder wolf
Hellblasters (using outflank)

Supported by Custodes bike captains & imperial guard. <--- every single space marine list needs this. These two things on their own are super competitive so you can add whatever you want and at least be decent.

Essentially you have a ton of 3++ characters and 3++ cavalry which move quickly and are devastating in melee.. as well as mobile dice to clear chaff, since your cavalry can take chainswords, + the wolf attacks, as well as the custode bike captains. You also pack a punch to clear bigger things.

And you have standard guard cheese so you'll never be table even if you roll awful, and can artillery slap anything dangerous.

Do you even call that a SW list???

That's basically one HQ and one unit of SW, maybe two if you count the hellblasters. No wonder people want to quit the hobby if they're forced to play something like that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

To be fair in a lot of cases people post lists without context, and then get hammered. That may not always be true, but people don’t usually post “I’m playing a battle trying to recreate/create X cool scenario, do you think this list will work for that?” That said I never spent much time in the list section here there was never much to be gained, the signal to noise ratio was far too low. Your general player is terrible at list critique for any kind of play.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

To be fair in a lot of cases people post lists without context, and then get hammered. That may not always be true, but people don’t usually post “I’m playing a battle trying to recreate/create X cool scenario, do you think this list will work for that?” That said I never spent much time in the list section here there was never much to be gained, the signal to noise ratio was far too low. Your general player is terrible at list critique for any kind of play.

That's because people can use narrative lists in every context. I'm bringing a 3-superheavy list to NOVA because my army is a superheavy tank regiment. I won't ask for help building the NOVA list, though, because apparently "making the best within these constraints" is essentially just heresy; if you're not trying your absolute hardest to win then you shouldn't even try at all.

On at least 2 separate occasions I've posited a "generic" list while asking for ideas of how to use certain units or make up the last 500 points or anything, and on the two that I can think of I've gotten yelled at for not being competitive enough. It's true, even my generic "take-anywhere-even-to-tournament" lists are generally rooted in my narrative, but surely people could talk about how to play and improve with subpar choices rather than just dismissing the whole list as awful and ridiculing the idea of even trying.

My brother and I used to change points values significantly. He played daemons and I play orks. In 7th at equal points values I was realistically conceding on turn 2 or 3. We ended up changing points values around and most of the games were still very close when playing 3k orks vs 1850 of daemons. He even managed to win with this change.

What do you do when your army is low tier and not competitive? Don't play competitively. I don't think there's any army that is unplayable however. There are certainly some that are just weak, but unplayable means you can't form a force in the first place

 Marmatag wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Space wolves were my first army. I love the lore, the looks, the style, everything. I just love my Space Wolves.

They are rumored to be the last imperial index, and currently the "competitive" way to run them is spamming storm bolters on EVERYTHING. Which doesn't really appeal to me. I've ran them a few times in 8th, and all the cool stuff I really love to use fell flat, all my plans failed, and nothing went the way I expected it to.

Thinking back to how much my daemon army improved with a codex, as well as how fun the stratagems are for death guard, I've just been leaving my wolves on the shelf. Patiently awaiting their codex. I paint a few every now and then, but I'm OK with waiting for them to get a codex.

Off topic, but Can you give me a rough competitive SW list ATM?

Sure, at a high level:

Thunderwolf Cavalry /w storm shields
Wolf lords on thunder wolf
Hellblasters (using outflank)

Supported by Custodes bike captains & imperial guard. <--- every single space marine list needs this. These two things on their own are super competitive so you can add whatever you want and at least be decent.

Essentially you have a ton of 3++ characters and 3++ cavalry which move quickly and are devastating in melee.. as well as mobile dice to clear chaff, since your cavalry can take chainswords, + the wolf attacks, as well as the custode bike captains. You also pack a punch to clear bigger things.

And you have standard guard cheese so you'll never be table even if you roll awful, and can artillery slap anything dangerous.

Yeah, this pretty much sums up what I have seen. Only thing not listed is how often I see WG bikes with storm bolters brought up. It is substantial dakka, but I don't play SW for dakka. I play them for fast CC... which my nurgle army is doing way better with.

Just to respond to an earlier post that said tzaangor blobs are no good anymore - I don't think that's quite true.

- They get the 1st-turn charge attempt with darkmatter crystal.
- They get +1 to their charge result
- They have access to Tzeentch reroll (fates psychic power, wc6+) as well as the CP reroll, so they get to reroll none, one or both of their dice.

I don't know what the odds are on this, but they're well over 50%. I know you're looking for 100% reliability on top table events, but they are one of the few units left that can offer this kind of charge potential on T1. They still do top-tier work for me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

To be fair in a lot of cases people post lists without context, and then get hammered. That may not always be true, but people don’t usually post “I’m playing a battle trying to recreate/create X cool scenario, do you think this list will work for that?” That said I never spent much time in the list section here there was never much to be gained, the signal to noise ratio was far too low. Your general player is terrible at list critique for any kind of play.

That's because people can use narrative lists in every context. I'm bringing a 3-superheavy list to NOVA because my army is a superheavy tank regiment. I won't ask for help building the NOVA list, though, because apparently "making the best within these constraints" is essentially just heresy; if you're not trying your absolute hardest to win then you shouldn't even try at all.

On at least 2 separate occasions I've posited a "generic" list while asking for ideas of how to use certain units or make up the last 500 points or anything, and on the two that I can think of I've gotten yelled at for not being competitive enough. It's true, even my generic "take-anywhere-even-to-tournament" lists are generally rooted in my narrative, but surely people could talk about how to play and improve with subpar choices rather than just dismissing the whole list as awful and ridiculing the idea of even trying.

That is because most people on here are terrible at the game, so take strongest units and profit is what passes for list advice. Just look at the space wolf advice above. “Every “Marine” list needs to be guard + custodes.” People confuse “be competitive” for win a GT. For instance if you wanted to win NOVA I would tell you to drop your list entirely. But if you just want to compete there are plenty of things you can do.

@ op

Mattel endlessly gushes about multi damage every post.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

I don´t buy this top/low tier nonsense. It´s just whining on a grand scale. You have a very obvious low/high tier system in Blood Bowl with stunty and non-stunty teams. In 40K there are no such extremes like in this sports game.

Lol. 40k has never been, isn't and will never be balanced game. Tiers exist. Pretend they don't exist if you wish. By any chance you play Imperium or Eldar?-) Easy then to claim there's no tiers if you are playing the top dogs.

 techsoldaten wrote:

nou wrote:
One of the saddest things that happened to 40k between 2nd and 8th editions was this huge shift towards "only competetive meta is 'true 40k'" with everything else possible with this game being frown upon or marginalised, as was with 2/3rds of 8th BRB or CA contents...

Let's not overstate the problem. "Only competitive meta is 'true 40k' when it's discussed online with everything else..." would be a more accurate statement.

The Internet had a big impact in the growth of competitive 40k, and sometimes we mistake online discussion for the reality most players inhabit. Very different things.

For me, 40k is only fun to play when others are enjoying it, otherwise I retreat back to painting and modelling. There needs to be some payoff besides rolling dice. 7th edition went terribly for Chaos Space Marines so I mostly skipped it.

Once you've played 40k for a few editions, you know what it's like to have the rules working against you. A few people mentioned they would never want to ask for a handicap, I offer them when I know someone is playing a weak Codex. My army lists are tiered so that I'm not just steamrolling other players and can experiment with units I don't usually take.

There is nothing wrong with tailoring the rules to make the game competitive for both sides.

Unfortunately "...when discussed online..." is a half truth only, as "competetive matched play is the only true way" arms race attitude spills over to the real world. During my time here on dakka I've seen quite a lot of people complaining about having very competetively focused FLGSs as the only option available with pretty much no room to wiggle. I myself have had a long break from this hobby when my old group 'died out' exactly because of this change of focus. I'm happy to have a likeminded group once again (mostly fresh 'convertites' from board games/rpg background) so this problem doesn't personally affect me that much and you also seem to have no such problems and there are most certainly thousands of players that do just fine in carving their own niche, but there is no denying that overall focus of gaming (this does apply to other genres outside of 40k or even TT games) shifted in the last 20 years toward 'seriousness' and for many people the struggle is real.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

Lol so you ask for competitive advice on a list, and then get mad when people give it to you? What other sort of response are you looking for? If you want to build a cool list just build what you think is cool, nobody can give you advice on what your personal taste is. If you ask for advice on a list, people will give it.

No-ones chasing you down to berate you for not being competitive enough. You might envision they do, but in reality people just don't care. This post just reads like you posted some gimmicky lists and then got salty when people were honest in the feedback that you asked for, and judging by the only one of your list threads that got any real responses, I'd say that's exactly what happened.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

Lol so you ask for competitive advice on a list, and then get mad when people give it to you? What other sort of response are you looking for? If you want to build a cool list just build what you think is cool, nobody can give you advice on what your personal taste is. If you ask for advice on a list, people will give it.

No-ones chasing you down to berate you for not being competitive enough. You might envision they do, but in reality people just don't care. This post just reads like you posted some gimmicky lists and then got salty when people were honest in the feedback that you asked for, and judging by the only one of your list threads that got any real responses, I'd say that's exactly what happened.

That was a list for giggles.

The type of "I want to be more competitive but please let me run the list I want to" argument I am talking about is this:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/488127.page

Where at least 50% of the responses were "y you gotta run dat list, is bad" and me trying to explain that, instead of helping me actually answer the question I asked. Fortunately, other posters came and gave some good insights, but DakkaDakka has only gotten worse since in terms of "your list is bad and you should feel bad" every time I post something.

Take a look at the Slaanesh thread I posted in General to illustrate that the FAQ was not the end of the world; apparently my list wasn't competitive enough or something (or my opponent's wasn't competitive enough). It was a Friday Night PUG at a local store, which is exactly the kind of game we should hope GW is balancing around.

Sumilidon wrote:
What do you do when your army is low tier and not competitive? Don't play competitively. I don't think there's any army that is unplayable however. There are certainly some that are just weak, but unplayable means you can't form a force in the first place

I consider an army unplayable if it doesn't have close to a 50% chance of winning, other wise I'm carrying around a force just to deploy it and then pack it away again.

I don't see the point in playing a match that's decided before the first model is placed, may as well just roll dice at that point.

In this context competitive means it has a chance to win a game not a tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The discussed online is the important part, most people are looking at pickup or tournament play online and asking advice on winning. You don’t see a lot of people asking for list advice for their narrative campaign.

To be fair, when they do they get ridiculed and yelled at for not being competitive enough.

I used to ask for list advice all the time on this website, but instead of getting helpful advice I just got yelled at for not being competitive enough.

Lol so you ask for competitive advice on a list, and then get mad when people give it to you? What other sort of response are you looking for? If you want to build a cool list just build what you think is cool, nobody can give you advice on what your personal taste is. If you ask for advice on a list, people will give it.

No-ones chasing you down to berate you for not being competitive enough. You might envision they do, but in reality people just don't care. This post just reads like you posted some gimmicky lists and then got salty when people were honest in the feedback that you asked for, and judging by the only one of your list threads that got any real responses, I'd say that's exactly what happened.

That was a list for giggles.

The type of "I want to be more competitive but please let me run the list I want to" argument I am talking about is this:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/488127.page

Where at least 50% of the responses were "y you gotta run dat list, is bad" and me trying to explain that, instead of helping me actually answer the question I asked. Fortunately, other posters came and gave some good insights, but DakkaDakka has only gotten worse since in terms of "your list is bad and you should feel bad" every time I post something.
.

Literally one person said that your list wouldn't work, and that was Peregrine, probably the most widely disliked poster on this site. A whole bunch of other people to respond defended you against his pushing. And at the end of the day.... He actually had a point when he said there's a difference between not being competitive, and putting an army on the table that is literally guaranteed to lose outside of cleaning the entire table. He wasn't getting at you for being less competitive than him, he made no comments on your models being too weak, he outright said that it was because you were wasting your opponents time by playing without the ability to score and should probably reconsider, you are no longer even playing and strategy game at that point. But that's whatever.

Above all, it's disingenuous to act like this is a problem with Dakka not liking anything less competitive than itself, when it's really a problem Peregrine alone, had specifically with your free-table list, and not because your models weren't competitive enough.

Take a look at the Slaanesh thread I posted in General to illustrate that the FAQ was not the end of the world; apparently my list wasn't competitive enough or something (or my opponent's wasn't competitive enough). It was a Friday Night PUG at a local store, which is exactly the kind of game we should hope GW is balancing around

What? No, that's the exact opposite of what we hope, because that's not what balance is, that's an excuse to brush off imbalances. If it's balanced at a competitive level it's balanced all the way down to a casual level. The same does not work in reverse. This is ENTIRELY different to what you were complaining about, you made a thread telling everyone how the game was going to play, while citing two casual lists as your evidence. No gak people are going to point out that your lists aren't that great and this doesn't reflect at all what people are complaining about. You were the one telling them they were wrong, not the other way around, don't act like everyone just bullied you for trying to share a list lol.

What do I do when my army is low tier? Build another army. With 2 armies, you double the chances that at least one of them will be in the meta.

Play anyway.

Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle weren't exactly top tier last edition, I did well anyway.

For the most part, I list tailored heavily to fight specific builds I expected to see based on my meta, and accepted the loss if the enemy list happened to fall into my weak areas.

drbored wrote:
What do I do when my army is low tier? Build another army. With 2 armies, you double the chances that at least one of them will be in the meta.

And GW's plan is working.

Sumilidon wrote:
What do you do when your army is low tier and not competitive? Don't play competitively. I don't think there's any army that is unplayable however. There are certainly some that are just weak, but unplayable means you can't form a force in the first place

Try building a traditional list of an Inquisitor and retinue (lets say a couple of acolytes, crusaders, and death cultists in a landraider), a core force of mechanised stormtroopers (chimeras/rhinos), and a lone temple assassin.

Use the current battle brothers, rule of three, and an inquisition warlord trait and relic.

drbored wrote:
What do I do when my army is low tier? Build another army. With 2 armies, you double the chances that at least one of them will be in the meta.

Nah you don't reward companies for screwing you over, you give their competition your money instead.

How about playing 2 VS 2 and partnering with the most OP army to try and achieve balance?

Or some kind of crazy free-for-all (Are there some rules for this in the back of the main book? I kind of think I skimmed over them once but GW rules are a bit hit and miss - you may need to make your own) where being perceived as a low threat level could work in your favour?

If you think Inquisition has it bad, try solo Corsairs. 3 units max, regardless of points, in matched play. And none of them heavier than a Falcon.

And at max, you get 0 CP.

One thing that helps is figuring a couple of tricks in your armybook between your units and strategems, and focus your command points on doing what works.

I play a dedicated Emperor's Children warband. Its not hyper competitive, as
1) I am not not taking units at optimal sizes, instead opting for the sacred number
2) I'm not doubling down on my most powerful units, instead focusing on modeling and having a visually striking army. (only taking one block of Obliterators)

I will get rolled by a really competitive list, but I can handle an above average list okay by really focusing on my armies strengths, like Endless Cacophony on a unit in the right place (typically either my Plasma Raptors, Melta Bikers, and of course the Obliterators)

Its not impossible to win with this army, and boy do they look good when they pull something off. But it really requires a lot more from me to play well than my Eldar.

Using Rhinos to charge fire support units to tie them up, or absorb dangerous over watch so you can safely get something squishier in combat. Rhino charges have turned life around for my CSM. Its not something readily apparent but a huge tactical edge when applied. I've managed to launch a Rhino charge against a double butcher cannon array leviathan- bet he wished he had kept a close combat weapon then! The Rhino made it in because the Dread was busy ripping holes in other parts of my army...

You can still win with your favorites, you just have to focus harder and really milk everything you can out of your units and stratagems.

 SHUPPET wrote:


...If it's balanced at a competitive level it's balanced all the way down to a casual level...

I just want to point out this is not true, AT ALL. A good example is starcraft, where the factions are roughly balanced around the highest level of play, however in the lower leagues the players aren't good enough to adequately utilize certain races mechanics that the balancing assumes you are doing perfectly. Two good examples are zerg larval injections and terran marine micro. If you are missing larval injections as zerg you are taking massive economy hits, and terran is balanced around properly microing your marines, both of which low level zerg and terrans struggle with because they simply don't have the speed to do everything. As a result a lot of the lower leagues are skewed toward protoss.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


...If it's balanced at a competitive level it's balanced all the way down to a casual level...

I just want to point out this is not true, AT ALL. A good example is starcraft, where the factions are roughly balanced around the highest level of play, however in the lower leagues the players aren't good enough to adequately utilize certain races mechanics that the balancing assumes you are doing perfectly. Two good examples are zerg larval injections and terran marine micro. If you are missing larval injections as zerg you are taking massive economy hits, and terran is balanced around properly microing your marines, both of which low level zerg and terrans struggle with because they simply don't have the speed to do everything. As a result a lot of the lower leagues are skewed toward protoss.

Thanks for the elementary level breakdown of the game I've played for 8 years, but this isn't Starcraft. Absolutely none of what you said applies to tabletop. There is no high skillcap mechanical barrier locking different players out of different strats - everyone can do exactly the same thing with the exact same amount of ease, the second they choose to do it. I appreciate your point because you're not wrong in the context of SC2, you are just wrong in the context of this game, which is the game I made the statement about.

Additionally, in the case of SC2, the solution to this low level imbalance is simple: get better. The tools within the faction are practically available. It's not demanding a disproportionate level of skill to your opponent to succeed, just a basic floor level for the echelon of play.

Starcraft example is indeed flawed, but nevertheless SHUPPET statement is indeed wrong, unless you add "...of matched play tournament prep style games on similiar terrain setup within your local meta closely resembling universal meta". It is enough to say, that popular large tournament formats each having their own mission sets and terrain rules yield different optimal builds exactly because rigid point costs aren't universal metric.

Things get even messier if you play on more complex terrain setups, against non-meta lists, deviate from standard EW missions, play Maelstrom only, or custom scenarios, or play on square table, play different game sizes, never play against IG or Marines as your local group is xenos only so you have different arms race entirely, etc... then you soon realise, that "competetive ballance is best for everyone" is a myth perpetuated by people, who don't really know how 40k can be played outside of "EW matched play on fair terrain". A simple example (one of many I could write here): if you have a narrative scenario, in which Guilliman starts in one corner of the table with a small squad of Sternguard as they are sole survivors of previous part of campaign, and the rest of your point allowance starts the game on the opposite corner coming in as reinforcements from another parts of the larger battle, and your enemy deploys all along the other diagonal line, then Guilliman is overcosted liability not undercosted powerhorse of your army and you should play uneven points lists to ballance this out. Another example are Dark Reapers - they are entirely different beast if you play standard game on planet bowling ball and when you have three of them in your collection and play on terrain heavy, maze like tables - with recent point increase they rarely earn their cost outside of a single tempest launcher. If you don't account such factors when playing "outside of meta" and instead rely on mythical "appropriate point costs are enough to achieve ballance in every concievable game and matchup on all levels of play" you'll have a hard time. And this was always true, no matter the edition, no matter how large the power creep was or how bad relative codex ballance was - outside of narrowly defined "fair mathed play" every one-dimensional point system is bound to fail miserably and is a rough guide only.

The issue is that it is literally impossible to balance around what you are suggesting. As such balanced around high level matched play is what is best, because it works the best for most people concerned with balance. The only way to balance weird scenarios like RG alone with one squad 6’ away from the rest of your army, is and always will be up to the players creating that scenario. You cannot balance something around it’s worst possibl use. That is an issue with aura buffs in general.

I will postulate that I think GW needs to decide what they are balancing around. I think they need to release an organized play ruleset, that stipulates the missions used, terrain layouts/density and points costs they are balancing the game around. Without that the game will never truely be balanced, it will just be better than it is now.

As to the star craft example I think it holds to an extent there are things better players think to do in this game, and abilities they value more than lower level players do that can make it feel like some units are worse (or better) than they might perform in super casual play.

nou wrote:
Starcraft example is indeed flawed, but nevertheless SHUPPET statement is indeed wrong, unless you add "...of matched play tournament prep style games on similiar terrain setup within your local meta closely resembling universal meta". It is enough to say, that popular large tournament formats each having their own mission sets and terrain rules yield different optimal builds exactly because rigid point costs aren't universal metric.

Things get even messier if you play on more complex terrain setups, against non-meta lists, deviate from standard EW missions, play Maelstrom only, or custom scenarios, or play on square table, play different game sizes, never play against IG or Marines as your local group is xenos only so you have different arms race entirely, etc... then you soon realise, that "competetive ballance is best for everyone" is a myth perpetuated by people, who don't really know how 40k can be played outside of "EW matched play on fair terrain". A simple example (one of many I could write here): if you have a narrative scenario, in which Guilliman starts in one corner of the table with a small squad of Sternguard as they are sole survivors of previous part of campaign, and the rest of your point allowance starts the game on the opposite corner coming in as reinforcements from another parts of the larger battle, and your enemy deploys all along the other diagonal line, then Guilliman is overcosted liability not undercosted powerhorse of your army and you should play uneven points lists to ballance this out. Another example are Dark Reapers - they are entirely different beast if you play standard game on planet bowling ball and when you have three of them in your collection and play on terrain heavy, maze like tables - with recent point increase they rarely earn their cost outside of a single tempest launcher. If you don't account such factors when playing "outside of meta" and instead rely on mythical "appropriate point costs are enough to achieve ballance in every concievable game and matchup on all levels of play" you'll have a hard time. And this was always true, no matter the edition, no matter how large the power creep was or how bad relative codex ballance was - outside of narrowly defined "fair mathed play" every one-dimensional point system is bound to fail miserably and is a rough guide only.

the point is if all these rules were part of the base ruleset and the rules were balanced for the highest level, that would still be the case for people playing the exact same game casually. Pointing at the fact that players have had to make rules themselves for this game to be balanced is just more support to the fact that GW haven't finished balancing their game properly.

And casual play should always have terrain. Use household items. If you are playing the game like that, don't complain that it's unbalanced lol.

Exactly my point: there is no such thing as perfect ballance or even "close enough ballance" if you don't account for terrain (including deployment zones layout), win conditions, game size etc... And even then, with such multitude of factions in the game and rock-paper-scisors of nature of some matchups, such ballance will still be dynamic and top performing army will strongly depend on statistical odds of encountering it's hard counter. And such achieved ballance do not spill over outside of context it was ballanced for - sticking to BRB and CA only, without any houserules whatsoever, there is absolutely no way to "officially" ballance Narrative Play section with any point system and 27 factions. Such scenarios will always have to be roughly wieghted by players themselves and "better ballance" of matched play doesn't really improve anything in this context.

And I'm not complaining about imbalances in this game, I'm only trying to show on some edge case examples that "better tournament ballance improves game for everyone" is simply untrue. What is also untrue is that narrative players somehow do not care about ballance - we do need baseline to work on when ballancing odd scenarios, we just account for many more variables and do not believe that anyone can do this work for us, not GW and most certainly not tournament focused players, which more often than not screw things up instead improving them outside of most obvious offenders. Take a Razorwing Flock example - in casual context this was no-issue unit as no sane narrative player would build an army around them and one or three bases of them gave a nice Hitchcock feel to the local skirmish, hardly breaking the game. This is no longer true as tournament players ridiculed this unit so much that it was nerfed and no longer adds flavour to the game. Of course I can deviate from official rules and spin a one-off scenario involving a murder of wild Razorwings, but this only proves my point even further - tournament based ballance is not an universally good metric. It has its merits but it also has it's very deep limitations and stating otherwise is simply being dishonest.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Peregrine, probably the most widely disliked poster on this site.

I love you too.

I am firmly in the camp that competitive balance is the best form of balance generally. To say otherwise is incorrect. Especially in a game like 40K, where many communities get into a competitive arms race because nobody wants to lose all the time, and it is incredibly easy to go online, look at high scoring tournament lists for the faction you play, and BUILD THAT LIST.
This isn't like the 80s and 90s where list building is a rare skill that sets the good players from the rabble, anyone with an Internet Connection can get a highly functional, capable tournament class list and as long as they have half a brain cell they will go on a tear through their local community with it, until other players start getting top tier competitive lists from the internet to match. There are still the great players who set the trends and create new meta breaking lists. But for most players and local tournaments a top tier competitive list is a google search and some credit card debt away.

This is why people get so worked up about balance. It doesn't matter where I play my games, whenever I got to large group setting open play nights- from Minneapolis to Detroit, a large portion of the players are bringing tournament clone lists. This isn't applicable to games I play with my friends where we can candidly discuss what type of game we want to play and tune the level of our lists to play what we want to play without creating a lopsided curb stomp.

Most people asking for advice and complain about balance aren't doing so because they are WAAC tournament players. Most of them are newer players who are getting curbstomped on the regular at their FLGS or local GW by cloned tournament lists, and they want help, and they want the units they love, the ones they started 40K for, to be able to be useable.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Thanks for the elementary level breakdown of the game I've played for 8 years...

Stop being rude. I didn't want to assume you knew I was talking about.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Absolutely none of what you said applies to tabletop...

Yes it does.

As others have stated, and as you have so eloquently pointed out, the analogy isn't perfect. However your assertion that "if it's balanced for high level play it's balanced for all levels of play" is incorrect for pretty much any gaming system, WH40k included. Now you can argue that its a GOOD thing that lower level balance is ignored in favor of higher level balance, but that is a whole other can of worms.

I think Casual balance is more "If I plop down an Aspect host, and my opponent does a demicompany style list, and we're both beer & pretzel-ing the game, is the outcome mostly already decided?"

In a more casual environment, you are likely to see very different unit options (ASM and SS might as well not exist competitively right now, but can be found on casual tables all the time).

Casual can eat a lot more imbalance, because they can self-balance quite a bit, but when it's too far out of whack, it's hard to play. I could take most options in the 6e CWE book, and still have a fun, balanced casual game against most books of that era, but when the 7e CWE book came out, that ceased to be the case. Building a "balanced" list for a casual game became very hard. So even casual needs some balance.

I *wanted* to mechanise my DAs in 6th, but had to move to Aspect Hosts so my opponent could play the game. I *wanted* to do aspect spam in 7th, because that's what I had moved to, was having tons of fun with, and my opponents were enjoying the game. But suddenly, the same list was much much more powerful - to the point where it wasn't a fun game anymore.

However, in the above example, even though Aspect Hosts (with diverse aspects in a CAD, not talking spamming one or formations) was OP for causal games, it wasn't good enough in competitive games. So there was no place for that style of list.

It'd be good if it were balanced around competitive environments. It'd be good if it were balanced around casual environments. But balancing around one doesn't mean it's balanced around the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good example of the difference:

In casual play, the CC ability of a Tac squad adds quite a bit. In competitive play, it typically doesn't get you anywhere.

Bharring wrote:
If you think Inquisition has it bad, try solo Corsairs. 3 units max, regardless of points, in matched play. And none of them heavier than a Falcon.

And at max, you get 0 CP.

Corsairs are not figuratively, literally unplayable in a Battleforged army.

You can't make Aeldari detachments
You can't take Ynnari detachments
You can't take more than three detachments (in case you were considering taking every unit in an Aux Support detachment and having -132532 command points just to play your army)

The_scotsman,
I'm being so technical because I thought you'd appreciate that being technically correct is the *best* kind of correct. (As long as it doesn't derail the thread).

I thought Corsairs had a 3rd keyword, specific to Corsairs (don't have my rules handy).

As such, pack a Corsair squad in a Falcon and bring along a Bike squad as freinds! That's 3 detatchments. You're at 0 CP, so you didn't go negative. That'd be legal.

Now, you're fielding ~600pts (didn't kit it out) at a 2k tourny, with no strats to help you at all (not even the BRB ones). But techincally, you can!

So I would argue they're figuratively, not literally, unplayable.

I'm not as strung up on that, but with all the people who moan about how their army was hurt worse than any other army by the FAQ (I think I've heard that about over half the armies in the game), I think it's useful to bring them up.

In my very humble and maybe debatable opinion, the problem with 40k and its low tier factions is that the key to win a game is'nt really tactics on the very field, but rather list building. The definition of skill in 40k would sound like read the rules carefully, identify which build is the most efficient and unleash it on the battlefield. If you are actually low tier and not just maoning, this means in fact your codex either doens't pack enough of these effecient combos or the available combos are to lax. But because 40k relies to be mainly on list buildings, it's very hard and in the worst cases maybe even nigh impossible to catch up with tactics.

That's why although 40k is highly renown as a competitive game, I'll personally never regard it as such.

If you're army is low tier, you'd better quit any kind of competitive match up and settle for freindly games. The casual world is completly different and although I've been discretly but surely wandering around on dakka back in 6th, I never felt the problems that set the site on fire. Tiers matter only a little in casual, where you can in addition tweak the rules and points and create new according to your needs. At the roots, 40k is a game and the main gaol of it is to have fun, which most of the time mostly excludes getting stomped as flat as a carpet on a regular basis.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Thanks for the elementary level breakdown of the game I've played for 8 years...

Stop being rude. I didn't want to assume you knew I was talking about.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Absolutely none of what you said applies to tabletop...

Yes it does.

As others have stated, and as you have so eloquently pointed out, the analogy isn't perfect. However your assertion that "if it's balanced for high level play it's balanced for all levels of play" is incorrect for pretty much any gaming system, WH40k included. Now you can argue that its a GOOD thing that lower level balance is ignored in favor of higher level balance, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Well, you've said absolutely nothing to convince me of this other than an analogy you've now admitted was no good. I wasn't being rude, I said I appreciate your input, but my point in the opening sentence was that your analogy feels really forced, and more like you just wanted to say you play Starcraft rather than actually being even remotely relevant here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Peregrine, probably the most widely disliked poster on this site.

I love you too.

For what it's worth, I don't dislike you. I don't always agree and I think you're brash but often raise points others won't.

However that does not exactly lead to being the most popular person in the world, and you post a lot so it's probably inevitable. I think we can both agree your statements arent a reflection of Dakka as a whole, hell I imagine you'd be insulted if I said they were

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Thanks for the elementary level breakdown of the game I've played for 8 years...

Stop being rude. I didn't want to assume you knew I was talking about.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Absolutely none of what you said applies to tabletop...

Yes it does.

As others have stated, and as you have so eloquently pointed out, the analogy isn't perfect. However your assertion that "if it's balanced for high level play it's balanced for all levels of play" is incorrect for pretty much any gaming system, WH40k included. Now you can argue that its a GOOD thing that lower level balance is ignored in favor of higher level balance, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Well, you've said absolutely nothing to convince me of this other than an analogy you've now admitted was no good. I wasn't being rude, I said I appreciate your input, but my point in the opening sentence was that your analogy feels really forced, and more like you just wanted to say you play Starcraft rather than actually being even remotely relevant here.

My point was the balancing around high level play assumes the players are doing things that low level players may not actually do. For example, tournaments usually have guidelines about how much cover should be on the field and in what configuration it is allowed to be in. But, when I play a PUG with Joe Schmoe we may have more/less terrain on the field which affects balance, even if we were using bleeding edge net lists. No LOS blocking cover in the field means my 9 basilisk artillery spam list is a lot less scary because it has lost one of its chief advantages. What if I want to take non-optimal units such as AM chimeras? They are so horribly overpriced that even if my opponent were to take "non-optimal" choices from his codex that I still may be at a significant disadvantage.

Balancing around high level play assumes the optimal fighting the optimal, which as I think I have illustrated is sometimes not the case for lower level play. This was all I was trying to point out, try not to take it as a personal attack.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that "just do the things that high level players do" isn't a valid counterargument because then it wouldn't be low level play anymore.

tneva82 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So what do you do when you army is low tier and just not playavle/cometative at all?
I have run into a problem where the armies I have and actually care about are such hot garbage that they have gotten to the point where it's just not even worth Fielding or playing the game. Do you all just wait it out? Do you give in and just buy one of those competative armies/gimick that actually winds games even if you don't care about the armies?

I'm struggling to have any interest in the game anymore since it seems the only way I'll win is if I invest in armies don't care at all about.

I don´t buy this top/low tier nonsense. It´s just whining on a grand scale. You have a very obvious low/high tier system in Blood Bowl with stunty and non-stunty teams. In 40K there are no such extremes like in this sports game.

Lol. 40k has never been, isn't and will never be balanced game. Tiers exist. Pretend they don't exist if you wish. By any chance you play Imperium or Eldar?-) Easy then to claim there's no tiers if you are playing the top dogs.

My point still stands. BB has a very distinct low/top tier system and 40K does not. Power levels in 40K may change after an edition and that´s that. NO faction in 40K is ever advertised as being hot garbage that won´t stand any chance against any other faction whereas in BB Goblins & Halflings were designed to suck and the authors even admit it to give the stunty player a real challenge.
In addition, I found your post quite distasteful. Consider yourself ignored.

w1zard wrote:
What if I want to take non-optimal units such as AM chimeras? They are so horribly overpriced that even if my opponent were to take "non-optimal" choices from his codex that I still may be at a significant disadvantage.

Huh? This is supporting my argument, not countering it. If they were priced fairly and balanced, this would hold true all the one down to these casual games, as you've just admitted.

w1zard wrote:
For example, tournaments usually have guidelines about how much cover should be on the field and in what configuration it is allowed to be in. But, when I play a PUG with Joe Schmoe we may have more/less terrain on the field which affects balance, even if we were using bleeding edge net lists. No LOS blocking cover in the field means my 9 basilisk artillery spam list is a lot less scary because it has lost one of its chief advantages.

This problem is solved by balancing your terrain rules, which is what tournament players have done instead of the rules, and then once again, the balanced option is now still balanced at casual level for people playing by the rules. This is just more support that the game needs to be balanced at a high level.

I'm sorry, but all your examples have done is support my point.

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:
What if I want to take non-optimal units such as AM chimeras? They are so horribly overpriced that even if my opponent were to take "non-optimal" choices from his codex that I still may be at a significant disadvantage.

Huh? This is supporting my argument, not countering it. If they were priced fairly and balanced, this would hold true all the one down to these casual games, as you've just admitted.

w1zard wrote:
For example, tournaments usually have guidelines about how much cover should be on the field and in what configuration it is allowed to be in. But, when I play a PUG with Joe Schmoe we may have more/less terrain on the field which affects balance, even if we were using bleeding edge net lists. No LOS blocking cover in the field means my 9 basilisk artillery spam list is a lot less scary because it has lost one of its chief advantages.

This problem is solved by balancing your terrain rules, which is what tournament players have done instead of the rules, and then once again, the balanced option is now still balanced at casual level for people playing by the rules. This is just more support that the game needs to be balanced at a high level.

I'm sorry, but all your examples have done is support my point.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I consider it "high level play" when three factors are met:

1. Both lists contain only "optimal" units. (Naturally this results in only a handful of "viable" lists per codex).
2. Terrain setups are standardized in some way.
3. Both opponents make no tactical mistakes during gameplay.

Balancing the rules of the game around these three factors always being true naturally makes the game unbalanced when any one of these three things aren't true. For when #3 isn't true we consider it acceptable because the game imbalance resulting from this is the result of "skill".

However, when #1 or #2 aren't true it results in an imbalanced game through no fault of the player. Your solution of forcing people to conform to #1 and #2 isn't "balancing" the game at all levels, it is just forcing players to play at "high level play" and balancing around that.

I fully concede that it may be impossible to balance the game at "low level play" and "high level play" simultaneously. I also concede that it may be for the better that the game is balanced around "high level play", however your assertion that "if it's balanced at high level play it is balanced at all levels of play" is wrong.

My argument would probably be to narrow the gap between "non-optimal" units and "optimal" units to the point of statistical insignificance. This would bridge the balance gap (but not eliminate it) between "low level play" and "high level play".

w1zard wrote:


I think you are misunderstanding me. I consider it "high level play" when three factors are met:

1. Both lists contain only "optimal" units. (Naturally this results in only a handful of "viable" lists per codex).
2. Terrain setups are standardized in some way.
3. Both opponents make no tactical mistakes during gameplay.

Balancing the rules of the game around these three factors always being true naturally makes the game unbalanced when any one of these three things aren't true. For when #3 isn't true we consider it acceptable because the game imbalance resulting from this is the result of "skill".

However, when #1 or #2 aren't true it results in an imbalanced game through no fault of the player. Your solution of forcing people to conform to #1 and #2 isn't "balancing" the game at all levels, it is just forcing players to play at "high level play" and balancing around that.

I fully concede that it may be impossible to balance the game at "low level play" and "high level play" simultaneously. I also concede that it may be for the better that the game is balanced around "high level play", however your assertion that "if it's balanced at high level play it is balanced at all levels of play" is wrong.

My argument would probably be to narrow the gap between "non-optimal" units and "optimal" units to the point of statistical insignificance. This would bridge the balance gap (but not eliminate it) between "low level play" and "high level play".

lol what the


My "solution" doesn't force anybody to conform to optimal lists at all to have a balanced game. In fact it does the opposite. With all models sitting at a balanced point cost for high level, it means that two casual or fluffy built lists have a much better chance of being balanced then if wildly overpowered or under powered models exist that could just as easily have been selected. A game that ISN'T balanced for high level play is what forces casual matches into either both bringing optimal lists to be balanced, or both avoiding "cheese" units. This statement from you once again supports my arguments, not counters it.


And if "conforming to balanced terrain rules means casuals are forced high level play" is honestly your argument here, by this logic, low level play is impossible to see any sort of balance anyway. Because without following a balanced set of terrain rules, it simply NEVER will be - some games will have a jungle of set pieces to block out the sky, and some will be planet bowling ball. You only need to think about this for like 10 seconds to realise that following the higher level standard of play for terrain rules, results in a much more balanced game even at lower levels, and it does not suddenly transform the game into something less casual - its terrain, man.

w1zard wrote:
however your assertion that "if it's balanced at high level play it is balanced at all levels of play" is wrong.

Well, you keep saying that, but you've given nothing to convince me of that perspective. You've had three or more different shots now at trying to explain why this is, and every single time you've completely missed the mark and had to come back with a different approach, even going as far as supporting my statements. Your perspective seems to be "it's this way because it is" and now you are looking for reasons to justify this statement after making it. Just saying somebody is wrong doesn't make it so, if you were right you would be able to substantiate your reasoning much better, if you need to rely on empty statements like that instead, then really you know your argument is as weak as I said it is.

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:
For example, tournaments usually have guidelines about how much cover should be on the field and in what configuration it is allowed to be in. But, when I play a PUG with Joe Schmoe we may have more/less terrain on the field which affects balance, even if we were using bleeding edge net lists. No LOS blocking cover in the field means my 9 basilisk artillery spam list is a lot less scary because it has lost one of its chief advantages.

This problem is solved by balancing your terrain rules, which is what tournament players have done instead of the rules, and then once again, the balanced option is now still balanced at casual level for people playing by the rules. This is just more support that the game needs to be balanced at a high level.

Do I read that correctly as "play only on standard fair terrain setups because that's how tournament players deal with terrain influence on ballance"? Because if that is what you meant, then your definition of casual ballance resulting from tournament ballance starts to read awfully as "as long as you confine yourself to playing in a way tournament players do, but do so on casual, non-ranked basis, then tournament ballance improves your games also" which is obviously true, but does not cover the whole spectrum of possible 40K experiences, neither those falling under "casual" nor "narrative" labels... Pretty much it covers only standardised tournament practice or "common expectatons" pickup style games. I think that there is some deep, axiomatic missunderstanding about what "casual" means for different posters in this thread...

EDIT: you ninja'd my question giving exactly the answer I was expecting... You are confusing two things: "casual players can have acces to ballanced set of restricted rules developed by tournament players" (which is obviously true) with "tournament ballance achieved by messing with point costs under very restricted conditions is influencing all concievable modes of play for the better" (which is completely false).

You can only ever have the tournament style balance. It is literally impossible to balance a game with no restriction on how it is getting played. What standardized terrain and game set up does for casual players is give them an idea of what the game is balanced around and then they can adjust their games starting from their. That way people that want balance can have it and people doing their own thing can do that.

nou wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

w1zard wrote:
For example, tournaments usually have guidelines about how much cover should be on the field and in what configuration it is allowed to be in. But, when I play a PUG with Joe Schmoe we may have more/less terrain on the field which affects balance, even if we were using bleeding edge net lists. No LOS blocking cover in the field means my 9 basilisk artillery spam list is a lot less scary because it has lost one of its chief advantages.

This problem is solved by balancing your terrain rules, which is what tournament players have done instead of the rules, and then once again, the balanced option is now still balanced at casual level for people playing by the rules. This is just more support that the game needs to be balanced at a high level.

Do I read that correctly as "play only on standard fair terrain setups because that's how tournament players deal with terrain influence on ballance"? Because if that is what you meant, then your definition of casual ballance resulting from tournament ballance starts to read awfully as "as long as you confine yourself to playing in a way tournament players do, but do so on casual, non-ranked basis, then tournament ballance improves your games also" which is obviously true, but does not cover the whole spectrum of possible 40K experiences, neither those falling under "casual" nor "narrative" labels... Pretty much it covers only standardised tournament practice or "common expectatons" pickup style games. I think that there is some deep, axiomatic missunderstanding about what "casual" means for different posters in this thread...

EDIT: you ninja'd my question giving exactly the answer I was expecting... You are confusing two things: "casual players can have acces to ballanced set of restricted rules developed by tournament players" (which is obviously true) with "tournament ballance achieved by messing with point costs under very restricted conditions is influencing all concievable modes of play for the better" (which is completely false).

"very strict conditions" you mean literally just a standard for terrain?

If you want to play with a bunch of non-consistent rules then yes, you are free to do that, but you have to realise you will NEVER see balance for this it's impossible, and if you do choose not to have static terrain rules then your games will STILL benefit overall from balanced points on models as opposed to wildy over/under costed units thrown in randomly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
You can only ever have the tournament style balance. It is literally impossible to balance a game with no restriction on how it is getting played. What standardized terrain and game set up does for casual players is give them an idea of what the game is balanced around and then they can adjust their games starting from their. That way people that want balance can have it and people doing their own thing can do that.

this post sums it up pretty well.


On another note, I've never seen a community more averse to balanced play than this one, as though it would somehow make the game worse for casual games. It's crazy how deep the "anti power gaming" mentality runs.

Oh, you can have perfectly ballanced games (ballanced as in both players of equal or even unequal skill can have engaging experience putting their own skill to the test) on any concievable terrain setup, utilising any faction and any unit you desire just fine. But the most important prerequisite for that is being perfectly aware of limitations of linear point cost systems and ballancing every single game from scratch, treating point costs and point limits only as rough basis, modified then by any and all decisions regarding terrain setup, winning conditions, factions traits and perks, units used etc... It requires knowing the system inside out and is completely unsuitable for random pickup games, but is possible (you could even make a tournament format in this style, no problem, but it would be "prearranged lists on prearranged tables" kind of thing - this emerged couple of times in various threads already but sadly only GW sized TO could pull this off). I have played ton of games utilising such approach (more than 150 to date) and having a blast with it even when playing 7th ed Eldar vs Tyranids.

So let me rephrase the last paragraph from my initial post in this thread a bit: "one of the saddest things that happened to 40k between 2nd and 8th editions was this huge shift towards "only competetive approach is valid" with everything else possible with this game being so marginalised that it takes two full pages of this thread to even explain the kind of 40k experience I'm talking about".

But you are both right in one regard (and I said it couple of times already): only standardised subset of choices can be made ballanced enough to work with random pickup or "bring your own list" tournaments and it has to include strict terrain and mission setups (I have literally posted this like three posts ago). But nevertheless such defined ballance does not spill over to every casual or narrative use of 40k and does not automatically make those kinds of experiences better.

nou wrote:
You are confusing two things: "casual players can have acces to ballanced set of restricted rules developed by tournament players" (which is obviously true) with "tournament ballance achieved by messing with point costs under very restricted conditions is influencing all concievable modes of play for the better" (which is completely false).

THANK YOU! That is literally exactly the point I was trying to make, but he doesn't seem to get it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

"very strict conditions" you mean literally just a standard for terrain?

If you want to play with a bunch of non-consistent rules then yes, you are free to do that, but you have to realise you will NEVER see balance for this it's impossible, and if you do choose not to have static terrain rules then your games will STILL benefit overall from balanced points on models as opposed to wildy over/under costed units thrown in randomly.

I'm not arguing that balance for what you describe as "non-consistent" rules is desirable or even achievable. All I'm trying to point out is that your mentality of "if its balanced for tournament players its balanced for everyone" is incorrect. There are many ways to play 40k, many different terrain setups, many different missions/scenarios, many different scoring schemes, and wildly varying skill levels of players. A model "appropriately costed" under one set of conditions might be totally "inappropriately costed" under another. Narrowing the rules so that balance can be achieved under a certain set of variables "balances the game" surely, but balances it around a very narrow and specific set of criteria that some people may not enjoy or be capable of meeting adequately.

w1zard wrote:

There are many ways to play 40k, many different terrain setups, many different missions/scenarios, many different scoring schemes, and wildly varying skill levels of players. A model "appropriately costed" under one set of conditions might be totally "inappropriately costed" under another.

Cool, so how do you achieve perfect balance for all these at once?

There's one answer: You don't.

All you can do is for the best overall balance possible. This game will never be perfectly balanced in any mode, that isn't an excuse to just throw it out. By costing models effectively fairly for competitive play this is obviously going tohave the best OVERALL result going downwards for casual game modes, where people might throw any number of wacky terrain set ups or different armies out there.

There's no way to achieve perfect unit balance between a bunch of non-static game modes, I have said outright that this is impossible to balance and enough people have mirrored that statement for you to be able to stop nitpicking and pretending that this was what was being said. If you aren't playing with a balanced or even a static set of rules - then its RIDICULOUS to argue for balance to focus on a game mode that cannot be balanced, at the expense of competitive play that can be. You balance in favor of one casual game mode you tip out a different one.

The direct CONTEXT of this argument you started was a guy saying that the rules are fine because they worked for his one match, where both he and his opponent had non-optimised lists, and this is what the game should be balanced around. Which is obviously incorrect, and would not be hurt at all by balance at high level play.

You guys are talking about some crazy narrative based play and using that to try poke holes in a statement I never made. Pointing at some Battle of Macragge-esque scenario or whatever and saying "but nope! not this one!" yeah fine, but even if you find some other casual scenario to balance around that ALSO throws out balance for this. Scenarios can't even be perfectly balanced among themselves - balanced high level units will NOT change this, if anything they are far more likely to have a positive impact, but that was never the point of my statement. If you start playing by wacky rules and scenarios you are no longer playing the same game mode as us, you are playing narrative play not casual pick-up games, and anything can happen. I would never dare say that balancing for anything will achieve balance in a game mode where people can just set up the board however the hell they like, because that would just be an idiotic statement to make, considering that game mode can't even be balanced among ITSELF, and some situations are made to be deliberately UNBALANCED.

Not sure how you two warped this into something completely different, but its whatever. This has probably gone on long enough.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Cool, so how do you achieve perfect balance for all these at once?

There's one answer: You don't.

Yep, I completely agree with you. That isn't what I am arguing. My umbrage was with your statement here, and I'm quoting:

 SHUPPET wrote:
...If it's balanced at a competitive level it's balanced all the way down to a casual level....

Casual level doesn't mean tournament scenarios + tournament lists + tournament terrain guidelines played by amateurs (who are in most cases usually experienced players who just don't go to tournaments). Casual level means pretty much all scenarios described in the rulebook and official supplements INCLUDING things like narrative play, and including players who may really just suck at the game or are inexperienced. Like it or not, these are detailed in the rules and are valid gametypes in the game of WH40K, despite being unpopular for exactly the reasons you are describing.

I simply pointed out that your statement was not true, YOU are the one who morphed my argument into something it was not.

I'm going to use a starcraft example again if that is ok? I'm not just doing it to show off my l33t gamer knowledge I promise!

-You can balance the game around bronze level players.
-You can balance the game around masters/grandmasters players.
-You can balance the game around whacky maps.
-You can balance the game around 2v2 and 3v3.
-You can not achieve all of these at once.

-Just because the game is balanced for masters/grandmasters players doesn't mean the balance for bronze level players, whacky map players, 2v2/3v3 modes all magically improves at the same time. In fact, usually the opposite is true.

My post is quite clearly talking about matched play from high level to a casual level, as you can deem by reading the entire context of my statements instead of deliberately a fraction of my sentence in a vacuum. At no point was it that balance for high level competitive play is going to balance low level narrative play. Why would I suddenly be talking about that, a game mode that can't be balanced by definition? That wasn't even YOUR point to begin with with that Starcraft analogy. You eventually morphed it into that, not me, and the second you started making it about that I immediately made it clear that I never thought narrative based play with random terrain could be balanced, so let's not pretend this was something you actually believed I was saying.



You've gone to great lengths now to take that statement completely out of context to claim it was wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't go to the effort of going into his profile, checking the thread he was referencing and seeing what he was talking about as I did, to get the context of my statement - but thats your fault for responding to an isolated sentence in a quote that made it very clear what I was talking about if you actually read everything that was said.



Anyway, it seems we are now in agreement on basically everything I've said so, lets just drop this eyeroll of a debate.

 SHUPPET wrote:


*Now that I actually understand what you were saying and realize that you were right, I'm going to pretend that you took my quote out of context to avoid admitting I was wrong, whilst impugning your intelligence.

*I am also going to end the discussion here in a way that makes me look mature, because I realize I said something untrue and can't argue my way out of it

Alright, water under the bridge old boy.

Sorry, the paraphrasing was juvenile, but satisfying.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


*Now that I actually understand what you were saying and realize that you were right, I'm going to pretend that you took my quote out of context to avoid admitting I was wrong, whilst impugning your intelligence.

*I am also going to end the discussion here in a way that makes me look mature, because I realize I said something untrue and can't argue my way out of it

Alright, water under the bridge old boy.

Sorry, the paraphrasing was juvenile, but satisfying.

Ho.

Lee.

gak.



I probably should have realized I was dealing with a child but this level of maturity is always unexpected.




This should have ended pages ago. Hell it shouldn't have even started to begin with. Have a nice day. Also. Grow up.

What in the gak did I just read.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What in the gak did I just read.

Just dakka being dakka.

I realize that the parting shot was out of line, but he was being annoyingly condescending to me the entire time so I couldn't resist.

Back on topic...

@OP Welcome to how guard felt in 6th and 7th. There's really nothing to do but grin and bear it and hope your army gets better next edition. Until your army becomes mid/top tier and everyone starts screeching and wanting to drag you to the bottom of the pile again.
They stomped you for two whole editions and that is what they are used to so when you are as strong as you should be it feels out of line to them.

Sarcasm aside, try finding games against other factions of similar strength, or play scenarios that give you an advantage in some way. If you refuse to accept a handicap (understandable) then you may have to shelve your army and focus on the painting/hobbying aspect of things until the game changes again. That, or play a different army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What in the gak did I just read.

Looks like the last part of this debate on balance has gone totally out of hand... But to the OP, once again, what is to understand from this fist fight is simply that it is possible to balance the game house ruling it and that a flawed faction in competitive won't struggle particuliarly in narrative ans casual plays, which many have stated by now.

Just one point I'd suggest for 40k's balance problem, once again in comparison with bilt action. In bolt action, you have only simple humans, so you need no such thin as unit profils with strength, toughness blablabla. There are only a few special rules such as stubborn, shirkers... whereas in 40k, there arr style loads of them. Many units are the same: a soviet, japanese or american mmg is the same... and the game only has like 7 or 8 armies.

Now look at 40k. There is such diversity in special rules, profiles, weapons that try to represent so many armies (like 20 with the space marines chapters at least?) that I think it is virtually impossible to balance this "mess". Of course there are some things that are predictably overpowered, mostly underpriced units, but at the same time the balance is also affected by non overpowered units that are overpriced, all of that being even acuter since the special rules know for each unit from eacj codex and the army-wide special rules drom each codex and the generic rules all interact together. Thay's a heck of an utterly gigantic mess and even uf they were good willed, it would be hard for 40k to balance the game at all, because if they remive that unit, nerf it, or biff that one, the interaction changes and another thing or combo emerges as overpowered.

To cut it short: 40k is too diverse for its own food when it comes to balance in my opinion.

No the issue is gw is too cheap to hire a statistician who could with their understanding of maths greatly improve balance.

Instead we have the fekkewits in the current dev team that don't have a clue.I

hobojebus wrote:
No the issue is gw is too cheap to hire a statistician who could with their understanding of maths greatly improve balance.

Instead we have the fekkewits in the current dev team that don't have a clue.I

As has been illustrated above without GE restricting the variables this hiring would be a waste of ther money because the task is literally impossible.

To those arguing that balancing for high level tournies doesn’t help wild narrative games, GW already doesn’t attach the two, the rules are separate and they encourage you not to even bother with points in those scenarios. So when referring to matched play you are really looking at games involving equal points costs playing some standard set of missions (right now GW would say eternal war/maelstrom missions). All I would like to see GW do in this respect is go. Here is they type of terrain we recommend, and missions we used to balance the game for 2k armies in playtesting. If you are looking for the most balanced match possible you will want to replicate these conditions, any large deviation from this will cause the game to be less balanced.

w1zard wrote:

nou wrote:
You are confusing two things: "casual players can have acces to ballanced set of restricted rules developed by tournament players" (which is obviously true) with "tournament ballance achieved by messing with point costs under very restricted conditions is influencing all concievable modes of play for the better" (which is completely false).

THANK YOU! That is literally exactly the point I was trying to make, but he doesn't seem to get it.

You're welcome. It took me quite a while spent on dakka to realise that discussions on "principial ballance" are so heated because many players did not ever encountered anything else outside of matched play on FLGS/tournament scarce terrain. That seems to be especially true for US based players an pick-up culture.

Back at original topic - as I wrote above, me and my group managed to repeatedly have enjoyable and ballanced close games (as in 'decided near the end by few crucial rolls') of Eldar vs Tyranids during 7th - a matchup that many tournament focused players cried as unsalvagably broken. Just to give some practical advice on how one can work on improving the experience when trying to get games involving underdog faction to work:

- DESIGN your games. You already know that official matched play ballance and point costs don't work for you out of the box;
- random preparation (statistically speaking) favours the stronger not the weaker side; find people to play with who understand, that with certain matchups you can't simply 'git gud' and have to work together in order to have enjoyable game; pick-up style is most likely out of the question...
- arrange the terrain so that it emphasises underdog army strenghts;
- choose mission goals/win conditions wisely: don't play simple kill points and go asymmetrical. What works nicely is choosing sets of Maelstrom cards for both players, totaling same number of VPs when achieved, but equalising the difficulty of the game for both players;
- don't be affraid of attacker/defender scenarios;
- if you can pinpoint the problem of skewed matchup to certain OP, all-rounder units, limit their availability;
- cross tailor list to limit rock-paper-scissors incompatible/single sided matchups;
- if something in your codex is glaringly overcosted, houserule it a bit (or play count as using a similiar unit profile that is considered well costed if you don't feel confident with your mathhammer);
- accept that some units simply won't ever work efficiently as written, as their design concept is against the very core system of the game. Rewrite them if you can or abandon them completely.
- be patient, ballancing games this way is a skill in it's own and takes both time and repetition to develop but can be very rewarding and eyes opening.

Breng77 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
No the issue is gw is too cheap to hire a statistician who could with their understanding of maths greatly improve balance.

Instead we have the fekkewits in the current dev team that don't have a clue.I

As has been illustrated above without GE restricting the variables this hiring would be a waste of ther money because the task is literally impossible.

To those arguing that balancing for high level tournies doesn’t help wild narrative games, GW already doesn’t attach the two, the rules are separate and they encourage you not to even bother with points in those scenarios. So when referring to matched play you are really looking at games involving equal points costs playing some standard set of missions (right now GW would say eternal war/maelstrom missions). All I would like to see GW do in this respect is go. Here is they type of terrain we recommend, and missions we used to balance the game for 2k armies in playtesting. If you are looking for the most balanced match possible you will want to replicate these conditions, any large deviation from this will cause the game to be less balanced.

Yeah, it's hard to envision my statement being taken as talking about narrative play considering it doesn't even operate within points values, even less so after reading the context of my post which makes it pretty unmistakable I was talking about matched play, but I guess some people just read what they want to read.

I think your suggestion could do no harm and would be beneficial for matched play for all skill levels, especially if it went hand in hand with points balancing (which on the positive side GW seems to be putting work into than ever before, even if its still in need of work)

hobojebus wrote:
No the issue is gw is too cheap to hire a statistician who could with their understanding of maths greatly improve balance.

Instead we have the fekkewits in the current dev team that don't have a clue.I

That's quite what im doubtful and why i emphasise the huge variety: even with top notch statisticians, I'm not sure they would be 100% efficient. That would help, no doubt, don't take me wrong, and the developmers method is most probably helplessly flawed as it is, but I don't believe it would fix it once and for all. Maybe several years of play testing would do the job but even then...

Besides, though, when discussing balance I wonder whether we shouldn't stop bringing up narrative play as far as issues. We state it once more: it obviously would be positivly affected by a better match play balance/tournament balance, bit sinve you can tweak rules and don't necesseraly play in an optimal way shortcomings are easily overcome, hence why we recommend to our OP digging into it. Only tournament "official" balance can be worked with altogether, can't it?

@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

w1zard wrote:

nou wrote:
You are confusing two things: "casual players can have acces to ballanced set of restricted rules developed by tournament players" (which is obviously true) with "tournament ballance achieved by messing with point costs under very restricted conditions is influencing all concievable modes of play for the better" (which is completely false).

THANK YOU! That is literally exactly the point I was trying to make, but he doesn't seem to get it.

You're welcome. It took me quite a while spent on dakka to realise that discussions on "principial ballance" are so heated because many players did not ever encountered anything else outside of matched play on FLGS/tournament scarce terrain. That seems to be especially true for US based players an pick-up culture.

Back at original topic - as I wrote above, me and my group managed to repeatedly have enjoyable and ballanced close games (as in 'decided near the end by few crucial rolls') of Eldar vs Tyranids during 7th - a matchup that many tournament focused players cried as unsalvagably broken. Just to give some practical advice on how one can work on improving the experience when trying to get games involving underdog faction to work:

- DESIGN your games. You already know that official matched play ballance and point costs don't work for you out of the box;
- random preparation (statistically speaking) favours the stronger not the weaker side; find people to play with who understand, that with certain matchups you can't simply 'git gud' and have to work together in order to have enjoyable game; pick-up style is most likely out of the question...
- arrange the terrain so that it emphasises underdog army strenghts;
- choose mission goals/win conditions wisely: don't play simple kill points and go asymmetrical. What works nicely is choosing sets of Maelstrom cards for both players, totaling same number of VPs when achieved, but equalising the difficulty of the game for both players;
- don't be affraid of attacker/defender scenarios;
- if you can pinpoint the problem of skewed matchup to certain OP, all-rounder units, limit their availability;
- cross tailor list to limit rock-paper-scissors incompatible/single sided matchups;
- if something in your codex is glaringly overcosted, houserule it a bit (or play count as using a similiar unit profile that is considered well costed if you don't feel confident with your mathhammer);
- accept that some units simply won't ever work efficiently as written, as their design concept is against the very core system of the game. Rewrite them if you can or abandon them completely.
- be patient, ballancing games this way is a skill in it's own and takes both time and repetition to develop but can be very rewarding and eyes opening.

That is all fine, but why do your first 2 points need to exist at all? No one is claiming you cannot house rule a game into a fun time. They are arguing that if you did not need to do so it would be better for many people. Not everyone has time to put in all the set up, or a fixed group that they play with. Some people like tournament gaming.

So let me phrase the original statement in perhaps a different way. Balancing to high level tournament play hurts no one and helps many players. I mean your whole post reads as "players should do all the balance work and GW should do nothing." What we are arguing is that if matched play is intended to be the "balanced" competitive style of play then that is what it should be. I mean AOS with no points at all also works in your system, if you have time and ability to fix all the issues you certainly can for your group. That just leads to all groups playing their own version of the game and the community being wholly divided up, I can no longer travel to play with another group unless they give me their rules ahead of time. SO it makes the game less accessible, and harder on new players.

Breng77 wrote:
@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.

I fully agree with you. This debate actually began when I said the points costs for units need to be balanced for high level, to begin with, and this will cause matched play to be balanced all the way down to casual pick up games as a result. And this went hand in hand with the static terrain dispute.

Aaaand we are back where we started...

From my very first post I was clearly at the same page as Breng77 regarding matched/competetive play - that if what you want is ballanced, tournament ready game, then you MUST account for all factors - including terrain setups/deployment zones, win conditions, legal army structure etc... (Just reread my posts to find citations needed). What I do not agree with is that point costs established in such defined constrains apply/improve matches for everyone, regardless of following those limitations or not (and @shuppet, the context of your stance wasn't clear from the start as you only used very broad term "casual level" and it was me who understood this missunderstanding first and pointed it out loud). Moreover, even within such defined boundaries "care free" ballance by point system is literally impossible - you would have to strip pre-game setup, including listbuilding stage, from a huuuuge amount of choice options available now. Even leaving both Eternal War and Maelstrom as parts of Matched Play screw things up so badly, that it is impossible to ballance such system - this is why large TOs come up with their own, more standardized and less random mission sets.

As to why my list of points looks like it does - because I do not waste my time being angry on GW for not being able to achieve an impossible task, nor do I waste my enhusiasm for 40k for waiting for editions to shift the ballance in favour of my chosen faction. The list of tools given above can in fact help OP with his problem of playing an officially underdog army and not having fun with it as it helped me having a blast with 40k for the last couple of years. Some of those tools are in line with what was adopted by large tournaments to deal with tragic 8th ed terrain system, some were employed even earlier, when 40k at "high level" couldn't manage without some form of houseruling or comping. Debating about theoretical ballance and GW indolence or how things should be but aren't doesn't solve anything - 40k was never ever ballanced "care free" enough and it is naive to think that it ever will be. It is a sandbox game with insanely large number of rules interactions - there are more than 450 faction vs faction matchups alone, not counting various "chapter tactics" flavours introduced by 8th ed codices and not dwelling deeper into possible list matchups within those factions and various build strategies available for all factions.

And now, I thank all of you for the discussion, I have spent too much time in this thread already. Cheers!

 SHUPPET wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.

I fully agree with you. This debate actually began when I said the points costs for units need to be balanced for high level, to begin with, and this will cause matched play to be balanced all the way down to casual pick up games as a result. And this went hand in hand with the static terrain dispute.

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@Shuppet It would need to go hand in hand with points balancing. What it does is give GW a place to points balance around. Balancing the game equally for every scenario, every points level, every terrain set up, is impossible regardless of math. The best you could possibly do is create units that are only good in some of those scenarios and not in others. For instance a marine with a lascannon could be quite good on an open table, or one with good firing lines, but on a table with no more than say 12" of LOS on any portion of the table would be horribly over costed.

For example, Malifaux though a wildly different game handles this to an extent by having the company produce a tournament pack and stating that the game is balanced at 50 Points. You can play other levels just fine and rules for them exist, but you understand that doing so might lead to lopsided games. Now they also handle balance to some extent by allowing you to build your list to the mission and match-up but that doesn't really seem feasible for competitive 40k.

I fully agree with you. This debate actually began when I said the points costs for units need to be balanced for high level, to begin with, and this will cause matched play to be balanced all the way down to casual pick up games as a result. And this went hand in hand with the static terrain dispute.

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

Very strong points. Competitive play will always have optimised and structured lists generally capable of competing with each other, casual play will have a less cohesive plan behind it and will benefit even more heavily balance wise by random units not being erratically costed.

I've never seen a rational argument against it. I have strong inclinations as to where the mentality comes from, but I think I'll save it for another time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

In truth - balanced unit costs would have an even greater benefit for casual play. In matched play people just play the best units - they will even rule out a whole army if it doesn't have enough good units. So mostly it's just good armies fighting good armies. That isn't how casual works. Casual works most the time by 2 people bringing a random list to play against an unknown army - usually being composed of the units they have (not because they are powerful - but because that's what they have built). It's almost impossible to prepare a list for a pickup game and have both armies be evenly matched with this trash balance we have. So the resistance to these kinds of changes...I just have to ponder as to where it comes from.

Ugh... Look, I'm trying to be respectful as possible here.

There is no such thing as a magical "true point value" number for each unit that GW needs to find to make the game perfectly balanced. It doesn't exist. Why? Because the "true point value" of a unit will fluctuate wildly depending on the terrain, scenario, which other units are being taken alongside of it, and skill of the person using it. Even within the holy "matched" play these things have a wide range of possibilities. Using Breng77's previous example, lets say a space marine devastator with a lascannon on a board with 0 terrain has been "properly" balanced at the magic number of 35 points (just an example). Well, the next game with all other factors being equal, you play on a board so heavily littered with terrain, that no single unit anywhere on the board can draw LOS to any other point outside 12". Is this space marine devastator with a lascannon still appropriately priced at 35 points given that his weapon's range is effectively 12"?

I realize that the above scenario is an extreme example, but this happens to a less noticeable extent in EVERY game you play. In scenarios where the point is to take and hold objectives, tough units with invuln saves + objective secured + many wounds are more valuable then they otherwise would be. In a kill point game units with high offensive output to completely wipe a target are more valuable then they otherwise would be.

Now, if you restrict the possible scenarios, possible terrain configurations, and possible army configurations in matched play, it becomes much easier to narrow down the range of where this magical "true point value" could be for each unit within the confines of these parameters. But its absolutely feths up balance beyond recognition for anyone else not using these very narrow parameters.

The funny thing is I actually happen to agree with you that the game parameters should be narrowed somewhat so balance is easier achieved. I actually think the game should be balanced around matched play rules. But this insistence that balancing the entire game around an extremely narrow set of parameters magically makes the game better for everyone no matter how they play is just wrong.

No what it does is balance the game for all levels of matched play which is really competitive and casual pick up play. This is where I feel like the 3 ways to play is important. If you are playing unbalanced tables or scenarios, points don’t really mean anything, you need to put in the work to make the game fun. I see it as a fairly large issue that everyone tries to use matched play rules for everything, and then complains about balance changes to those rules based on competitive play.

Breng77 wrote:
No what it does is balance the game for all levels of matched play which is really competitive and casual pick up play. This is where I feel like the 3 ways to play is important. If you are playing unbalanced tables or scenarios, points don’t really mean anything, you need to put in the work to make the game fun. I see it as a fairly large issue that everyone tries to use matched play rules for everything, and then complains about balance changes to those rules based on competitive play.

Like I said, even within the confines of what is currently defined as 'matched play' this is a problem.

For example, lets say a tournament is run using randomly determined deployments and scenarios. Unit A is found to be overperforming relative to its points cost in certain scenarios/deployments and as a result has its points costs increased. The reasoning for the points increase was that "it may hurt Unit A in the scenarios/deployments that it wasn't overperforming, but it's a nessecary nerf to increase the overall balance of matched play". This is a perfectly valid balance adjustment in the context of assuming everyone randomly determines deployments and scenarios.

Now lets say there's a guy named Joe who had an army that depended on 3 units of Unit A. Joe plays using matched play rules. However, Joe doesn't EVER play the scenarios/deployments that Unit A overperformed. He only likes playing a few scenarios and only ever does 1 deployment scheme. Joe now just had his entire army undeservedly nerfed because one unit that he happened to be using, also happened to be overperforming in one particular scenario that he NEVER PLAYS. Remember, Joe plays using matched play rules too! As far as I know, nothing in the matched play rules specifically says you have to randomly determine scenarios/deployment.

You have to narrow what 'matched play' means to achieve any semblance of what you think is 'true balance'. On top of that, anyone playing outside of your narrow definition of what 'matched play' is happens to be playing a completely unbalanced game, because "appropriately pointed" in matched play doesn't necessarily mean "appropriately pointed" outside of matched play.