This will definitely put to bed the discussion on soup being intended and supported, and I look forward to the positive, dignified acceptance of that fact from the playerbase.
Lemondish wrote: This will definitely put to bed the discussion on soup being intended and supported, and I look forward to the positive, dignified acceptance of that fact from the playerbase.
What ever could that mean.
It is not like this list is really cheesy or anything and is basically a top competitive army
Let's hope that was done so they can see how OP it is and address it. I cannot believe that sort of "army" is in any way, shape or form the way the studio intends 40k to be played. That list offends my senses. Please please tell me that's someone not on the staff playing. Like, did they bring someone in from the tournament circuit to play a game?
Because if the designers actually start to play that sort of trash...
Wayniac wrote: Let's hope that was done so they can see how OP it is and address it. I cannot believe that sort of "army" is in any way, shape or form the way the studio intends 40k to be played. That list offends my senses. Please please tell me that's someone not on the staff playing. Like, did they bring someone in from the tournament circuit to play a game?
Because if the designers actually start to play that sort of trash...
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
32 guardsmen with 3 knights and 3 captains, sure got it. sometimes two of these armies will face each other, it gaks over it cause the mephiston would not travel with two captains, he would travel with a full company at the very least.
Knights traveling with 32 guardsmen is already a stretch mate.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
32 guardsmen with 3 knights and 3 captains, sure got it. sometimes two of these armies will face each other, it gaks over it cause the mephiston would not travel with two captains, he would travel with a full company at the very least.
Knights traveling with 32 guardsmen is already a stretch mate.
Source time, please. I'm not seeing where the problem is. Mephiston probably isn't in the physical presence of the entire company the entire time. That would be incredibly awkward. At this moment, he was going someplace smaller (perhaps a location that couldn't fit the company indoors, yeah?). The Knights are part of the local planetary garrison with the Astra Militarum, who were assigned to escort the VIP's from location A to location B for whatever important meeting is happening.
This wouldn't be far fetched in the real world with similar machines. If we had giant mecha-knights everywhere I'd imagine they'd get shown off to important patrons (as Space Marines would be to a local planetary government: a huge source of protection and stability you definitely want to impress). Two officers with your best parade drill infantrymen, your three big, shiniest behemoths and then a plea for support once they get inside.
Clearly this is just one scene on a larger battlefield and those other marines/guardsmen are just off table. Laughing at the anti-competitive rage though.
Peregrine wrote: Clearly this is just one scene on a larger battlefield and those other marines/guardsmen are just off table. Laughing at the anti-competitive rage though.
Gasp! It's almost like a "Generic 2000 point game" isn't n interplanetary siege, and just represents a portion of the battlefield, and "warlords" don't represent people actually in charge, and are just there for additional layers of rules.
We know these opinions aren't allowed on Dakka, though.
Peregrine wrote: Clearly this is just one scene on a larger battlefield and those other marines/guardsmen are just off table. Laughing at the anti-competitive rage though.
Gasp! It's almost like a "Generic 2000 point game" isn't n interplanetary siege, and just represents a portion of the battlefield, and "warlords" don't represent people actually in charge, and are just there for additional layers of rules.
We know these opinions aren't allowed on Dakka, though.
Warlord might even just be the person who took charge of the local stuff lying around that is your 2,000 point army. I always assumed the 'true' folks in charge were up in orbit and the ones responsible for assigning random missions in Maelstrom.
Capital Ship Command says go get this objective that's nowhere near you. Wait, based on reports they want you to go kill that specific character. Nevermind, battle spot B says there's too much warp energy, kill psykers before a rift opens, e.t.c. e.t.c.
Peregrine wrote: Clearly this is just one scene on a larger battlefield and those other marines/guardsmen are just off table. Laughing at the anti-competitive rage though.
Gasp! It's almost like a "Generic 2000 point game" isn't n interplanetary siege, and just represents a portion of the battlefield, and "warlords" don't represent people actually in charge, and are just there for additional layers of rules.
We know these opinions aren't allowed on Dakka, though.
I usually try to think of my games as the "Focal point" of a given battle. It's not actually a couple hundred guardsmen fighting off against thirty space marines, the battlefield actually stretches on in every direction, but this battle is where the fighting is most fierce or the objectives are most critical, which is why you tend to get the army's high command and most valuable tanks and fire support all crammed into a tiny space. (Edit: And why both sides tend to take completely unsustainable casualties.)
People play 40k differently.if anything, maybe this will get Competitive players to actually buy a white dwarf (index astartes, Competitive batreps) and introduce them to the more casual playstyles.
The vitriol on this forum towards people who don't play with absolutely good awful mishmashes of units against one another is the most ridiculous thing.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
32 guardsmen with 3 knights and 3 captains, sure got it. sometimes two of these armies will face each other, it gaks over it cause the mephiston would not travel with two captains, he would travel with a full company at the very least.
Knights traveling with 32 guardsmen is already a stretch mate.
Source time, please. I'm not seeing where the problem is. Mephiston probably isn't in the physical presence of the entire company the entire time. That would be incredibly awkward. At this moment, he was going someplace smaller (perhaps a location that couldn't fit the company indoors, yeah?). The Knights are part of the local planetary garrison with the Astra Militarum, who were assigned to escort the VIP's from location A to location B for whatever important meeting is happening.
This wouldn't be far fetched in the real world with similar machines. If we had giant mecha-knights everywhere I'd imagine they'd get shown off to important patrons (as Space Marines would be to a local planetary government: a huge source of protection and stability you definitely want to impress). Two officers with your best parade drill infantrymen, your three big, shiniest behemoths and then a plea for support once they get inside.
Blood angels captains wouldn't be running around solo with random assortments of soldiers, they'd be, you know, commanding blood angels. You also wouldn't have two captains who just decided to trot off and feth around with IG. A captain isnt' a captain if it doesn't have anything to command.
Now sure, in the fluff you could have a squad or two of marines supporting guard, but not the freaking captain of detachments roaming around by himself. That's not what military leaders do.
I think it is good that they play these sort of lists. If there are (Ok, not really if...) balance issues which such builds, they're far more likely to be addressed if the GW guys actually play them.
Cephalobeard wrote: People play 40k differently.if anything, maybe this will get Competitive players to actually buy a white dwarf (index astartes, Competitive batreps) and introduce them to the more casual playstyles.
The vitriol on this forum towards people who don't play with absolutely good awful mishmashes of units against one another is the most ridiculous thing.
i contend that the god awful mishmash of units is the competition hating tournament players who just want to list-hammer and avoid having to roll actual dice to win a game.
Cephalobeard wrote: People play 40k differently.if anything, maybe this will get Competitive players to actually buy a white dwarf (index astartes, Competitive batreps) and introduce them to the more casual playstyles.
The vitriol on this forum towards people who don't play with absolutely good awful mishmashes of units against one another is the most ridiculous thing.
i contend that the god awful mishmash of units is the competition hating tournament players who just want to list-hammer and avoid having to roll actual dice to win a game.
You're already not making a good point is you're conflating someone "list-hammering" an optimized battleforce in a tournament, a pre-defined competitive environment, as a negative thing.
Wanting to win does not make you a bad person.
Not caring if you win doesn't make you a bad person.
Caring that someone else wants to win makes you a bit of a twit.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
32 guardsmen with 3 knights and 3 captains, sure got it. sometimes two of these armies will face each other, it gaks over it cause the mephiston would not travel with two captains, he would travel with a full company at the very least.
Knights traveling with 32 guardsmen is already a stretch mate.
Source time, please. I'm not seeing where the problem is. Mephiston probably isn't in the physical presence of the entire company the entire time. That would be incredibly awkward. At this moment, he was going someplace smaller (perhaps a location that couldn't fit the company indoors, yeah?). The Knights are part of the local planetary garrison with the Astra Militarum, who was assigned to escort the VIP's from location A to location B for whatever important meeting is happening.
This wouldn't be far fetched in the real world with similar machines. If we had giant mecha-knights everywhere I'd imagine they'd get shown off to important patrons (as Space Marines would be to a local planetary government: a huge source of protection and stability you definitely want to impress). Two officers with your best parade drill infantrymen, your three big, shiniest behemoths and then a plea for support once they get inside.
\
Your the one making the claim it is fluffy.
Name one book where this happens.
Cause space marines usually travel with their brothers not entirely by themselves. A space marine captain would not go off by himself with major commanders. Entirely by themselves. The codex would not allow your commanders to stand by themselves and work alongside knight titans or imperial guard in that manner.
they would at least travel with a bodyguard, or part of a demi-company. Space marines do not send a single character by themselves unless they are the Mentor's Legion which is their specific job and specialization. Dante would not send two captains and a single librarian entirely by themselves no matter who. Even mephiston traveled with his team if you read any of his books.
Three big titans don't go running along with only 30 guardsmen, they try to stay apart from one another, and it wouldn't just be 30 guardsmen but more. this isn't fluffy stop kidding yourself.
Clearly this is just one scene on a larger battlefield and those other marines/guardsmen are just off the table. Laughing at the anti-competitive rage though.
Assumption based on what? This just seems like a competitive list, space marines would not run by themselves even if this is apart of a larger force. Guardsmen would not work that closely with marines unless the circumstances are incredibly rare, if anything the overall commander would be dante or mephiston not a random imperial guard commander. He would have senority.
Don't be upset about toy soldiers in toy magazines not being your favorite color toys. It's a silly thing to be concerned with.
Hello, I would like to first say what a useless post. Not even a consideration, and degrading peoples opinions by calling what they like a children's toy. This is a great way to create a discussion on the matter! No not really. Don't say this ever, this just creates a massive amount of people getting angry at each other and specifically at comments like this. If you have an actual opinion that isn't insulting post it.
While I would agree it should be taken with a grain of salt, telling people they are stupid for having an opinion that boils down to "this doesn't seem right". Doesn't really hold ground when its mostly people saying "It doesn't feel right."
I don't think that opinion of "Don't take it seriously its only a game for children." Degrades the whole conversation. If you have that opinion then don't post your only going to anger everyone here and people are just going to hit the ignore button on you. If you want to contribute to the conversation, fine, but what you said is just rude and inconsiderate of other peoples thoughts and feelings. This people's hobby, people spend and invest time into it. I'm not going to walk up to a Telsa engineer or people who build cars then whom get angry when Telsa feths up their engine and then i would say to them "Well they are just cars who cares! Its only for professionals!" That will just anger them entirely. Saying a gameplay system is just a children's toy is stupid.
That is very dismissive and holds no ground here. People are here to talk about a fact that it is a ultra competitive list, that is used in ITC format and that GW is using it. It might condone the behavior of meta gaming. Which is bad for the hobby as a whole.
Anyone has this opinion of "it's just for children." Don't respect the effort that is put into making these items that you enjoy. These are for a mass media market.
It is specifically designed by companies, and effort is put in. If this was really a children's toy people who put it down and never pick it up, because children's toys, actual ones only last for a couple of years. These are hobbyist items, collector's items, items that take an investment to use and build. Created by a massive company that has monetary and emotional weight behind them. If you think that video games are just 'children toys' then that opinion is not valid. As that degrades me and every single person who has worked on a game project.
I would take note when I enter a conversation whether or not that is empathetic to what people think or want.
In Space Marine the computer game 3 marines (can't remember how many were captains) make planetfall and fight through a series of engagements, usually supported by a platoon of guardsmen. Iirc the game even featured a Titan?
With regards to the battle being part of a larger battle:I'm pretty sure when epic 40,000 was released, the 'firefights' fought between a couple of enemy detachments were describe as being representative of what a normal 40k game represents.
So there is fluff support at both ends of the spectrum. Not that it is needed anyway.
Just a bunch of adults adulting with their toy soldiers for the entertainment of other adults. Nothing childish about having a hobby or making a profession of it.
Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
nareik wrote: In Space Marine the computer game 3 marines (can't remember how many were captains) make planetfall and fight through a series of engagements, usually supported by a platoon of guardsmen. Iirc the game even featured a Titan?
With regards to the battle being part of a larger battle:I'm pretty sure when epic 40,000 was released, the 'firefights' fought between a couple of enemy detachments were describe as being representative of what a normal 40k game represents.
So there is fluff support at both ends of the spectrum. Not that it is needed anyway.
Just a bunch of adults adulting with their toy soldiers for the entertainment of other adults. Nothing childish about having a hobby or making a profession of it.
So in that same series a terminator can do a backflip, A space marine can fall from orbit without a drop pod, a space marine can also somehow power up a volcano cannon with warp energy, a thunder hammer can cause an earthquake?, and a razorback can transform into a land raider as well? Cool.
nareik wrote: In Space Marine the computer game 3 marines (can't remember how many were captains) make planetfall and fight through a series of engagements, usually supported by a platoon of guardsmen. Iirc the game even featured a Titan?
I just finished this game. Only Titus was a captain. So you had 1 Captain, 1 Veteran Sergeant, and 1 regular dude.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
I disagree with that competitive players can be very well... competitive. Metagaming is essentially what this game in its current form awards, get all the big things and be as efficient as possible as i've said in previous threads if in regular normal games, everyone is playing the same type of list with one of the same detachments that is a problem with the game system not allowing for diversity.
The fundamental problem is how rewarding it is to be a knight player or whether or not knights have a place in a normal 40k tabletop game.
nareik wrote: In Space Marine the computer game 3 marines (can't remember how many were captains) make planetfall and fight through a series of engagements, usually supported by a platoon of guardsmen. Iirc the game even featured a Titan?
I just finished this game. Only Titus was a captain. So you had 1 Captain, 1 Veteran Sergeant, and 1 regular dude.
He also came in with a whole squad of tacticals, and most of them were more like kill team missions if anything. none of these were pitched massive battles Titus fought in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
I mean its like someone walking into an entry tournament for 12 year olds and everyone brings fun armies, and then one kid brings in the top competitive army list of ITC. So if this list made it to the front it means either : A) they wanted to show people it, B) make people aware they know about. C) they are thinking about changing some rules in the future.
There is no way that someone brought that list in without the design team looking at it. The game already struggles as is to deal with titan units.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: GW gets gakked on when they bring good lists and they get gakked on when they bring bad lists.
There are good lists and then there are tournament lists that completely gak all over the 40k background material.
Where, exactly does this "gak" all over the background? Mephiston traveling with two retainers? Not unheard of. Knights working with either group? No, that's normal too. Seems fine for the Imperium to actually utilize combined arms. Heck, the Knights themselves could've conceivably been a honor guard provided by the locals.
32 guardsmen with 3 knights and 3 captains, sure got it. sometimes two of these armies will face each other, it gaks over it cause the mephiston would not travel with two captains, he would travel with a full company at the very least.
Knights traveling with 32 guardsmen is already a stretch mate.
Source time, please. I'm not seeing where the problem is. Mephiston probably isn't in the physical presence of the entire company the entire time. That would be incredibly awkward. At this moment, he was going someplace smaller (perhaps a location that couldn't fit the company indoors, yeah?). The Knights are part of the local planetary garrison with the Astra Militarum, who was assigned to escort the VIP's from location A to location B for whatever important meeting is happening.
This wouldn't be far fetched in the real world with similar machines. If we had giant mecha-knights everywhere I'd imagine they'd get shown off to important patrons (as Space Marines would be to a local planetary government: a huge source of protection and stability you definitely want to impress). Two officers with your best parade drill infantrymen, your three big, shiniest behemoths and then a plea for support once they get inside.
\
Your the one making the claim it is fluffy.
Name one book where this happens.
Cause space marines usually travel with their brothers not entirely by themselves. A space marine captain would not go off by himself with major commanders. Entirely by themselves. The codex would not allow your commanders to stand by themselves and work alongside knight titans or imperial guard in that manner.
they would at least travel with a bodyguard, or part of a demi-company. Space marines do not send a single character by themselves unless they are the Mentor's Legion which is their specific job and specialization. Dante would not send two captains and a single librarian entirely by themselves no matter who. Even mephiston traveled with his team if you read any of his books.
Three big titans don't go running along with only 30 guardsmen, they try to stay apart from one another, and it wouldn't just be 30 guardsmen but more. this isn't fluffy stop kidding yourself.
Your disputes in this thread seem to frequently involve you reading things into or from arguments that aren't there. Carefully look back.
We didn't say the two Captains and Mephiston came alone. We said they came with a full company. The full company obviously isn't assembled together 24/7. Anytime important persons go to a world there's neverending meetings and they get shuffled from A to B to C to D in varying groups. This just happens to be a meeting that only Mephiston and the Captains were attending as senior officers. The local planetary government uses a parade squad with two officers and their fanciest machines to escort them to try and impress the Space Marines. So the full Space Marine company is there, it's just not right there in the immediate vicinity. Same with the actual legions of the planetary government.
You seem to confuse 'being fluffy' with 'repeating verbatim what is in the books'. Those aren't the same. For years people have made Space Marines or Astra Militarum as "Your Dudes" along with the other factions. If we followed the books literally, that wouldn't happen: "Your Dudes" don't exist in books. Mephiston is also not allowed to engage in any battle except recreations of ones that already exist, because they never happened in the books. Holding to that seems a bit extreme to me though and against what the player base at large seems to do, however, so we obviously deviate from the literal path. In this proposed scenario, we have, as an example, an unexpected surprise attack (maybe from Chaos or Genestealers?) on Mephiston and two trusted officers in what is supposed to be a 'safe' summit meeting hosted by a grateful governor. Can they survive!? Find out!
When I'm asking for a source, what I'm asking for is some type of fluff that prohibits the type of scenario we've been spitballing. There isn't any as far as I know.
And while Space Marines are Codex compliant, for the most part, they also aren't stupid. If Mephiston and two Captains were traveling together when they were suddenly assaulted, they would not tell their assaulters: "Wait! We need to get back to the ship and get the rest of the soldiers! We're not Codex compliant!". They'd just start obliterating invaders, potentially in a fighting retreat. I don't doubt all three of them wouldn't hesitate to start ordering around local mooks. "You there!" "Me, sir?" "Yeah, you with the flashlight, form up and shoot that thing!" "But you're not my Commissar" "I'm the Lord of Death, look me in the eye and tell me if you think I would hesitate to end you like your Commisar" "Sir, yes, sir!" or however you want to word it.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
It seems mostly to be a dakkadakka thing. There is a large swathe of this forum that is, what I would call, 'militantly casual' as opposed to just actually casual.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
It seems mostly to be a dakkadakka thing. There is a large swathe of this forum that is, what I would call, 'militantly casual' as opposed to just actually casual.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
I disagree with that competitive players can be very well... competitive. Metagaming is essentially what this game in its current form awards, get all the big things and be as efficient as possible as i've said in previous threads if in regular normal games, everyone is playing the same type of list with one of the same detachments that is a problem with the game system not allowing for diversity.
The fundamental problem is how rewarding it is to be a knight player or whether or not knights have a place in a normal 40k tabletop game.
And yet this list wouldn't stand a chance against a proper Ynaari list. There are several monofaction armies that could wipe the floor or fight it evenly too. I've fought several armies like it with my pure Craftworld Ulthwe army and I have a massive winrate versus Imp Soup as a result.
And competitive gaming has always been about getting the most efficient stuff with the meta of the particular game in question always coalescing into a few very specific things. You see it in esports all the time and previous editions of 40k were even WORSE for variety at top levels of play. 8th Ed is incredibly diverse in comparison.
AND none of this really matters if you aren't playing top tier competitive. So what if someone does a loyal 32 with smash captains and Knights? I can organize plenty of games in my local area, including plenty of Imperium players, who wont use that sort of list in your average game so why does it matter? People will enjoy what they enjoy playing in whatever form that takes and most wargaming communities have a large variety of different players of different skill levels so if you don't like some competitive filth you don't have to ever engage with it.
Yes. It was two tournament players throwing tourney filth at each other it looks like.
Precisely.
In fact, the intro actually says that in the studio they tend not to play that competitively and prefer to make up narrative scenarios. This battle report was specifically the opposite of that, bringing in two tournament gamers to make up any list they liked based on the studio armies (the Imperial player brought his own Knights though because he wanted them kitted out a certain way). There was no pretence of it being in any way true to the background and not even an attempt to justify it with flavour text.
But, they also didn't make a big deal out of it being some sort of special game. It was treated as a totally legitimate way to play, they just noted it was different to their personal gaming philosophy.
There's honestly no way anyone can be even slightly mad about this tbh.
Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. Also I am guessing they are using CA18 missions, so it would also be a good test to see how those missions can work in a simulated tournament matchup.
Wayniac wrote: Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then.
I think having a competitive designer who was at least competitive give an outlook on a game is always valuable to prevent rampant abuse like in a certain game system. (Not Warhammer separate)
Wayniac wrote: Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it.
Alessio was also responsible, basically, for breaking at least two editions of WHFB with the filthy books he led on.
So the army list for the Imperium in the new white dwarf is...
Company Commanders
Boltgun
Warlord Grand Strategist
Super Heavy Detachment
Knight Gallant
Warlord Trait : Landstrider
Knight Castellan
Warlord trait : Ion Bulwark
total 1991 pts.
Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
Knights have a stratagem which allows giving them warlord traits.
helgrenze wrote: Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.
Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.
Wayniac wrote: Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. Also I am guessing they are using CA18 missions, so it would also be a good test to see how those missions can work in a simulated tournament matchup.
Why is it only acceptable for GW to acknowledge and support competitive play if it isn't GW employees? Why does there need to be some hidden agenda of working on balance changes and not just showing a tournament style battle report for readers interested in the subject?
nareik wrote: In Space Marine the computer game 3 marines (can't remember how many were captains) make planetfall and fight through a series of engagements, usually supported by a platoon of guardsmen. Iirc the game even featured a Titan?
With regards to the battle being part of a larger battle:I'm pretty sure when epic 40,000 was released, the 'firefights' fought between a couple of enemy detachments were describe as being representative of what a normal 40k game represents.
So there is fluff support at both ends of the spectrum. Not that it is needed anyway.
Just a bunch of adults adulting with their toy soldiers for the entertainment of other adults. Nothing childish about having a hobby or making a profession of it.
One captain his head sergeant and a newby marine, the rest of the company was fighting in the city and you get messages from them throughout the game, titus’s Thunderhawk also had to leave the airspace due to damage And he jump packs into an enemy ship which then pulls him away from his company and allies, hence, he then spends time trying to reunite with his missing comrades and encounters an inquisitor along the way who re tasks him, otherwise he would likely have just re United with his company to control the flow of battle.
This is very different than 2 captains, mehphiston 32 guard and 3 knights link up and go for a wander, it’s internally inconsistent with the setting and externally weird too.
Yeah, you know what, well done to White Dwarf. They're clearly targeting a different demographic here which is a refreshing change of pace. Is it how I choose to play? Nah. If I knew someone who wanted to play like this, I likely wouldn't engage in a game with them because (and this is important) neither of us get what we want out of the game. I owe the list-tweaking, math-hammering, optimization bloke an apology because I'm not able to offer the level of challenge that he's looking for, and he can offer the same apology because he can't offer the more narrative based game I'm after. Doesn't mean each of us can't respect the other and our hobby.
It's no different to how a gamer and a painter enjoy different aspects of the hobby. I enjoy having a cohesive, well painted force on the table looking like how I picture it in the narrative and the fluff. Someone else might just paint models they think are cool, and have a completely mish-mashed collection of random characters from both 40k and AoS. You know what, neither of us is doing the hobby "wrong".
There's nothing wrong with WD featuring tournament lists. I personally prefer narrative battle reports with more reasonable unit compositions, but competitive play is part of 40k, so thats fine, too.
Formosa wrote: This is very different than 2 captains, mehphiston 32 guard and 3 knights link up and go for a wander, it’s internally inconsistent with the setting and externally weird too.
Again, you're missing the fact that a 40k game is often representing one tiny piece of a battlefield. The space marine leaders aren't at the battle without anyone to lead, there's a tactical squad just off the edge of the table and a Thunderhawk full of assault marines arriving soon.
The list is fluffy. The question is, should it be as God-tier effective against TAC lists as it is. In my opinion just doing away with the Supreme Command Detachment would solve a lot of issues.
Nothing wrong with that list and honestly not that crazy un-fluffy:
I personally play tournaments so i can expect to face list like this and that´s why it's brilliant that WD has this batrep. Gives insight into the tournament scene and what to expect in the top bracket.
I am aiming to land in the top 40% at Vegas so this batrep is straight up my alley and pipes my interest more then a more casual narrative report would do.
helgrenze wrote: Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.
Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.
If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Not really, given that it's not actually true. Yes, there are some casual players who feel strongly about tournament-style gaming. There are also some competitive players who wax equally vitriolic about people who don't go all out to win the game. And between those two extremes are a whole bunch of people who play the game with a wide variety of different motivations, while managing to not insult each other over a game of toy soldiers.
Formosa wrote: This is very different than 2 captains, mehphiston 32 guard and 3 knights link up and go for a wander, it’s internally inconsistent with the setting and externally weird too.
Again, you're missing the fact that a 40k game is often representing one tiny piece of a battlefield. The space marine leaders aren't at the battle without anyone to lead, there's a tactical squad just off the edge of the table and a Thunderhawk full of assault marines arriving soon.
Not missing that, not dismissing it, just pointing out it’s incisistent with the setting, a captain turning up alone is rare, two wouldn’t happen and Mephiston going on a merry wander with them compounds the issue, it’s jarring to see such a messy load of units thrown together.
I love how much gak is thrown to the Imperium list, but the Eldar with Drukhari, 4-6 harlie bikes and Craftworlds Planes is largely ommited from the discussion.
As properly pointed by the pics, it's a match between 2 tournament players with tournament lists so maybe GW slight approach to show how the competitive people play to show in WD.
Wayniac wrote:Let's hope that was done so they can see how OP it is and address it. I cannot believe that sort of "army" is in any way, shape or form the way the studio intends 40k to be played. That list offends my senses. Please please tell me that's someone not on the staff playing. Like, did they bring someone in from the tournament circuit to play a game?
Because if the designers actually start to play that sort of trash...
it's exactly how they intend the game to be played. Literally nothing but benefits to the strength of your army for buying into a second or third army. They said themselves in the last FAQ, that we see what people are saying about soup, and so many people want to keep it, so it's staying as is.
FrozenDwarf wrote: see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!
Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?
I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.
FrozenDwarf wrote: see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!
Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?
I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.
I don't see how that is any different from the Imperium who always work together and how certain units within the books are the problem and not the books themselves...
I really like that the GW article represets actual armies being played out there. Instead of what they usualy show, a handfull of units that has very bad synergi.
Niiai wrote: I really like that the GW article represets actual armies being played out there. Instead of what they usualy show, a handfull of units that has very bad synergi.
This is a bit of a misnomer; only competitive/tournament armies tend to look like that. I'd wager the vast majority of lists look way closer to what they usually show. Honestly I miss when they had people use their own armies rather than the studio, you often saw a little better variety because these were armies that, while often built based on looks/fluff, weren't just one of each unit with a variety of options to show off the various models; they were made with a bit more thought towards actual gameplay.
I see no problem with WD having a battle report between two hardcore lists with debatable fluffiness, full stop.
What I've always found funny though is what people can justify as "fluffy". If that IoM list (or as somewhat else pointed out, the Eldar soup list too) is considered fluffy, what couldn't be considered fluffy? If you can always just say "oh, the other missing fluffy component of the army is over there", doesn't that just completely devalue fluffiness as a concept? I don't think it's unreasonable for this to stick in somebody's craw. But again, that doesn't mean GW should ignore this aspect of the game and I do think it's healthy to put it in a WD occasionally.
I think the fact the setting is loose enough that you can post hoc reason nearly any force fielded as fitting in to the setting is a feature not a bug.
The setting exists to encourage you to collect the toys you want, not to create obstacles to stop you collecting.
nareik wrote: I think the fact the setting is loose enough that you can post hoc reason nearly any force fielded as fitting in to the setting is a feature not a bug.
The setting exists to encourage you to collect the toys you want, not to create obstacles to stop you collecting.
Is anybody playing these sorts of lists "collecting the toys they want" though? I think they're collecting the best toys, and maybe you can post-hoc turn that into something fluffy but again, I think it's a far cry from what people who primarily have fluffiness in mind are bringing.
I guess overall, the new wave of 40k popularity has brought in a swathe of people who grew up on MOBAs and MMOs and RTSs and people with that background are looking for something out of 40k that's different than the fluffy rules and models with questionable balance that it traditionally delivers (I don't know if that's the case with the players in this batrep, but my anecdata from my local playgroups tends to support this.)
FrozenDwarf wrote: see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!
Isnt one of the top lists in AoS right now Undead soup, combining Nagash with Nighthaunt stuff?
I think that's a bit different, Legions of Nagash have always had access to pretty much every undead unit (that isn't really a huge roster, even including the new night haunt stuff) and it made sense both fluff and crunch wise to bring all the undead model;s together as they always had been. Nighthaunt has been expanded since then and if they are dominating Nagash lists then that is an issue with the Nagash book but it isn't really soup for me.
I don't see how that is any different from the Imperium who always work together and how certain units within the books are the problem and not the books themselves...
I guess there's two main differences for me 1) Nighthaunt have always come under both their own sub faction and Legions of Nagash (Death) which leads into 2) The death roster is far smaller than the imperium (it's probably on the larger side of what would have been a standard faction a decade or so ago).
Nevertheless with the Grand Alliances around it is more than possible to soup in AoS...you'll just have weaker allegiance abilities and what have you so though it is seen it is not overly common.
I don't think Games Workshop are going to do away with soup with the way they seem to be doing things currently. I'm not a fan but it's a way of ensuring they can push more models on more people (a good or bad thing depending on your view of the company) and there doesn't seem to be a huge backlash to it currently.
I don't know how this can be anything but a good thing. I'm dipping my toe into the competitive scene next month (I can say that now, it's January, yikes) with the LVO. I would normally call myself a casual, fluffy gamer. I kno going in that I'm going to be seeing the filth of the filth and will have ZERO complaints about it. I just hope the guy/gal running the filth is a cool cat.
WD featuring these armies means that they are FULLY aware that this is how the competitive game is being played. They then can be in a position to decide whether that matches their intent or not. I can't see how it cannot match what they want overall for the game.
I really think it's up to TOs to change the meta on a regular basis. If you want to see diversity, change the parameters. Make an event mono dex only. Or change how CPs are accumulated/used. There are so many ways to manipulate the game that will provide variety it's absurd to me that the big tourny organizers are hesitant to try it.
Dude, I self-identify as a militant casual fluffbunny, and I think these style of battle reports are awesome to see in the White Dwarf.
Because White Dwarf is a magazine for everyone, not for me. I don't have to buy it, and I certainly don't have to assume The Sky Is Falling because GW wanted to look at competitive play.
This was clearly two strong lists versus one another and entirely misplaced outrage.
I don't see a lot of outrage in this thread. I see a bit of outrage and then some pouncing on any and every casual player in the game. Yes, Dakka has a lot of CAAC dorks who can be vocal at times. But the amount of pearl clutching in this thread is not proportionate to that at all.
Stux wrote: What I don't get is why would you make such a WAAC list and then not use your last 9 points..?
to insult your opponet. It is like someone bigger grabs you in a strangelhold, he could easily now kick you down in 2 kicks or smack your head against the wall for a instant KO, but instead he chokes you out so that the whole school sees it.
Did GW show any GK reports in 8th ed ? We don't get WD here, so it is kind of a hard to keep track of the articles.
FrozenDwarf wrote: see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!
...aren't the Grand Alliances still a thing in AoS?
only in the beginning of AoS when you only had 1 or 2 battletomes. no reason to play grand alliances anymore(unless you play an old fantasy army) cuz there is alot of battletomes and more to come.
only 1 grand alliance is still active cuz it needed urgent attension and it takes far to long to propely fix that alliance then it does to make a new grand book.
What I've always found funny though is what people can justify as "fluffy". If that IoM list (or as somewhat else pointed out, the Eldar soup list too) is considered fluffy, what couldn't be considered fluffy? If you can always just say "oh, the other missing fluffy component of the army is over there", doesn't that just completely devalue fluffiness as a concept? I don't think it's unreasonable for this to stick in somebody's craw. But again, that doesn't mean GW should ignore this aspect of the game and I do think it's healthy to put it in a WD occasionally.
The thing is, for most people, 'Is the army fluffy' actually means 'Does this army match my preconceptions about what a fluffy army should look like?' rather than whether or not there is actually justification in the fluff for that army to exist.
In a setting like 40K, where we have examples throughout the fluff of unlikely alliances and odd force compositions, the difference between a 'fluffy' army and an 'unfluffy' army is down to nothing more than how much effort you want to put into devising a fluffy explanation for it.
So it's not so much that 'fluffiness' is devalued as a concept as simply that 'unfluffy' armies only exist if you refuse to accept the fluff.
Cephalobeard wrote: People play 40k differently.if anything, maybe this will get Competitive players to actually buy a white dwarf (index astartes, Competitive batreps) and introduce them to the more casual playstyles.
The vitriol on this forum towards people who don't play with absolutely good awful mishmashes of units against one another is the most ridiculous thing.
i contend that the god awful mishmash of units is the competition hating tournament players who just want to list-hammer and avoid having to roll actual dice to win a game.
Nobody has ever been able to coherently answer this question for me so maybe you can give it a shot. What is "too strong" of a list? If I play Tau, is it too strong for me to take 1 riptide? What if that's my favorite model? What if I really like battlesuits and want to take 3 riptides, a yvahra and 3 broadsides? Am I TFG because I like battlesuits more than infantry or tanks? Who decides what is "too strong" or what is "listhammer"? Me? You? My opponent? Some random guy on Dakka/Facebook/Reddit? The CEO of GW? A guy walking by on the sidewalk? Who should I cross-reference every list with to make sure I'm not listhammering?
Answer these questions and then you will have a point. I've been asking them to every beer and pretzels forge the narrative hammer player I can find for the last 20 years and haven't gotten a decent answer yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
But but but if you make a strong list you're having fun wrong! The only right kind of fun is the kind of fun I endorse!
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
It seems mostly to be a dakkadakka thing. There is a large swathe of this forum that is, what I would call, 'militantly casual' as opposed to just actually casual.
That's a great point. I don't notice it at all in my local playgroup, or nearly as much on other forums or social media sites.
it's exactly how they intend the game to be played. Literally nothing but benefits to the strength of your army for buying into a second or third army. They said themselves in the last FAQ, that we see what people are saying about soup, and so many people want to keep it, so it's staying as is.
"So many people want to keep it" being the people in marketing. I don't think anyone thinks it's good for the game or truly enjoys having to buy a bunch of models that wouldn't normally be included in their army or appeal to them just to have enough CP to have a chance at winning the game. Soup is literally good for GWs bottom line, that's it. It's bad for the balance and health of the game, it's bad for the players who just want to collect Eldar, it's bad for the people who refuse to buy into 3 armies so they get roflstomped by the soup of the month club, etc.
helgrenze wrote: Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.
Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.
If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.
Point being that none of that belongs on a routine 40k table.
Expecting it too fit ends up ruining the game.
Case in point: now.
helgrenze wrote: Seems that this list is a bit illegal to me. There appears to be three Warlords in this army, two in one detachment.
Is this kind of thing allowed on the tourney circuit now?
If you don't know the rules you shouldn't call lists "illegal". The Imperial Knights have a stratagem that allows you to make up to two knights CHARACTERS and gain a Warlord Trait IN ADDITION to the one you can get via the Knight Lances rule.
Knights are a blight on the game and are one of the reasons I now feel 8th edition is no longer salvageable.
If knights are a blight on the game, what was index Ynnari, that's still going as a competitive list?
Also the ability to complain about knights left the building when banblades shadowswords and Primarch etc became normal.
Ynnari was a phat sh!t on the face of reason itself.
Just to chime in here, I'm the Aeldari half of this battle report. I can confirm that we were asked by the studio to write lists which were as competitive as possible. I actually arrived home from holiday the day before I needed to travel to Warhammer World, so I was fully reliant on borrowing models from the studio (although I was able to get almost all of what I wanted, if not the specific factions).
I can see why some folks may have an issue with the fluff of the imperium list, but let me defend this by saying that we were asked to build our lists purely from a competitive standpoint. Even then there was some borrowing of models which meant we couldn't get quite to 100% of what we wanted, but it was close.
We had an absolute blast at HQ, happy to answer any questions that I can on this if folks are curious.
Just to chime in here, I'm the Aeldari half of this battle report. I can confirm that we were asked by the studio to write lists which were as competitive as possible. I actually arrived home from holiday the day before I needed to travel to Warhammer World, so I was fully reliant on borrowing models from the studio (although I was able to get almost all of what I wanted, if not the specific factions).
I can see why some folks may have an issue with the fluff of the imperium list, but let me defend this by saying that we were asked to build our lists purely from a competitive standpoint. Even then there was some borrowing of models which meant we couldn't get quite to 100% of what we wanted, but it was close.
We had an absolute blast at HQ, happy to answer any questions that I can on this if folks are curious.
Only question I have, were some of the staff you interacted with surprised at the choices or are they completely aware of what the current content is of soups lists?
Only question I have, were some of the staff you interacted with surprised at the choices or are they completely aware of what the current content is of soups lists?
I'd say yes they were surprised somewhat - and we certainly pulled no punches in our game. That being said, most of our time was spent with the white dwarf magazine team as opposed to the game design team (although they did pop in briefly to see how things were going).
Only question I have, were some of the staff you interacted with surprised at the choices or are they completely aware of what the current content is of soups lists?
I'd say yes they were surprised somewhat - and we certainly pulled no punches in our game. That being said, most of our time was spent with the white dwarf magazine team as opposed to the game design team (although they did pop in briefly to see how things were going).
You say the game design team. The whole team or some representatives? How big is the team?
Just to chime in here, I'm the Aeldari half of this battle report. I can confirm that we were asked by the studio to write lists which were as competitive as possible. I actually arrived home from holiday the day before I needed to travel to Warhammer World, so I was fully reliant on borrowing models from the studio (although I was able to get almost all of what I wanted, if not the specific factions).
I can see why some folks may have an issue with the fluff of the imperium list, but let me defend this by saying that we were asked to build our lists purely from a competitive standpoint. Even then there was some borrowing of models which meant we couldn't get quite to 100% of what we wanted, but it was close.
We had an absolute blast at HQ, happy to answer any questions that I can on this if folks are curious.
insaniak wrote: The thing is, for most people, 'Is the army fluffy' actually means 'Does this army match my preconceptions about what a fluffy army should look like?' rather than whether or not there is actually justification in the fluff for that army to exist.
In a setting like 40K, where we have examples throughout the fluff of unlikely alliances and odd force compositions, the difference between a 'fluffy' army and an 'unfluffy' army is down to nothing more than how much effort you want to put into devising a fluffy explanation for it.
So it's not so much that 'fluffiness' is devalued as a concept as simply that 'unfluffy' armies only exist if you refuse to accept the fluff.
'Is the army fluffy?' is a question of intent. Maybe there's a unicorn player out there who came up with an elaborate backstory that happened to result in his army being composed of two smash captains, a battalion of Guard, and a handful of Knights, but the rest of the players running that list have chosen it for pure competitiveness, rather than any sort of adherence to the background. Once you've chosen an army for competitiveness rather than what makes sense in the background, then any fluff justification is a post-hoc rationalization for what is likely an inherently unfluffy list.
On the day that the most effective tournament lists are also the ones that best fit the setting, this will stop being a point of contention. Until then, if an opponent tells me he's bringing a fluffy list and shows up with the smash captain/loyal 32/knights crew he built for a local tournament, I'm going to politely decline the game on the basis of being misled, regardless of whether he has a retroactive fluff justification to go with it.
The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
Don't be upset about toy soldiers in toy magazines not being your favorite color toys. It's a silly thing to he concerned with.
Knights are bad for competitions because it allows bad players to win more than they should just on the simplicity of knights. Knights need nerds to make competitive play better
Wayniac wrote: Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. Also I am guessing they are using CA18 missions, so it would also be a good test to see how those missions can work in a simulated tournament matchup.
Why is it only acceptable for GW to acknowledge and support competitive play if it isn't GW employees? Why does there need to be some hidden agenda of working on balance changes and not just showing a tournament style battle report for readers interested in the subject?
Actually I think it is simply most gw employees don’t care about being competitive in their own gaming. And the ones that do play lord of the rings :p
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FrozenDwarf wrote: see, this is why i have abandoned 40k in favor of AoS and AT.
only mono codex should be allowed in matched play!
I find aos even less balanced. But then again my army got nerfed into gak, and I will be eternally salty (well until they fix it)
catbarf wrote: 'Is the army fluffy?' is a question of intent. Maybe there's a unicorn player out there who came up with an elaborate backstory that happened to result in his army being composed of two smash captains, a battalion of Guard, and a handful of Knights, but the rest of the players running that list have chosen it for pure competitiveness, rather than any sort of adherence to the background. Once you've chosen an army for competitiveness rather than what makes sense in the background, then any fluff justification is a post-hoc rationalization for what is likely an inherently unfluffy list.
On the day that the most effective tournament lists are also the ones that best fit the setting, this will stop being a point of contention. Until then, if an opponent tells me he's bringing a fluffy list and shows up with the smash captain/loyal 32/knights crew he built for a local tournament, I'm going to politely decline the game on the basis of being misled, regardless of whether he has a retroactive fluff justification to go with it.
IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.
catbarf wrote: 'Is the army fluffy?' is a question of intent. Maybe there's a unicorn player out there who came up with an elaborate backstory that happened to result in his army being composed of two smash captains, a battalion of Guard, and a handful of Knights, but the rest of the players running that list have chosen it for pure competitiveness, rather than any sort of adherence to the background. Once you've chosen an army for competitiveness rather than what makes sense in the background, then any fluff justification is a post-hoc rationalization for what is likely an inherently unfluffy list.
On the day that the most effective tournament lists are also the ones that best fit the setting, this will stop being a point of contention. Until then, if an opponent tells me he's bringing a fluffy list and shows up with the smash captain/loyal 32/knights crew he built for a local tournament, I'm going to politely decline the game on the basis of being misled, regardless of whether he has a retroactive fluff justification to go with it.
IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.
Come on, chaps. I know it’s panto season, but still.
Bottom line? If it’s in the book it’s legal, regardless of your opinion. Complain to GW, or tell the player ‘x units? Too hot for me’. Or agree to a game if they swap armies.
He absolutely is, it's right there explicitly stated: fluff is determined by intent, not the contents of the list.
It’s only you that drags up “moral purity” and “virtue signalling” as phrases apparently relevant to building a miniature war gaming army list. It does constantly amaze me, that.
If a list requires post-rationalisation to be deemed fluffy it’s not fluffy, that was his point, and that’s his opinion. Please show me any examples in the published fluff showing the type of army in question to support your position. I jest. You probably can’t. You’d need to make up an explanation. That was his point. Don’t try and goad, that’s all I was saying in my prior post. It’s a perfectly fine position to take, no need to twist it and rephrase it as something not said.
Yes, the universe is vast enough for anything to be possible yadda yadda, and the Guard + Knights isn’t unfluffy in my view, but three high-ranking BA being the only BA present is suspect to me, and the bit that needs post-rationalising for some. You may accept it as is. That’s also fine. No need to polarise and demonise people with accusations and silliness.
Only question I have, were some of the staff you interacted with surprised at the choices or are they completely aware of what the current content is of soups lists?
I'd say yes they were surprised somewhat - and we certainly pulled no punches in our game. That being said, most of our time was spent with the white dwarf magazine team as opposed to the game design team (although they did pop in briefly to see how things were going).
Was that the design team or the WD team who were surprised?
It's weird that they'd be so unaware of some of these things when even casual gamers in my local area are aware of soup and competitive list compositions. I've always felt the GW staff were very insular.
Thanks for posting anyway, I'm definitely picking up the next WD partly to read the bat rep. Will be mt first time buying it in like 12 years or something lol
This list has a weakness. Psychic defense. A tsons smite spam list, like 10 psykers with magnus super smite will take care of it. 90 pink horrors with 4++ and a changeling giving them 6+++ will be the screen, and the rest will be tsons psykers.
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s what happens when all your games are mathhammer on forums or on Tabletop Simulator. ;-)
My original reaction to that post was just to think "this guy desperately needs to play more and bitch less", so I'm inclined to think you are on to something.
p5freak wrote: This list has a weakness. Psychic defense. A tsons smite spam list, like 10 psykers with magnus super smite will take care of it. 90 pink horrors with 4++ and a changeling giving them 6+++ will be the screen, and the rest will be tsons psykers.
It becomes a question of who goes first.
If the Knights get first turn they can blow Magnus off the table before he gets his buffs off and have a good shot at winning.
If they don't its a hard struggle.
These sorts of lists were always going to appear when they started to allow keywords and cross-dex builds.
For me it's all about how you use these rules. For me it always seemed silly that the Imperium would not maximise its forces by combining, e.g. IG artillery with marine strike forces, etc. However, it was also clear that this would open a can of worms in terms of competitiveness, especially for factions with no possible allies (Orks, Necrons, Nids) or very limited ones. I even asked one of the design team at 40K Open Day a few years back if the reason for splitting of Harlequins and Craftworlds was to allow them to combine and the answer was a tentative yes.
The key thing now is how you play, if you are playing with your mates you can be reasonable and come up with fun crossover lists. I think it really helps the game in terms of variety of builds etc. However, if you are playing WAAC 'TFG's then it allows for a lot of gamesmanship.
I don't see any moral virtue in coming up with lists that are fluffy. It may suit some (me for example) but some want to play to win. It depends upon the setting. I actually feel sorry for GW on this because they have tried to present a game which can be played in different ways but there seem to be purists of all sorts!
For the record I think it was a WAAC list and made little sense but it lost so perhaps not that WAAC.
I'm going to say I'm glad it sounds like you guys (the players) had a good game.
I am a little shocked at the people calling those lists WAAC lists, they are competitive lists, but the player has already said they had to modify the list due to model limitations.
In all honesty I am a little disappointed that the designers didn't want to pay more attention to the game especially when it was at thier own office with the whole team present to understand why units do or don't work in competitive lists.
As I know some of them are attending things like LVO etc, but thats not the same as having the whole team with presumably the opertunity to question everything as I assume their is quite a few things like pictures and lighting that slow the game down when it's for a feature article.
Cephalobeard wrote: I genuinely enjoy soup and that it gives mean excuse o bit models from armies I typically wouldn't.
I don't want a full AM army, but I enjoy my little brigade I've made and have had a lot of fun with it.
Wouldn't have ever bought those or done that without soup.
Nothing wrong with that. I do think there is a difference between soup existing, and giving people the option to try out new stuff AND soup being the only way to play, or invalidating whole factions, because identical more efficient lists exist. Plus soup makes GW lazy. If soup didn't exist, they would have to fix bad books. Right now they can just say the ultimiate fix to everything is to take knight+IG+minium of your own army.
In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.
Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.
Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.
The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.
Kdash wrote: In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.
Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.
Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.
The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.
Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.
Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.
I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.
there's so much soup discussion in here Jamie Oliver just rode past on his moped and shouted "Needs more Salt!"
Seeing as we're at it ... and GW approve that soup is a thing (or at least have not disapproved ..yet) the issue becomes not that soup is bad, but that there's only really one maybe two soups out there that work well enough to be the de facto list component.
you want competitive you have to accept that you'll be facing these and either counter or bring the same.
it becomes as self fulfilling prophecy.
as for if it's fluffy or not.. man just pick up a HH novel and there's Guard / BA / knights in pretty much every major battle scene ... watch Helsreach - Grimaldus is marching alongside a Titan like a boss with guardsmen meeting him in the street to fight off Orks ... if that's not a true representation of the Meta right now I don't know what is
and let's be honest ... we haven't seen the fallout from CA2018 yet to see if the adjustments have affected anything significantly.
as a Necrons player, having played a few games so farr in a very Semi-comp setting.. I'm mildly hopeful that there'll be a small change in things to allow some more choice out there.
and then in April another minor tweak might change it up again..
Kdash wrote: In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.
Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.
Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.
The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.
Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.
Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.
I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.
I’m not defending people taking the list simply because it is classed as one of the “top competitive lists”. What I was trying to do is counter some of the misconceived arguments around what is “fluffy or not” from both sides of this argument.
99.99% of the people running this list are competitive only players or people who’ve seen the list online and decided to try to smash their local store with it. But, what I’m also trying to explain is that, although it sucked before, and although it wasn’t seen before, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t fluffy before.
I play mainly at events, and, if I’m honest I suck at coming up with “cool” names for things. I had to come up with some names for the WHW Vigilus Weekender event and my god that was stressful I do enjoy reading well written fan fluff, but, it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.
Not sure why people are upset. This list shows, unequivocally, that GW is aware of this type of list and how good it is. I haven't seen the battle report, but I'm assuming it's a competitive battle report. Great! If it's a competitive battle report, then I sure hope that whomever is playing takes the most competitive things they can. This helps EVERYONE to see this:
#1 - This helps GW see what a competitive list is like. I'm sure they already knew, but still, this is great to see.
#2 - This helps competitively minded players see what a competitive tourney list is like. This helps inform those players for their buying decisions.
#3 - This helps non-competitively minded players know what a competitive tourney list is like. If someone comes in with a list like this "for fun", then you really do have it from the horse's mouth that this isn't a for-fun list.
#4 - This helps GW's sales. As stated, they are saying "these things are good, so consider buying them."
#5 - This helps competitively minded players know what to expect to fight against, even if they don't play these armies. These lists have tiny weaknesses, barely any. That makes sense; your best lists are going to be strong and try to have minimal blind spots.
#6 - Hopefully, assuming the opponent ALSO brought a competitive list and is a good player, we get to see these weaknesses come up and how openings and movements are exploited so that the counters to these lists are better known.
All in all, this battle report sounds great, and I'm excited to read it!
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: there's so much soup discussion in here Jamie Oliver just rode past on his moped and shouted "Needs more Salt!"
Seeing as we're at it ... and GW approve that soup is a thing (or at least have not disapproved ..yet) the issue becomes not that soup is bad, but that there's only really one maybe two soups out there that work well enough to be the de facto list component.
you want competitive you have to accept that you'll be facing these and either counter or bring the same.
it becomes as self fulfilling prophecy.
as for if it's fluffy or not.. man just pick up a HH novel and there's Guard / BA / knights in pretty much every major battle scene ... watch Helsreach - Grimaldus is marching alongside a Titan like a boss with guardsmen meeting him in the street to fight off Orks ... if that's not a true representation of the Meta right now I don't know what is
and let's be honest ... we haven't seen the fallout from CA2018 yet to see if the adjustments have affected anything significantly.
as a Necrons player, having played a few games so farr in a very Semi-comp setting.. I'm mildly hopeful that there'll be a small change in things to allow some more choice out there.
and then in April another minor tweak might change it up again..
the sky is not falling yet
I agree. GW drives the meta with their decisions (intentional or not). CA18 will causes some changes, I’ve got an event next weekend and the list submission deadline is midnight tonight (GMT). Some of the lists on there are completely different and you’d -never- have seen them pre-CA18. There are still a few Knight lists etc, but I think things will look very different for a couple of months.
Kdash wrote: it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.
Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.
Kdash wrote: it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.
Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.
So what if you aren’t playing Cadians? What are Scions then?
Kdash wrote: it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.
Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.
So what if you aren’t playing Cadians? What are Scions then?
Well, I personally am playing cadians. You can call them whatever you want, just saying what I do.
Kdash wrote: In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.
Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.
Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.
The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.
Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.
Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.
I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.
I’m not defending people taking the list simply because it is classed as one of the “top competitive lists”. What I was trying to do is counter some of the misconceived arguments around what is “fluffy or not” from both sides of this argument.
99.99% of the people running this list are competitive only players or people who’ve seen the list online and decided to try to smash their local store with it. But, what I’m also trying to explain is that, although it sucked before, and although it wasn’t seen before, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t fluffy before.
I play mainly at events, and, if I’m honest I suck at coming up with “cool” names for things. I had to come up with some names for the WHW Vigilus Weekender event and my god that was stressful I do enjoy reading well written fan fluff, but, it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.
Yeah, it's impossible anyone would've come up with a similar list for competitive play and it's all these netlisters that are to blame!!!
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me
Me too. I even started writing a reply post before huffing and saying it wasn't worth it.
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.
No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.
If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.
If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.
In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.
No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.
If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.
If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.
In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.
Basically a fluffy list is one built with the fluff in mind, a competitive list is built with only winning in mind.
Its not really a moral ethic, just how someone goes about building a list. Most fluffy lists for guardsmen would be guardsmen / conscripts for the majority of the lists and some tanks sprinkled here and there. (depending on the Regiment)
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me
Ah, I just skimmed over the rest of the thread and realized that GW invited a tournament player to come up with a cheesy list in order to offend people like me who still value the background information of the units involved in the game. It seems that 40K is not lost after all.
What´s your opinion on the list?
Peregrine wrote: IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.
No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.
If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.
If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.
In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.
How is that any different than any other edition with no allies but creating hyper competitive lists?
The answer is that it isn't. Anything can be justified and NOT justified with the fluff.
This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.
And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.
So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.
I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me
Ah, I just skimmed over the rest of the thread and realized that GW invited a tournament player to come up with a cheesy list in order to offend people like me who still value the background information of the units involved in the game. It seems that 40K is not lost after all.
What´s your opinion on the list?
Personally I dislike the list, and feel that Knights like the Castellan were a mistake for GW to add to the game, at least in their current form. No model with that kind of firepower should be able to have a 3++ save. Rotate Ion Shields should require you to not fire your weapons or something, like an "all power to the shields" move or something. Even having a 4++ natively from the Ion Bulwark is a bit over the top IMO, unless it's like 800-900 points like the Stompa. I try to play a more "balanced" list personally, my guard list is I think a good mix of competitive and fluffy, though some people on this forum would be angry with me because I have basic infantry squads with no special weapons in them, and I have tank commanders for all my russes instead of regular leman russes. I wouldn't refuse to play the castellan guy though, and wouldn't be unhappy playing him, because I kind of built my list with lists like his in mind, where I will need the brute force firepower to force wounds though a 3++ on the Castellan. Sure, I'm at a disadvantage, but it's not like it's hopeless.
I think its wierd you can take separate warlords traits and multiple relics in the same detachment... That is kind of a jerk move and why that is legal i'll never know.
Wayniac wrote: Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)
This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. Also I am guessing they are using CA18 missions, so it would also be a good test to see how those missions can work in a simulated tournament matchup.
Why is it only acceptable for GW to acknowledge and support competitive play if it isn't GW employees? Why does there need to be some hidden agenda of working on balance changes and not just showing a tournament style battle report for readers interested in the subject?
Because the second something appears in a tournament it must be both A) overpowered and B ) Morally reprehensible, apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I think its wierd you can take separate warlords traits and multiple relics in the same detachment... That is kind of a jerk move and why that is legal i'll never know.
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
This is kind of a shock since I can't remember the last time WD had two lists like this, let alone one that is so transparently competitive. Yes you can try and justify this fluff wise with enough hand wrangling but I would ask this question.
Would you have taken this combination in previous editions because you came up with a cool story or it fit a person theme for your army. The answer is probably no, you wouldn't have because your not taking it to tell a story, your taking it to smash face and win. I've played mechanized marines since I started and still do to this day. I didn't pick that army because it was strong at the time I started and it certainly isn't a strong list now. I play that list because that's how I envision my chapter fighting and I find it odd to radically change how I play the game just to win a game.
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)
Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader
Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)
Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader
Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.
Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?
Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?
Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)
Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader
Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.
Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?
Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?
Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?
I mentioned only knights didn't I? They seem to be the only ones abusing it as they are the only ones who have it from what i can remember!
Warlord traits should only be 1 per an army, how is that a blanket fix? That is what the rules seem to include and want.
Super heavies in general like Knights should not have multiple traits, one should just be the warlord / hq of that group end and stop. Thats it.
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results
They haven't even gotten their codex yet. No one likes facing ynnari. They are the ugly duckling of 8th, no one wants to fight them, they are worse than knights because of their insane synergy.
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results
Actually Ynnari are still stronger.
I don’t think their tournament record in comparison to knights since the knight codex bears this out, but the argument is academic, as ynnari are indeed a problem unit. The ability to do something twice is overwhelmingly powerful in the game and ynnari double down on that without paying points for it. Getting to fight twice is what propelled smash captains to the top of the meta after all and it’s why competitive ork players are salivating over loot as, and ynnari do this without the limitations of orks or space marines. Making fighting/shooting/moving twice a strategem or army ability means this ability isn’t properly priced for on the units that can do it, taking any good unit and making it ridiculously cost effective, which seems common sense and I am unsure why gw keeps doubling down on these abilities. Or not pushing them enough. Either everyone needs access to an ability like this and a chassis that takes advantage of it, or no one should
Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?
That thing every faction can do?
Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.
OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)
Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader
Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.
Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?
Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?
Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?
I mentioned only knights didn't I? They seem to be the only ones abusing it as they are the only ones who have it from what i can remember!
Warlord traits should only be 1 per an army, how is that a blanket fix? That is what the rules seem to include and want.
Super heavies in general like Knights should not have multiple traits, one should just be the warlord / hq of that group end and stop. Thats it.
It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.
Imperial Knights that is, not the Renegade Red-Headed Stepchildren.
Which COULD be fixed if they added a single page that listed out how to switch out certain keywords to run them as Chaos Knights.
That would be too hard though.
Dont be ridiculous it makes much more sense to....give everyone the rules for free but call them chaos knights...that's...we'll make more...money? that way?
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results
'No doubt strongest list" no. Do not agree.
Its in the top 3 100%, top 2 yeah. But Eldar soup can most certainly match it.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
It seems mostly to be a dakkadakka thing. There is a large swathe of this forum that is, what I would call, 'militantly casual' as opposed to just actually casual.
And the less forgiving would refer to them as part of the Casual Gaming Mafia.
BaconCatBug wrote: The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.
So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.
He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results
'No doubt strongest list" no. Do not agree.
Its in the top 3 100%, top 2 yeah. But Eldar soup can most certainly match it.
Just to chime in here, I'm the Aeldari half of this battle report. I can confirm that we were asked by the studio to write lists which were as competitive as possible. I actually arrived home from holiday the day before I needed to travel to Warhammer World, so I was fully reliant on borrowing models from the studio (although I was able to get almost all of what I wanted, if not the specific factions).
I can see why some folks may have an issue with the fluff of the imperium list, but let me defend this by saying that we were asked to build our lists purely from a competitive standpoint. Even then there was some borrowing of models which meant we couldn't get quite to 100% of what we wanted, but it was close.
We had an absolute blast at HQ, happy to answer any questions that I can on this if folks are curious.
Thaks very much for popping and just finsihed reading the report in White Dwarf - most enjoyable.
I am not a competative gamer but its really interesting to see what you guys do and why
BaconCatBug wrote: A baneblade can deal with a 3++ Knight walking up and punching them? Also "You need LOW to counter LOW" just proves my point.
No, but it can deal with the 5+ knight standing in the back while waves of fairly hapless guardsmen prevent the Knight from reaching ≤1" to the Baneblade. Once they've one-rounded the 5++ knight, they have 4 turns to scatter in 3 directions and chip down the 3++ knight, all the while essentially ignoring the rest of your list.
I've routinely faced Knights in my local meta, and am well versed in destroying them. Depriving yourself of the 3++ castellan just means I'm going to throw Guardsmen under your Titanic Feet until I feel safe enough to disengage and blast you to bits... as has happened every time I face a 3++ melee knight.
Also, how does that prove your point? 3 Baneblades is not a tournament winning list; it's certainly a gatekeeper, like Knights, but it's not like it's the "tip of the spear" of unbalanced 40k. You could use the same tactics with Leman Russ tanks, lol.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Edit:
Quotes post calling out people for being toxic and spewing angry vitriol. Proceeds to call people names. Irony, thy name is Dakka.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
It's GW's for allowing so many broken units to be created, not the player.
A player could coincidentally come into the same combos after all. They don't have to be competitive to do it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.
Imperial Knights that is, not the Renegade Red-Headed Stepchildren.
Which COULD be fixed if they added a single page that listed out how to switch out certain keywords to run them as Chaos Knights.
That would be too hard though.
Dont be ridiculous it makes much more sense to....give everyone the rules for free but call them chaos knights...that's...we'll make more...money? that way?
They could've just printed money from the Chaos players that would've picked up the codex. It's only one page to create, really. I simply don't understand.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They could've just printed money from the Chaos players that would've picked up the codex. It's only one page to create, really. I simply don't understand.
Yes, it's quite confusing. I mean, they just printed a 40k preview for the year that basically stated: "Dear Chaos player, through the various publications we will release this year, it is possible you may be inspired to purchase a single model, maybe. Otherwise, please feel free to take the year off."
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
Don't blame me, blame Dakka's filter.
So looking at your quote, the filter replaced you using demeaning language to women in reference to your opponent. Are you saying only women play this way?
He's definitely insinuating you're only allowed to have fun his way, play his way, and lacks the self awareness to recognize that his attitude is worse than what were attempting to vilify here, in a very real adult version of a child taking their ball and going home type of tantrum.
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
Don't blame me, blame Dakka's filter.
So looking at your quote, the filter replaced you using demeaning language to women in reference to your opponent. Are you saying only women play this way?
What on earth are you smoking? Calling someone a Cambridge university netball team is not an insult to women. I don't even know where to begin with that one...
Heaven forbid you go to Australia or the North of the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cephalobeard wrote: He's definitely insinuating you're only allowed to have fun his way, play his way, and lacks the self awareness to recognize that his attitude is worse than what were attempting to vilify here, in a very real adult version of a child taking their ball and going home type of tantrum.
Nice to put words in my mouth there.
You can go play your warped terrible version of 40k and I'll play the proper one and our paths will never cross in twain. Okay?
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
And these types of people you describe have always existed. Back in 3rd they would have played some ridiculous CSM list that was actually statistically impossible to beat unless you also brought something from the 3.5 codex to deal with it. Or they'd have done some kind of 5 riptides shooting twice list in 7th. Because that's really fun. Wasn't it mathematically impossible for Guard and Tyranids to beat Tau and Eldar in 7th too? Fun times.
I've played vs many lists like the one from this WD and actually had great fun and I've won most of them too. Rather than blaming the list, maybe when organizing games you should make sure with your prospective opponent what sort of game you want to play. If I organize a game at my local club and my opponent tells me beforehand they want something friendly and casual I'm not about to bust out the 3 Hemlocks and 3 Fire Prisms. It's the same with many of the more competitive minded players; they'll either play and practice amongst themselves or if they do play a game vs a more casual opponent they will not bring a top tier filthy list.
So yeah, you're still spitting vitriol and getting angry at how certain people choose to enjoy a certain way to experience their hobby. Great job buddy, I'm sure you're great fun to play a game of 40k with!
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
Don't blame me, blame Dakka's filter.
So looking at your quote, the filter replaced you using demeaning language to women in reference to your opponent. Are you saying only women play this way?
What on earth are you smoking? Calling someone a Cambridge university netball team is not an insult to women. I don't even know where to begin with that one...
Heaven forbid you go to Australia or the North of the UK.
Are you a woman?
If not, you have Zero right to say what's offensive to women, or what insults us.
That term is consistently used in offensive contexts.
Why else is it filtered?
Bosskelot wrote: Isn't it always funny how the "fluffy" and "casual" players spit the most vitriol and get incredibly angry over how people choose to enjoy their hobby.
Um, no. I'm by no means a CAAC player (though I'm sure you'll accuse me of being, go on. I'm a big boy. I can take it ) but these kinds of lists are warping 40k into some kind of rubbish that it was never intended to be. You just know the types of players playing these lists are those miserable witches trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a game for no reason other than to show how good they are at toy soldiers. There's no sport in it, what enjoyment can someone possibly get from blowing someone off the board on turn 2?
Witches aren't bad people, please don't use my beliefs as a placeholder for bad people.
Don't blame me, blame Dakka's filter.
So looking at your quote, the filter replaced you using demeaning language to women in reference to your opponent. Are you saying only women play this way?
What on earth are you smoking? Calling someone a Cambridge university netball team is not an insult to women. I don't even know where to begin with that one...
Heaven forbid you go to Australia or the North of the UK.
What are you talking about North UK.
It's called scotland you insensitive I am highly offended by your lack of acceptance of my country also by your lack of acceptance that someone can play toy soldiers differently than you.
My favourite part about this list is that it throws being competitive out the window in order to gather as much CP as possible without enough good strats to actually spend it on. That's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out.
Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.
I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."
I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.
My baneblade army would crush that list. Fairly trivially, actually.
No. If you manage to get past deployment it would be a draw, because you would have hours of rules discussions. Everything you try, whatever combos you may have, is probably against the rules You are playing against the RAW god
Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.
I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."
I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.
What do you consider a "tournament list" though? Where do you draw the line? Do you ask people to see their list before you agree to play or not?
In my experience, you show up at the game store, ask people for games at the point value you want to play, and eventually you find an opponent and play. Do you actually ask for their list, then sit down and review it before you decide if you want to play or not?
Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.
I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."
I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.
What do you consider a "tournament list" though? Where do you draw the line? Do you ask people to see their list before you agree to play or not?
In my experience, you show up at the game store, ask people for games at the point value you want to play, and eventually you find an opponent and play. Do you actually ask for their list, then sit down and review it before you decide if you want to play or not?
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them. If they ask me to play in matched play, I will bring out a competitive list. I will say no to most tournament lists... especially ynnari players >.> I swear they are out for blood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.
I'd count that as a good thing.
As do I, I am happy its a the forefront it is clearly a problem and not intended in its current form.
Blndmage wrote: It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.
I'd count that as a good thing.
I'd count it as terrifying, it signifies one of two things. Either a) the design team is so utterly ignorant of the competitive state of the game that this was surprising to them as they're getting ready to release the last of their base game codices or b) the design team is so utterly disingenuous that they lie to your face in print to avoid being called out as biased or incompetent.
Either way, if they're claiming some level of surprise at the list construction or playstyle, it's a terrifying state of awareness for the design team to be in at this point.
Blndmage wrote: It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.
I'd count that as a good thing.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the fact they didn't seem to know all this stuff already is kind of worrying given they're in charge of the rules of the game. I'm not saying they should be playing every game with winning tournament lists, but I'd expect them to have not just an awareness of them but a pretty good grasp on how they play and why they are so powerful. I don't play with or against these type of lists too often but I know enough about them to understand why they're powerful.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?
You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
Blndmage wrote: It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.
I'd count that as a good thing.
On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the fact they didn't seem to know all this stuff already is kind of worrying given they're in charge of the rules of the game. I'm not saying they should be playing every game with winning tournament lists, but I'd expect them to have not just an awareness of them but a pretty good grasp on how they play and why they are so powerful. I don't play with or against these type of lists too often but I know enough about them to understand why they're powerful.
I totally agree.
I find the fact that they seemed surprised upsetting, but it should lead to better things.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
Damn straight. I don't get what is so hard to see about this. It's like the old adage that might still be on the address bar on these forums- "If you cannot identify the TFG in your local store, you are the TFG". Those that like to metagame are utterly a chore to play against. Every. Single. One. They've infected this game like a cancer and are doing more harm than good as others think it is acceptable to play the game in this odd way.
The game is like the one of the lowest priority things 40k has going for it. The minis, fluff and the spectacle are it's strongest points. Playing to one of 40k's weakest points is just strange and unfulfilling. These metagamers could get far more enjoyment out of a better structured game like WMH, but no, they continue to ram a square peg in the round hole that is 40k.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?
You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
Honestly I don't even play marines, except when someone directly asks me. I usually play my main army. (my uthwe exiles eldar).
There are some armies that are very powerful, and I know you can play with power levels, i usually don't, cause I am so used to playing with points costs.
I also love to experiment with the rules as a designer as i usually use warhammer 40k as a great example of style over balance.
Blndmage wrote: It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.
I'd count that as a good thing.
I'd count it as terrifying, it signifies one of two things. Either a) the design team is so utterly ignorant of the competitive state of the game that this was surprising to them as they're getting ready to release the last of their base game codices or b) the design team is so utterly disingenuous that they lie to your face in print to avoid being called out as biased or incompetent.
Either way, if they're claiming some level of surprise at the list construction or playstyle, it's a terrifying state of awareness for the design team to be in at this point.
Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?
You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.
The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?
You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.
The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.
Its also easy to tell a ynnari list because of what they bring to the table.
If a tyranid player brings out a ravenor and old one eye. Then I know they are trying to have fun.
If I see a marine player with three squads of hellblasters and azrael, loyal 32, and six single characters then I know what list he is running. I ain't stupid.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?
You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.
The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.
Some of my most enjoyable games in 8th have been versus highly competitive soup lists.
How do you explain this? I thought it was meant to be un-fun. How did you calculate the fun value?
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
Space marines
Hellblasters
Azrael
DARK ANGELS
Assorted characters
Is a powergamer, in any sense of understanding, is astounding.
All of those things are very, very bad power wise. They're not used, period, in competitive play.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.
People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.
Damn straight. I don't get what is so hard to see about this. It's like the old adage that might still be on the address bar on these forums- "If you cannot identify the TFG in your local store, you are the TFG". Those that like to metagame are utterly a chore to play against. Every. Single. One. They've infected this game like a cancer and are doing more harm than good as others think it is acceptable to play the game in this odd way.
The game is like the one of the lowest priority things 40k has going for it. The minis, fluff and the spectacle are it's strongest points. Playing to one of 40k's weakest points is just strange and unfulfilling. These metagamers could get far more enjoyment out of a better structured game like WMH, but no, they continue to ram a square peg in the round hole that is 40k.
And people like to complain that competitive posters on this forum are hostile.
I think you're also mistaking your personal preferences for an objective reality.
Blndmage wrote: Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.
Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.
PL makes me want to make lists and play.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Blndmage wrote: Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.
Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.
PL makes me want to make lists and play.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Space marines
Hellblasters
Azrael
DARK ANGELS
Assorted characters
Is a powergamer, in any sense of understanding, is astounding.
All of those things are very, very bad power wise. They're not used, period, in competitive play.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
Incredible.
I played a guy this weekend with an army kind of like that. He had 3 inquisitors, a bunch of primaris marines, and some scions, a leman russ, and a hellhound from the Guard. A soup army... but a very bad one. I brought what I consider a reasonably fluffy guard list that still has competitive teeth, 80 infantry, some tank commanders, a Shadowsword, and some other stuff. By turn 3 he was almost tabled, (a few stragglers left from the remnants of squads) and I'd lost maybe 50 guardsmen... nothing significant.
Real nice guy though, had a fun game, just a case where soup does not always mean "competitive".
Some of my most enjoyable games in 8th have been versus highly competitive soup lists.
I don't dispute that YOU have fun with that.
But, I don't.
oblem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost..
Most don't open and narrative play really isn't for 'competitive players'. You could always have that one asshat who goes in and slaughters a bunch of newbies and lore fanatics, but they are pretty rare. But I do agree, points do mitigate that problem.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
Honestly. I just said "I know what list they are playing, I am not stupid." The list is horrible, I know what they are trying to do, but that was relevant a year ago, now its utter gak. Back when azrael's bubble was for everyone it was quite good now due to an FAQ it isn't.
Calling someone bad without ever having played against them or seen them play is a bit, judgemental mate.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
Honestly. I just said "I know what list they are playing, I am not stupid." The list is horrible, I know what they are trying to do, but that was relevant a year ago, now its utter gak. Back when azrael's bubble was for everyone it was quite good now due to an FAQ it isn't.
Calling someone bad without ever having played against them or seen them play is a bit, judgemental mate.
Nah, just let them have the ego stroke. They truly have mastered 40k and if you don't take these handful of units your are a bad player.
Because being a bad player is supposed to be a dent to my sense of pride or something...
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Also, the rules for Matched Play are far more restrictive than Narritive Play.
It's nice to run super thematic games with no summoning/psyker power cap, or to use the Sentry rules, or Preliminary Bombardment, etc.
There's a ton of cool stuff in the game outside of Matched Play and Points.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.
I don't think they're doing that though...
The Ork codex is the newest one, and there are all kinds of customization options in there. The newest Guard codex came out after the SM codex, and it has tons of options. I have no idea why Space Marines lost so much customization honestly, it's a bit perplexing.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
Honestly. I just said "I know what list they are playing, I am not stupid." The list is horrible, I know what they are trying to do, but that was relevant a year ago, now its utter gak. Back when azrael's bubble was for everyone it was quite good now due to an FAQ it isn't.
Calling someone bad without ever having played against them or seen them play is a bit, judgemental mate.
Nah, just let them have the ego stroke. They truly have mastered 40k and if you don't take these handful of units your are a bad player.
Because being a bad player is supposed to be a dent to my sense of pride or something...
Perfection.
So, since these were very much to be expected as replies, I present the counterpoint:
Judgemental? As judgemental as, perhaps, denying an opponent with a low power list a game because you (incorrectly) judge that person to be powergaming? As judgemental as anticipating everyone who marks themselves as someone you should not, EVER play against when they don't want to play "open or narrative"?
[Edit: You are not obligated to play anyone for any reason. However, when you are wilfully providing a reason and using that to belittle others, you are the TFG in this scenario]
Now, in regards to the ego comment:
Being bad at the game doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't mean you can or should enjoy anything less or more. However, being bad at the fundamentals of playing the game does impact your judgement of the state of the game and the types of lists your seeing.
[Edit: Yes. Thinking marines, in any form, especially "dark angels hellblasters" are OP or powergaming demonstrates you are, more than likely, not good at the game. If you're not concerned with winning, don't be concerned with being good, either.]
In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.
I don't think they're doing that though...
The Ork codex is the newest one, and there are all kinds of customization options in there. The newest Guard codex came out after the SM codex, and it has tons of options. I have no idea why Space Marines lost so much customization honestly, it's a bit perplexing.
I mean eldar lost some units and customization as well, it was really dumb. My autarch with warp jump generator and howling banshee helmet just disappeared from the face of the planet. A very simple conversion completely gone. My apothecary on a bike gone, along with his storm bolter. Can't do anything with him now.
I've been arguing since 6th that we should crunch the data entries for space marines. Now its an unbearable mess. Lots of units to choose from but whether they are good or not is entirely up for debate. Except Vindicators
In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.
But doesn't that end with people spending money on bad models or maybe even bad factions, and having no fun at all. If people or better yet GW warned people about those factions it would be much better, people wouldn't be losing money on bad stuff.
In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.
But doesn't that end with people spending money on bad models or maybe even bad factions, and having no fun at all. If people or better yet GW warned people about those factions it would be much better, people wouldn't be losing money on bad stuff.
That's an unfortunate side effect of just the game in general, no?
I have 30-40ish Screamers, 9 Heralds, and 12 Exalted Flamers as well as an assorted number of other Daemons I used for my lists in 7th and summoning, but now through the virtue of the edition change and rule of 3 those are all mostly useless now.
Things change over time. Grey Knights are a perfect example.
If someone from 5th-6th started playing again in 8th, and people refused to play against a GK player because they thought they were still 'OP', would this be good for any party involved?
It's bad for the GK player, because he loses a game because someone improperly perceives something.
It's bad for the return player because they now take to their local store, message board, etc and spew uneducated opinions.
It's bad for GW because it seems like it's their fault that things are "too strong" when they aren't.
If I started commenting about painting, and told everyone you ABSOLUTELY need to use minotrum varnish from a can on a humid day, or that you should always paint with two thick coats because it's "just better" and "gw sells them in the pot that way", these would be objectively incorrect opinions and I would hope to be corrected, so I could improve.
The above post highlights the major problem with the right way to play 40k is only for fluff crowds argument.
How do you help a grey knights player have fun when their army is so poorly writen that they're doing well to not get tabled turn 2.
How is that supposed to be fun?
Or are they playing the game as wrongly as people who enjoy the more competitive style of play and we sgould just both learn to have fun the "correct" way.
Ice_can wrote: The above post highlights the major problem with the right way to play 40k is only for fluff crowds argument.
How do you help a grey knights player have fun when their army is so poorly writen that they're doing well to not get tabled turn 2. How is that supposed to be fun?
Or are they playing the game as wrongly as people who enjoy the more competitive style of play and we sgould just both learn to have fun the "correct" way.
What correct way? There is obviously a game balance issue, mechanics being used the way that the designers had no intention of working that way.
It's bad for the GK player, because he loses a game because someone improperly perceives something. It's bad for the return player because they now take to their local store, message board, etc and spew uneducated opinions. It's bad for GW because it seems like it's their fault that things are "too strong" when they aren't.
If I started commenting about painting, and told everyone you ABSOLUTELY need to use minotrum varnish from a can on a humid day, or that you should always paint with two thick coats because it's "just better" and "gw sells them in the pot that way", these would be objectively incorrect opinions and I would hope to be corrected, so I could improve.
I don't agree with that idea that there is one correct way to play, but there should be limits as to how people play, currently its just apocalypse mode thrown in and CP generation damaging the entire internal balance of the game.
Just deciding not to play ultra competitive people is a choice, my choice, its not like i'm saying you can't. But I know my opponents its easy to tell, and saying it is unpredictable isn't. You know when someone is "THAT GUY" relatively easily, accusing me of not wanting to face a "THAT GUY" is making me a "THAT GUY" makes no sense. If i play against others all the time, just like everyone I have qualifiers of opponents I will play or not play against. I will not face someone who only fields knights or power games. Just like how I wouldn't allow a Metagamer into a D&D game that would ruin the fun of everyone involved. There are limits to what we should allow even in social spaces, if you don't like well thats your opinion. As it is my opinion that it shouldn't be allowed. I will actively take apart of not facing opponents that abuse systems.
I gave 1 example that I even admitted "wasn't currently played." But back when it was it was competitive at one time. Saying "I'm uneducated" is insulting sorry but your very 'i don't tell people how to play' is a load of BS. When you tell someone they don't know how to play based on 0 pertaining information.
If someone from 5th-6th started playing again in 8th, and people refused to play against a GK player because they thought they were still 'OP', would this be good for any party involved?
Again it really matters what they are facing and the army, some random person isn't going to randomly pick the best units in the codex and only use them. Previous editions had the freedom and forcing armies to always have troop choices and a max amount of units per a slot. With this freeform version of 40k the sky is the limit, but in itself that is limiting the design space of each and every single army that is avaiable for players as that means that it decreases options for players to actively choose. As wide as an ocean but only puddle deep. Once you give an option for any unit, from any army being able to fill out a force organization chart it decreases design space as efficiency begins to take root in players. There may not be 'one way to play' but the culture that has developed has created that paradigm.
Players will actively seek out the best options for their armies. If you give them very little restricitons they will abuse that system.
The most frustrating part is GW clearly does, and there is no refuting this, intend for there to be Competitive play.
We have narrative, open, matched play and GW event hosts their own Grand tournaments at their own locations.
There is no right or wrong.
There is no "good" or "best" way to play, they just want you to enjoy their products and spend money on them.
Don't impose on anyone else's personal liberty.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You edited your response so I won't directly quote your post, because I'll be very clear.
I'm saying you are likely not good at playing based on all of the information you have willingly provided to us here. I'm still not telling you how to play. I dont care with whom or how you play. However, if you start saying things that are flatly wrong (DA Hellblasters were never good, sorry.) I will be happy to correct it.
I agree it a little disconcerting that they would be surprised by that Imperial list.
They are supposedly looking at tournament data to influence their balance decisions (see the first faq/point adjustment being pushed back to get data from a tournament close to the date) and this sort of list has been common since the Knight codex released.
Ordana wrote: I agree it a little disconcerting that they would be surprised by that Imperial list.
They are supposedly looking at tournament data to influence their balance decisions (see the first faq/point adjustment being pushed back to get data from a tournament close to the date) and this sort of list has been common since the Knight codex released.
Hence why I said :
Once you give an option for any unit, from any army being able to fill out a force organization chart it decreases design space as efficiency begins to take root in players. There may not be 'one way to play' but the culture that has developed has created that paradigm.
Players will actively seek out the best options for their armies. If you give them very little restrictions they will abuse that system.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.
Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).
Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
Derp, yeah should have realized this game would have been played well in advance when the Knight meta was just developing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thanks everyone as well for your feedback.
Also let me state as well - as far as the bar for filth goes, I'd maintain that this is the tip of the iceberg. My list was so far from optimal, it just falls into a style of army I love to play.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.
So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
.
Wouldn't they struggle to get any info about armies that are not being much ? I mean it is not ultra hard to gather data on how well a castellan or farseer influences an army, or how armies with or without those units work in different scenarios. On the other hand an army that is just not played may doesn't deliver any useful stuff. Am sure GW can imagine, based on sales and how often the army is played at events, how bad something is, but fixing or changing stuff can't really be done without an extensive in house testing. But then again they technicaly do that when they write the codex.
Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.
Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.
So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.
What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.
These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.
With thanks to liam0404 for their input, it actually makes me want to buy this WD and read the battle report.
One thing a lot of people in this thread seem to be forgetting is that this is a hobby, and it's meant to be fun. Like literally any board game you sit down and play, you have an unspoken contract with your opponent that you're there to have fun. I would argue that both casual gamers like myself and competitive gamers like those featured in the battle report have a responsibility to communicate their gaming goals at the start of the game.
There's nothing wrong with how either camp plays the game. Heck, there's probably a very large, very non-vocal group that sit in the middle of the CAAC and WAAC (I've only used those acronyms as outliers, not intended to insult either camp) that just want to play a fun game with units they think are good.
God knows back when I used to play tournaments (we're talking a while ago, 4th/5th ed), some of the best games I played were against people whom that this forum would have you believe have bought their army specifically to match a list they downloaded off the internet, slapped the minimum three colours on and decided they would sweep a tournament. Except they were lovingly painted armies to their owners highest standard, played in a game with laughter, cheering and good-natured "benefit of the doubt" type attitudes. Yes, it was a trademark "power list" of the day, but it didn't matter because we both had a fun game. Heck, if I went down too fast, I often found myself apologising for not giving them the challenge they were expecting, and they apologised for wiping the floor with me. Both of us wanted the game to go on longer because we were having fun.
It's so easy to take the opponent and their character, their sportsmanship and their hobby energy out of the equation when playing a game like this. Which is easy to do given how a lot of people like to argue hypotheticals in determining unit optimization (which is fine, it's a lot better than comparing anecdotes to determine unit viability), but when it comes to how enjoyable a game is?
If you want to shake my hand before and after the game, have a good laugh whilst we yell at our dice and in a few weeks time forget who actually won or lost? You're my kind of opponent, regardless of what list you bring. Otherwise, you can have a masterclass painted, straight-outta-fluff list and be a sour, rules lawyering individual and I'm not going to have a good time.
But isn't it because ITC has a painting score? Where I live that is the only difference between tournament and non tournament lists. The tournament ones are for better or worse all painted, while the ones used by people who don't go to tournaments are almost never painted.
Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.
I admittedly have no idea of how good or bad GK currently are (aside from everyone telling me it's the worst faction atm), but I'd assume that they are not as heavily outmatched in open/narrative play as they are in matched play.
So the question is wheter GK players regularly do get tabled in those environments in the first place.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.
So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.
What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.
These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.
Not colorful enough. 0/10 try harder
Anyone remember that one White Scars army with the matching Riptides an edition back? That was glorious for example.
I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.
I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.
Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?
Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.
Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.
So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.
What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.
These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.
Not colorful enough. 0/10 try harder
Anyone remember that one White Scars army with the matching Riptides an edition back? That was glorious for example.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.
Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).
Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.
It's also frustrating that Forge World is a source of superheavies for most factions. There's this competing design philosophy between the two studios for some reason that has them pricing FW units much higher in points than those in GW codices. Units that could pose a risk to knights based on rules and loadouts are just ridiculously expensive.
Compare the Shadowsword to the Falchion, for example. And then there are the asinine pantheon-themed prices on the daemon lords. But at first they were "reasonably" priced. Then some jackass decided that those units, out of all others in the game needed fluff-based points.
Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.
I admittedly have no idea of how good or bad GK currently are (aside from everyone telling me it's the worst faction atm), but I'd assume that they are not as heavily outmatched in open/narrative play as they are in matched play.
So the question is wheter GK players regularly do get tabled in those environments in the first place.
Well one would have to play open or narrative games vs chaos or demon lists. And GK are one of the worse armies, to play against demons. Probably the worse, because nothing beats bringing back units for free.
But to be honest considering open/narrative aren't even played that much, I doubt it would matter. It would be fun to see GW do social gymnastics trying to explain how being not totaly unplayable in those, balances matched play.
If you want to shake my hand before and after the game, have a good laugh whilst we yell at our dice and in a few weeks time forget who actually won or lost? You're my kind of opponent, regardless of what list you bring.
This basically. I'd enjoy getting stomped by the latest netlist if only because I want to taste all the flavors of cheese.
For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.
I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.
Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).
Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.
It's also frustrating that Forge World is a source of superheavies for most factions. There's this competing design philosophy between the two studios for some reason that has them pricing FW units much higher in points than those in GW codices. Units that could pose a risk to knights based on rules and loadouts are just ridiculously expensive.
Compare the Shadowsword to the Falchion, for example. And then there are the asinine pantheon-themed prices on the daemon lords. But at first they were "reasonably" priced. Then some jackass decided that those units, out of all others in the game needed fluff-based points.
Honestly I wouldn't care about the Demon Lords having the "fluffy" pricing as long as they weren't terribly for said pricing.
Are they really that bad. I played against the tzeench one twice and he seems to solo a whole army. Now am not saying he is better then the same points in DPs, but at least vs GK he seemed powerful.
Raichase wrote: With thanks to liam0404 for their input, it actually makes me want to buy this WD and read the battle report.
One thing a lot of people in this thread seem to be forgetting is that this is a hobby, and it's meant to be fun. Like literally any board game you sit down and play, you have an unspoken contract with your opponent that you're there to have fun. I would argue that both casual gamers like myself and competitive gamers like those featured in the battle report have a responsibility to communicate their gaming goals at the start of the game.
There's nothing wrong with how either camp plays the game. Heck, there's probably a very large, very non-vocal group that sit in the middle of the CAAC and WAAC (I've only used those acronyms as outliers, not intended to insult either camp) that just want to play a fun game with units they think are good.
God knows back when I used to play tournaments (we're talking a while ago, 4th/5th ed), some of the best games I played were against people whom that this forum would have you believe have bought their army specifically to match a list they downloaded off the internet, slapped the minimum three colours on and decided they would sweep a tournament. Except they were lovingly painted armies to their owners highest standard, played in a game with laughter, cheering and good-natured "benefit of the doubt" type attitudes. Yes, it was a trademark "power list" of the day, but it didn't matter because we both had a fun game. Heck, if I went down too fast, I often found myself apologising for not giving them the challenge they were expecting, and they apologised for wiping the floor with me. Both of us wanted the game to go on longer because we were having fun.
It's so easy to take the opponent and their character, their sportsmanship and their hobby energy out of the equation when playing a game like this. Which is easy to do given how a lot of people like to argue hypotheticals in determining unit optimization (which is fine, it's a lot better than comparing anecdotes to determine unit viability), but when it comes to how enjoyable a game is?
If you want to shake my hand before and after the game, have a good laugh whilst we yell at our dice and in a few weeks time forget who actually won or lost? You're my kind of opponent, regardless of what list you bring. Otherwise, you can have a masterclass painted, straight-outta-fluff list and be a sour, rules lawyering individual and I'm not going to have a good time.
I started 40k with and ultra competitive Space Wolves list during the tail end of 5th Ed. Didn't like winning without effort, so I sold the army and stopped playing.
Coming back to 8th older, wiser(?), more mature, I've decided to collect what I like and try to match the level of competitiveness of my local meta. I find the game more fun when winning and losing is based more on my decisions during the game than on what list I bring.
I've got Guard, which is supposed to be one of the best armies at the moment, but I also plan on making a Primaris Army, which is considered one of the worst right now. Heck, my Guard army is mostly infantry with two (three?) tanks. I plan on getting Ogryn, despite them not being the ultra competitive choice.
Arcanis161 wrote: I started 40k with and ultra competitive Space Wolves list during the tail end of 5th Ed. Didn't like winning without effort, so I sold the army and stopped playing.
Coming back to 8th older, wiser(?), more mature, I've decided to collect what I like and try to match the level of competitiveness of my local meta. I find the game more fun when winning and losing is based more on my decisions during the game than on what list I bring.
I've got Guard, which is supposed to be one of the best armies at the moment, but I also plan on making a Primaris Army, which is considered one of the worst right now. Heck, my Guard army is mostly infantry with two (three?) tanks. I plan on getting Ogryn, despite them not being the ultra competitive choice.
I play for fun.
The best thing about playing for fun is that when the meta shifts and your list gains or loses power, provided you're playing for the right reasons and with the right people, it doesn't really matter to you, thus your enjoyment doesn't suffer.
Bosskelot wrote: I think you really overvalue how much ITC changes about the game.
I think it will depend on the terrain layout of the Itc boards. The newest terrain rules have the possibility to change the game drastically. Having a bunker that is immune to direct fire and any non infantry melee hard nerfs knights (everyone cheers yes) all bikers, all monsters, and all non indirect fire vehicles. It hard buffs all melee infantry (including slam captains) and I think boyz and stealers are going to be a true nightmare to fight against. If there’s even just a couple on a table it can and will create dead zones against any army that specialized in assault infantry
It is such a big deal that if genecults book were to release in enough time to make the tournament, they’d probably take the top table. As it is I think several ork armies are going to have a great showing and there will be at least one in the top 8 of the LVO that will be taking advantage of this rule
You are also going to see just endless piles of indirect fire from Guard detachments and a bunch a hive guard. Indeed nids are another army I will predict hit the top eight with the benefits of this ruling, and this is a far more dark horse opinion than orks making it
It does hurt ynnari a fair amount and knights a bit, but the knights are balanced out by having guard detachments with probably the most indirect fire availability in the game to take advantage of this rule to its fullest
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.
Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.
PL makes me want to make lists and play.
I get too frustrated with how they assumed stern guard squads would just be all Combi weapons under power level ane made them untakable since Bolter stern guard are some of my favorite marine units and currently the heart of my terrible terrible mechanized Victrix guard list
I actually never even looked at the PL of my custodes
Space marines
Hellblasters
Azrael
DARK ANGELS
Assorted characters
Is a powergamer, in any sense of understanding, is astounding.
All of those things are very, very bad power wise. They're not used, period, in competitive play.
That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.
Incredible.
You could get into the top 50 percent at lvo with the hellblaster murder blob. It’s not a bad list. It’s pretty much the good dark angel list. But it’s not top table competitive
Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.
Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.
Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
Also, the rules for Matched Play are far more restrictive than Narritive Play.
It's nice to run super thematic games with no summoning/psyker power cap, or to use the Sentry rules, or Preliminary Bombardment, etc.
There's a ton of cool stuff in the game outside of Matched Play and Points.
You can play narrative play for points, and indeed I prefer to as I find it is way easier to accidentally break power level without trying than to do the same with points
Bosskelot wrote: Yeah even when we play Narrative games we still use all the matched play rules and points values because it ensures a more balanced game.
Depends, we have done narrative games for special days/events for the store, like 20k points of tyranids vs everyone else in the store, but all gants comes back every turn and everything else every other turn. The games ends and nids win if no one plays them, but if anyone keeps playing until store closes the nids lose.
Not all narrative it meant to be 1v1 try to win, sometimes its literally for fun, like trying to get a single HQ with a super important artifact across the table and off, the game ends if you have no more characters or the artifact walks off the table, this is fun with IG and you always bring back any dead guardsmen, b.c you know thats fluff and fun. But the other side only has there starting force.
Horst wrote: Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.
So what if you aren’t playing Cadians? What are Scions then?
Storm Troopers - like they were up until Codex: Faux Latin came out...
Cephalobeard wrote: I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".
As a general rule, most people wouldn't classify themselves in such a way.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: I mean, they just printed a 40k preview for the year that basically stated: "Dear Chaos player, through the various publications we will release this year, it is possible you may be inspired to purchase a single model, maybe. Otherwise, please feel free to take the year off."
Would this be the one on WHC that talks about Black Legion and infers more new Slaanesh stuff?
Not all narrative it meant to be 1v1 try to win, sometimes its literally for fun, like trying to get a single HQ with a super important artifact across the table and off, the game ends if you have no more characters or the artifact walks off the table, this is fun with IG and you always bring back any dead guardsmen, b.c you know thats fluff and fun. But the other side only has there starting force.
What if you know that no matter what you do the opposing army will stop your army, no matter what the objective you invent. An eldar army with their s spears charge range can kill a GKHQ objective carrier anywhere on the table end of turn 2 at best. And if it is some odd middle deployment they kill him on turn one.
I tried playing the game with personal objective, but it just doesn't work. Take or hold objective etc Didn't work. try to have a dude alive at the end of the game worked, but to do that I had to play the clock, and for that I was warned that If I try to do that again people will just not play me again. And it is already hard to find people willing to play vs GK.
Not all narrative it meant to be 1v1 try to win, sometimes its literally for fun, like trying to get a single HQ with a super important artifact across the table and off, the game ends if you have no more characters or the artifact walks off the table, this is fun with IG and you always bring back any dead guardsmen, b.c you know thats fluff and fun. But the other side only has there starting force.
What if you know that no matter what you do the opposing army will stop your army, no matter what the objective you invent. An eldar army with their s spears charge range can kill a GKHQ objective carrier anywhere on the table end of turn 2 at best. And if it is some odd middle deployment they kill him on turn one.
I tried playing the game with personal objective, but it just doesn't work. Take or hold objective etc Didn't work. try to have a dude alive at the end of the game worked, but to do that I had to play the clock, and for that I was warned that If I try to do that again people will just not play me again. And it is already hard to find people willing to play vs GK.
You are not talking about playing narrative, you are talking about a narrative mission in a match game, there is a difference.
Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.
Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?
Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
Prioritising things differently to you is not the same as being idiots.
Asherian Command wrote: Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.
You mean a, GW being incompetent when it comes to IP law; and b, massively over-reacting to a third party parts company that actually called a spade a spade?
Cephalobeard wrote: We have narrative, open, matched play and GW event hosts their own Grand tournaments at their own locations.
And yet the GWGT doesn't use any of the variant rules/scenario packs - so why do we listen to balance concerns from those who aren't actually playing 40k?
Karol wrote: But isn't it because ITC has a painting score? Where I live that is the only difference between tournament and non tournament lists. The tournament ones are for better or worse all painted, while the ones used by people who don't go to tournaments are almost never painted.
Sounds more like an issue with the people in your area.
And which of your characters are you portraying in this thread, btw?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
Prioritising things differently to you is not the same as being idiots.
Asherian Command wrote: Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.
You mean a, GW being incompetent when it comes to IP law; and b, massively over-reacting to a third party parts company that actually called a spade a spade?
Cephalobeard wrote: We have narrative, open, matched play and GW event hosts their own Grand tournaments at their own locations.
And yet the GWGT doesn't use any of the variant rules/scenario packs - so why do we listen to balance concerns from those who aren't actually playing 40k?
Karol wrote: But isn't it because ITC has a painting score? Where I live that is the only difference between tournament and non tournament lists. The tournament ones are for better or worse all painted, while the ones used by people who don't go to tournaments are almost never painted.
Sounds more like an issue with the people in your area.
And which of your characters are you portraying in this thread, btw?
Yet, ironically, the folks who run the ITC are GW Playtesters, as are a number of individuals who run their own tournament formats and place well at large events.
It's almost as if being able to manage different rule sets translates skill and knowledge within a game fairly well.
If someone plays legacy in MTG, they probably still know the rules well enough to play well in standard, modern or vintage.
Karol wrote: Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.
Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?
Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.
what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.
If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.
I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.
Karol wrote: Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.
Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?
Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.
what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.
If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.
I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.
You have to have the luxury of people both willing to play and willing to not completely abuse narrative. It’s easy to accidentally break a narrative game. It is trivial to knowingly break a narrative game.
You mean a, GW being incompetent when it comes to IP law; and b, massively over-reacting to a third party parts company that actually called a spade a spade?
Yes.
I mean they are incompetent its why they are changing the names on everything like Eldar to Aeldari, Dark Eldar to Drukhari , or imperial guard to Astra Millitarium etc.
Its stupid no doubt but its understandable hasbro did something similar to protect their IP.
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that. To put this into context, you would NEVER see a historical wargamer take all cavalry and cannons because "it's more efficient", unless they were playing a specific scenario where their force had/would have used an all mounted force with artillery support. "Because it's better" is never a factor for a narrative gamer.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different scenario, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit. It's playing with Power Level and not immediately thinking "Ah ha, I'll take all the best upgrades because it's all free!" (and again, if that's your immediate thought when the words "Power Level" are mentioned, you're missing the point of it and probably should stick with points because you can't be trusted to not abuse Power Level)
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different stratagem, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit.
As a great example you would probably see more tactical marines than a bunch of captains with thunder hammers in narrative play. Thunder hammers are not that common, nor are blood angel captains or mephiston, Mephiston would only come out if there were big fish to fry. And he would not leave the blood angels especially at this time and place and would be accompained by an honor guard.
Tactical marines would act as a shield.
While in a guard army it would be mostly conscript, some vets, and mortars and a huge trenchline, the guardsmen just sitting on their butts waiting for a chargeline.
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different stratagem, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit.
As a great example you would probably see more tactical marines than a bunch of captains with thunder hammers in narrative play. Thunder hammers are not that common, nor are blood angel captains or mephiston, Mephiston would only come out if there were big fish to fry. And he would not leave the blood angels especially at this time and place and would be accompained by an honor guard.
Tactical marines would act as a shield.
While in a guard army it would be mostly conscript, some vets, and mortars and a huge trenchline, the guardsmen just sitting on their butts waiting for a chargeline.
The Guard Army would also be mostly regular lasgun infantry, maybe with flamers. Some people tend to give everyone plasma guns and lascannons... these weapons are mythically rare and would not be common in the hands of imperial guard troopers.
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different stratagem, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit.
As a great example you would probably see more tactical marines than a bunch of captains with thunder hammers in narrative play. Thunder hammers are not that common, nor are blood angel captains or mephiston, Mephiston would only come out if there were big fish to fry. And he would not leave the blood angels especially at this time and place and would be accompained by an honor guard.
Tactical marines would act as a shield.
While in a guard army it would be mostly conscript, some vets, and mortars and a huge trenchline, the guardsmen just sitting on their butts waiting for a chargeline.
The Guard Army would also be mostly regular lasgun infantry, maybe with flamers. Some people tend to give everyone plasma guns and lascannons... these weapons are mythically rare and would not be common in the hands of imperial guard troopers.
I'd agree that plasma guns (and pistols) should be rare, but I'd disagree on lascannon being "mythically" rare. If nothing else, Guardsmen would be reasonably familiar with them as a hull mount on a Russ, and while I suspect Infantry lascannon would be more common as Heavy Weapon Squads, I'd say they would still appear infrequently in standard squads if the situation seemed appropriate.
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different stratagem, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit.
As a great example you would probably see more tactical marines than a bunch of captains with thunder hammers in narrative play. Thunder hammers are not that common, nor are blood angel captains or mephiston, Mephiston would only come out if there were big fish to fry. And he would not leave the blood angels especially at this time and place and would be accompained by an honor guard.
Tactical marines would act as a shield.
While in a guard army it would be mostly conscript, some vets, and mortars and a huge trenchline, the guardsmen just sitting on their butts waiting for a chargeline.
The Guard Army would also be mostly regular lasgun infantry, maybe with flamers. Some people tend to give everyone plasma guns and lascannons... these weapons are mythically rare and would not be common in the hands of imperial guard troopers.
I'd agree that plasma guns (and pistols) should be rare, but I'd disagree on lascannon being "mythically" rare. If nothing else, Guardsmen would be reasonably familiar with them as a hull mount on a Russ, and while I suspect Infantry lascannon would be more common as Heavy Weapon Squads, I'd say they would still appear infrequently in standard squads if the situation seemed appropriate.
Meanwhile the Tempestus Scions can have just about anything they want for weapons and won’t bother with tanks, preferring Valkyries and Taurox Primes.
You *CAN* treat it like a Matched Play game with a Narrative Play scenario. But honestly, a narrative game is so much more. If that's all you're doing and calling it narrative, no wonder it doesn't seem like much.
For me, the major difference is the mindset. In a narrative game, you aren't choosing units willy-nilly. There is a reason for everything in your army, and most of the time it's not chosen because of effectiveness but logistics (how common would this unit be) or, if you're fighting a battle that is in the fluff, what was physically there.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
In these situations, you pick an army based on something more than "how well does it play". You might, for example, take an understrength unit just because you feel that unit may have suffered losses in the last battle and not had time to replenish. You might take a mix of weapons, even if it's not as effective, because it's more realistic that the unit would have been equipped with that.
In short, to not wax too philosophical here, Narrative requires a very specific mindset; one not born of a desire to win but a desire to tell a story. This is also why true Narrative scenarios often have completely different victory conditions: So even if your forces are outnumbered, you win if you survive until Turn 5 because you can send a distress signal. You ultimately "lose", but in the story, your brave sacrifice enabled the other forces to rally, because you alerted them.
If you ever approach picking a Narrative army with looking at a unit's effectiveness in game, or try to force-fit a min/maxed army into the narrative (e.g. "Well my story army is a depleted platoon of Guardsmen, Mephiston and an Honour Guard, and a Knight House!") then that's missing the point of Narrative completely because you're already approaching it from the wrong point of view.
Sure, you can pretend Narrative is just Matched Play with a different stratagem, but it goes deeper than that. Narrative Play is how you play the game just as much as the story surrounding the game. A Narrative player may throw their Warlord into combat even when they should hang back and shoot because their Warlord is hot-headed. It's injecting something of an actual personality and character, other than "do the most optimal thing" and being okay with the fact you're doing it. It's NOT always doing the best action, or taking the best unit, because it doesn't fit.
As a great example you would probably see more tactical marines than a bunch of captains with thunder hammers in narrative play. Thunder hammers are not that common, nor are blood angel captains or mephiston, Mephiston would only come out if there were big fish to fry. And he would not leave the blood angels especially at this time and place and would be accompained by an honor guard.
Tactical marines would act as a shield.
While in a guard army it would be mostly conscript, some vets, and mortars and a huge trenchline, the guardsmen just sitting on their butts waiting for a chargeline.
The Guard Army would also be mostly regular lasgun infantry, maybe with flamers. Some people tend to give everyone plasma guns and lascannons... these weapons are mythically rare and would not be common in the hands of imperial guard troopers.
Plasma is rare. It was before cawl came around a dying technology.
While incredibly destructive plasma weapons are a mostly lost technology from the standpoint of the contemporary Imperium of Man, seen as relics of another age. Their workings are a mystery for the most part, and only a select few circles of the Adeptus Mechanicus know how to construct them. Even among the Space Marine Chapters these weapons are considered uncommon, with the Dark Angels maintaining the largest inventory and the knowledge necessary to construct more; Space Marine plasma weapons also use hydrogen in higher quantum state than standard models, pushing the limits of their own resilience. Most existing plasma weapons are hundreds if not thousands of years old and those few new ones constructed are done so individually, requiring extensive blessing and rituals by the Machine God before use.
Flamers are much more common, Grav weaponry is ancient, lascannons, on the other hand, are just beefed up lasguns.
It wasn’t. Find a citation stating it’s dying nature.
The current 8th Edition Astra Militarum codex has this to say on Page 51:
Codex: Astra Militarum wrote:Gradually, over the millennia, knowledge of plasma technology has been lost, and the Executioner is now a rare relic.
Obviously, it specifically refers to the Executioner, but is further supporting evidence from the current edition of the game to what has already been provided.
Wikipedia is not a citation my friend. There’s a lot of old tech that the imperium makes new versions of regularly. There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.
There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.
Citation needed
Other than the Dark Angels who have ready access to it whenever its not as common as one would think, and forgeworlds are notorious for withholding resources.
Wikipedia is not a citation my friend.
And Wikipedia especially Lexi is a valuable resource that is meticulously sourced. Its not warhammer 40k wiki which is written poorly and maintained poorly. Lexi does not have that issue at all. They are just slow to update but have very harsh rules.
Obviously, it specifically refers to the Executioner, but is further supporting evidence from the current edition of the game to what has already been provided.
It can be inferred that they are general talking about plasma as well. I doubt guardsmen have nearly as much access to plasma weaponry as space marines do.
Wikipedia is not a citation my friend. There’s a lot of old tech that the imperium makes new versions of regularly. There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.
Way to move the goal posts, you asked for sources and they were provided. Plasma was until recently fairly rare. Most guard squads are far more likely to have a flamer or grenade launcher than a PG.
Another example RE: Narrative, albeit odd bit it just popped into my head:
In the Badab War book from FW, it mentioned that the Fire Angels chapter don't have a lot of plasma weapons (I think because they were fleet based, I don't 100% remember the reason) and specifically mentions that a lot of their Tactical Squads use a Meltagun and Heavy Bolter for a very "all around" approach.
The Narrative Player would probably build most of their Tactical Squads with Meltagun and Heavy Bolter, rather than go for more optimal options (that's not to say they might not have a squad or two with Plasma, but it would be the minority).
Karol wrote: Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.
Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?
Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.
what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.
If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.
I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.
You have to have the luxury of people both willing to play and willing to not completely abuse narrative. It’s easy to accidentally break a narrative game. It is trivial to knowingly break a narrative game.
Yup. Usually, if you start with people who are
A) old, and don't have any particular need to pretend winning a game is proportional to the size of their pee-pees
B ) cheap, and not interested in rushing out and ebaying 500$ of miniatures
C) more interested in a loss that takes a solid 4 hours and a few beers to get through rather than a 90 minute turn 2 win
then you don't have a problem creating yourself a casual game meta.
The whole "but the game's so imbalanced that if people have random collections one guy will accidentally have the uber-l33t competitive eldar list and will stomp everyone" narrative that gets trotted out is, in my experience at least, incredibly rare. The guy with the super old Eldar collection that includes shining spears and Dark Reapers doesn't win any more or any less than anyone else, because his army list is usually something like
battalion
autarch on foot
farseer on foot
avatar of khaine
dire avengers on foot
guardians in a wave serpent
guardians on foot
3 shining spears
5 dark reapers with a shuriken cannon exarch
5 howling banshees on foot
2 wraithlords
Oh look, you've got two units in there that are used in competitive tournament lists on accident. well, good thing you've got 90% of the points into stuff that's not even close to tournament viable because that's the percentage of the units in the game that aren't, you're not running them as Ynnari because "what? no, they're biel tan. See, they're painted green. What even is that?" and there's not enough of them in the list for most people to even really notice them being particularly powerful.
Sure, if you ask people what they think of the game balance, they'll complain about it, but then they'll complain about things that aren't even close to a balance issue, and they're usually pretty funny complaints. "Yeah, you know what I hate? Terminators. Darn things. Why'd they make them so tough! 2+ armor saves, can you believe it? Anything but a one...jeez."
To reinforce that point, last game I played I had a unit of Spears and a unit of Reapers...
I even Quickened the Spears. And Doomed every turn.
I was even playing against a primarily-SM army!
The Spears had Quicken fail the one round they were alive to get it. Even with a CP reroll. They did manage a T1 charge into chaff, which of course could back away and then the reapers got shot off the board (shot off by chaff).
The Reapers did a lot better. They 5 Aggressors and put 3 wounds on a Dread! Yay?
I wound up only eliminating one HQ and one 10-man chaff squad the *entire* game (went 6 rounds, but I played the objectives and won 12-6 despite having just 2 Spider Aspect Warriors and my HQs left out of a 2k list.)
My point is you see very different armies, and they play very differently, when not at tournies.
what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.
If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.
I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.
I would say that 90% of all people playing are playing for multiple editions, I don't think they buy much new stuff other then knights or some new units. The rest is some new people, out of which most are siblings or children of people that play for a long time. the people I play the most, are playing eldar or IG soups. There were some people that played BA and one guy played DW. The BA guys quit, and the DW army guy, who started as primaris marines, then he bought knight and custodes. Wish he didn't he was the only one against whom I had decent games.
Were GK good 5 years ago? Serious question, because from what I have been told, GK were good for like a few months at the very end of a single edition and then got stright up nerfed, and before that they were very bad.
My point is you see very different armies, and they play very differently, when not at tournies.
Good for you. But if you main eldar, your expiriance of playing w40k is drasticly different from someone who played an army that maybe never was good. Or was good 20 years ago.
To understand Narrative Play, you need to understand its roots in historical wargaming in the days of yore. When you would decide to refight Waterloo, or the Invasion of Normandy, or Agincourt, or any other historical battle, and either decide to refight it as it was and see if you could do better/worse than history, or often a "what if" scenario where you explored what might have happened if an army that came late turned up in time, or if a maneuver was made across a different area or attacking a different area than what really happened.
Wouldn't that require buying multiple armies to be able to play ? If you can't have one optimal list, you would need a separate list for Lipsk, separate for Waterloo, separate for Austerlitz etc. If someone tried playing w40k like that the investment would be crazy for some armies. One person could have a super flexible list out of a few thousand points collection, why someone playing would have the same list they have now. And the lists are bad.
A squad of purifires is a bad no matter if it is a ITC top table, some store game or someone playing narrative. I mean, when my opponent was sm primaris, and both of us were noobs, his army was still kicking my butt. To a degree we are probably both playing narrative lists. He had 3 units of intercesors, gulliman and some mini characters, 2 units of hellblasters and agressors. No scouts, no razorbacks, no FW.
When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?
Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.
So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.
Bharring wrote: When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?
Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.
So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.
Dude, scatterbikes are highly competitive now with the special detachment, they put out insane dakka with some rend now.
Bharring wrote: When was the last time Dark Reapers were good?
When was the last time Shining Spears were good?
When was the last time Rangers were good?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their DAVU DAs?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scatter Bikes?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Warp Spiders?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Seer Councils?
What are the Eldar players doing with their Wraithknights?
What are the Eldar players doing with all their Scytheguard?
Believe it or not, Tac Marines - a rather bad unit - has been better than any one CWE troop choice for most of the past 3 editions. CWE may be consistently on top, but the actual units use tend to fare poorly over wider timespans.
So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.
Dude, scatterbikes are highly competitive now with the special detachment, they put out insane dakka with some rend now.
I think thats the point of the post hahaha. Scatterbikes are only used in Saim Hann Lists with the special detachment which means... Ynnari won't use it.
So Eldar being good 5 years ago means that if you had an army then, you have one or two of the units you need for a modern netlist.
Ok, but I play GK not marines. From what I understand, and my knowladge is based on what people told me, so I could be wrong, GK were good under one codex that came out just at the very end of an edition. I dont know if it was 4th or 5th, and then next edition come and they were bad, and another and they were bad again, and they stayed ever since. And that before the good codex, they were suppose to be horrible too. So maybe the good every 2-3 years is true only for some armies.
also eldar bad is not really bad. I played vs a an army of almost all jetbikes, s spears and some DA in s serpents, it worked great. I understand it maybe ain't the list to kill a IG soup, but it is not unplayable. If you tried to play with the non optimal GK units you would know that their bad is just bad, and eldar bad is just worse then the best other armies have.
There's CWE meh and then there's CWE bad. Although CA fixed most of the CA bad.
CWE meh will of course stomp GK. GK is in a terrible place. This is true of almost every non-GK book - no different from how GK would fare facing meh options from Necrons or Nids or AdMech or whatever.
CWE bad isn't Jetbikes, Spears, and DAs in Serpents. Spears are great. Serpents went from great to good. DAs are still meh. Unsure where Windriders are right now.
You also have to remember you're dealing with lists that drop 3 units in via WWP and other sorts of not-actually-the-rules shenanigans. It's hard to say things like Storm Guardians are better than GK when you don't play by the rules, becuase there's no rules to base it on.
Finally, GK are in a special place. They aren't the only army in that place, but they're the only army with a Codex in that place. For whatever reason, GW hasn't given GK rules that compete with any faction. Shouting about how OPCWE is because they crush GK when just about any other book out there does that too is silly. Replace CWE with almost any other book in such posts, and nothing else changes - aside from not channeling the hatred against the Knife Ears (well deserved hatred).
As an addendum, GK are not the worst-off army. It was Corsairs until the summer FAQ. I'm not sure who it is now, but Corsairs still have it worse than GK. And as an aside, Corsairs are knife-ears too.
Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.
Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.
Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.
Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.
Bharring wrote: There's CWE meh and then there's CWE bad. Although CA fixed most of the CA bad.
CWE meh will of course stomp GK. GK is in a terrible place. This is true of almost every non-GK book - no different from how GK would fare facing meh options from Necrons or Nids or AdMech or whatever.
CWE bad isn't Jetbikes, Spears, and DAs in Serpents. Spears are great. Serpents went from great to good. DAs are still meh. Unsure where Windriders are right now.
You also have to remember you're dealing with lists that drop 3 units in via WWP and other sorts of not-actually-the-rules shenanigans. It's hard to say things like Storm Guardians are better than GK when you don't play by the rules, becuase there's no rules to base it on.
Finally, GK are in a special place. They aren't the only army in that place, but they're the only army with a Codex in that place. For whatever reason, GW hasn't given GK rules that compete with any faction. Shouting about how OPCWE is because they crush GK when just about any other book out there does that too is silly. Replace CWE with almost any other book in such posts, and nothing else changes - aside from not channeling the hatred against the Knife Ears (well deserved hatred).
As an addendum, GK are not the worst-off army. It was Corsairs until the summer FAQ. I'm not sure who it is now, but Corsairs still have it worse than GK. And as an aside, Corsairs are knife-ears too.
I miss bladestorm for DA and Hunter traits for scorpions
i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.
Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.
Thats like a dwarf claiming he's the tallest dwarf.
"i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack"
SM Sarges have +1A and +1Ld. So they have the same number of stat improvements!
More seriously, SM Sarges and CWE Exarchs aren't the same thing. I'm glad Exarchs have better stats than their Squaddies. I just wish they paid for it. I miss my WS/BS 2+ Exarchs.
Bharring wrote: "i do think it is funny that the exarchs for eldar have +1 wound +1 attack on base, and yet space marine sarges have only +1 attack"
SM Sarges have +1A and +1Ld. So they have the same number of stat improvements!
More seriously, SM Sarges and CWE Exarchs aren't the same thing. I'm glad Exarchs have better stats than their Squaddies. I just wish they paid for it. I miss my WS/BS 2+ Exarchs.
Oh of course how could i forget how valuable leadership is over a single sound.
I mean they used to have various different types of armor saves in a single unit. GW squashed alot of complexities which makes certain squads worse. (IE dire avengers)
Marmatag wrote: Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.
Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.
Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.
Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.
yeah they won tournaments like an invitational where armies invited were taken in by how cool they look. And one dude won with a soup, am not sure 3 units of interceptors and a ton of IG and SoB is a GK list. Yet another was won by a guy in a single detachment tournament with a ton of highlander rules etc. Oddly enough the army was not legal. that is the type of tournaments GK won.
As the SR comment. Yes GK could take them, still can. But if everyone can do it, and everyone does it better then you, it doesn't mean that your suddenly doing good.
also the changes to ravens and razorbacks hit GK the most, because unlike other marines they didn't have cheap scouts or equivalents to run them with after the points hike. And the points hike happened only because one list with gulliman was deemed too good.
I don't care about SW, but from what I heard their armies have at least characterful stuff in it. GK aren't characterful. They should be master psykers, that use magic. they suck at it. They should be great at killing demons. And they are the worse army to use vs demons. In fact fielding a GK ally vs demons makes the demon army better.
In fluff they have superior gear and training, and each one of them is on the power level of a normal marines librarian. They have no rules like that, GK librarians are worse then other armies librarians, they have fewer gear options then other marines. termintors supposed fix was 2pts SS. great GK can't take those. Primaris are suppose to be the future of marines. GW say GK won't get them. all the good FW units, all marines can take them, but not GK.
GK have their own knights and titans and a whole FW of their own. Yet their weapons are worse then those of normal marines, for more points. They don't have plasma, they cost like marine or DW vets, but get worse version of special ammo only if they spend CP.
I mean they used to have various different types of armor saves in a single unit.
Isn't it one of the things that makes DW vets an ok unit. Along side stormbolter and plasma armed vets, you can also take one or two termintors to tank the small weapon fire. Doesn't make them a portable castellan, but it seems to work good enough in non top table tournament games.
All flavors of marine pale in comparison to deathwatch, except Ultramarines. So there's that.
When I say GK had viable builds i mean ITC. I know you guys don't play that in Europe, but Imperial Guard + Grey Knights was solid for a while, with GMNDK spam. Any competitive Grey Knights list featured 1000 points of Imperial Guard.
Of course they fell by the wayside pretty hard as codexes got released.
Dysartes wrote: Would this be the one on WHC that talks about Black Legion and infers more new Slaanesh stuff?
First, the Slaanesh stuff is for AoS and it's a model refresh, it does nothing to improve what is objectively the worst daemon faction in the game. I don't need new models that won't see the table. Yes, I know there is a new herald, no, I do not have high hopes for it, certainly not high enough to consider building a detachment of the worst daemon faction in the game.
Second, the Black Legion stuff will be maybe 1 or 2 new models, probably just a model refresh on Abaddon beyond what we've already seen. So, yeah, if they're offering me an Abaddon model refresh and a trash heap Raptor lord, I'll pass, honestly, Abaddon is the only reason to field Black Legion, and I've had that model fully painted for 25+ years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Prioritising things differently to you is not the same as being idiots.
I agree, but then don't promote a competitive paradigm if you're clearly either not capable or not interested in doing it.
I find narrative play is best campaign style too. My favourite narrative campaigns involve multiple games at different scales, and the outcome of any battle can have effects on other battles. I played in one ten or so years ago where the imperial player made deployments in 40k based on which Battlefleet Gothic ships made it past the blockade. The armies already on the planet had grown organically after starting as kill teams, back when kill team rules where still in the big rule book.
Marmatag wrote: Actually Grey Knights have had more tournament success in 2018 than Space Wolves.
Like it or not, GK had a viable build for a brief period in 2018. Which is more than can be said for Wolves. SW players spent much of 2018 waiting for a codex, only to receive a codex that is (a) horrible and (b) didn't even have correct warlord traits, and requires a printed FAQ supplement.
Also, like everyone else, Grey Knights could spam storm ravens when storm ravens were good.
Lastly, with the rule of 3 in place, Storm Ravens should be re-pointed. Change my mind.
No offense man, I've read a lot of your posts on dakka and you have lots of insightful comments about the game.
But you can always tell what army you're currently playing a lot of because you always take some other army (arguably better in lots of cases) and then talk about how your current army has it worse. Back when you played a lot of Tyranids, you'd post about them being mono-build. Then you switched to DE, and would post about DE getting clobbered by Tyranids every time. I'm guessing now you're playing Space Wolves, because apparently Space Wolves have worse showings than Grey Knights of all things (another army that you dropped). Not to sound like a jerk or a stalker or anything, but I think it takes credibility away from the posts where you make comparisons.
The list of real "trash tier" armies is much shorter than it was. And the gap between mid-tier and top-tier isn't as much as it used to be.
Uh GKs are far worse off than last edition so I dunno what you're talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly we should get rid of deathwatch *cough* They are the only codex i think shouldn't exist. Great for RPG games but not for tabletop.
Deathwatch were easily one of the most requested armies ever. So I don't know why you'd feel that way
Sorry to drag this back to the battle report, but I seem to have missed a couple of rule changes.
This is a CA18 batrep, so what happened to the matched play updates from the last faq? Ie the dark reapers came down turn one, and the captains got to ignore the vertical distance when they charged?
AndrewC wrote: Sorry to drag this back to the battle report, but I seem to have missed a couple of rule changes.
This is a CA18 batrep, so what happened to the matched play updates from the last faq? Ie the dark reapers came down turn one, and the captains got to ignore the vertical distance when they charged?
What, did I miss another update?
No the player posted it was played pre FAQ2, the joys of print media lead times. Esentially always out of date.
To the pubic yes, but GW locked down the CA2018 changes in June if the roumers are true(which the evidence supports) again it's print so has to be agreed, translated and then printed overseas then shipped to stores etc. IE stupid long lead time on CA FAQ2 as a PDF much shorter lead time. Like 3/4 month print to 2/3 weaks PDF.
Hi Everyone, I guess 10 pages was enough for me to register an account to comment, especially since the magazine comes out today and I'll be able to read it once I get it.
I'm the guy who played the imperium list in the report.
To answer some quick questions:
We got to write the lists, but we were restricted to what they had. I had to get permission to use my knights specially, but the rest of my army from the event I'd been at the days prior had mostly fallen apart / had too severe conversions for the magazine so we had to make do.
We used the CA18 Points values which were solidified at the time, but we didn't have them in advance, had to wrote lists on the spot, so things like exact points weren't a priority, it was more of getting lists on the table as we had time pressure.
We didn't have the FAQ. I'd like to think some of what we did impacted it. The white dwarf team were generally pretty surprised or amazed at a lot of what we did, I remember them being very impressed with Starweavers and saying they understood why Liam pushed to get as many as possible.
A few of the design team stopped by to watch during the game, and expressed a lot of interest in reading it after the fact.
Overall it was a great experience and a lot of fun. Definitely a unique set up for a white dwarf, but I hope everybody can look past the inherent lack of lore behind my list (which to be honest, I enjoy but don't prioritise. Don't think I've read a 40k book since The Primarchs came out excepting codices) and take the game for what it was, which was an expression of how myself and Liam love to play.
Innes wrote: Hi Everyone, I guess 10 pages was enough for me to register an account to comment, especially since the magazine comes out today and I'll be able to read it once I get it.
I'm the guy who played the imperium list in the report.
To answer some quick questions:
We got to write the lists, but we were restricted to what they had. I had to get permission to use my knights specially, but the rest of my army from the event I'd been at the days prior had mostly fallen apart / had too severe conversions for the magazine so we had to make do.
We used the CA18 Points values which were solidified at the time, but we didn't have them in advance, had to wrote lists on the spot, so things like exact points weren't a priority, it was more of getting lists on the table as we had time pressure.
We didn't have the FAQ. I'd like to think some of what we did impacted it. The white dwarf team were generally pretty surprised or amazed at a lot of what we did, I remember them being very impressed with Starweavers and saying they understood why Liam pushed to get as many as possible.
A few of the design team stopped by to watch during the game, and expressed a lot of interest in reading it after the fact.
Overall it was a great experience and a lot of fun. Definitely a unique set up for a white dwarf, but I hope everybody can look past the inherent lack of lore behind my list (which to be honest, I enjoy but don't prioritise. Don't think I've read a 40k book since The Primarchs came out excepting codices) and take the game for what it was, which was an expression of how myself and Liam love to play.
Thanks,
Innes
Nobody's pissed at you, you did what they asked, you did it well, good job.
Personally, I'm pissed that GW was surprised by what you did, that tells me they don't pay attention and give zero feths about balancing the game or supporting competitive play, it was the most direct demonstration of that fact I have ever seen.
ridiculous.
) but these kinds of lists are warping 
You are playing against the 
