Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/12/31 21:26:01
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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
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...
I think it is someone from the normal group.
I will have to check my white dwarf.
2018/12/31 22:24:57
Subject: Re:The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
2018/12/31 22:49:52
Subject: Re:The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/31 22:53:52
2018/12/31 22:54:50
Subject: The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/31 23:25:44
2018/12/31 23:32:31
Subject: Re:The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/31 23:37:18
2018/12/31 23:42:59
Subject: Re:The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
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)
But it does! indeed!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/31 23:59:21
2019/01/02 16:39:56
Subject: The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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.
Hold on there bud. What
2019/01/02 16:52:39
Subject: Re:The new amazing white dwarf army list (40k Balance)
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)
2019/01/02 17:28:40
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 17:35:30
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:36:05
2019/01/02 17:49:56
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:50:35
2019/01/02 18:00:58
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k 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?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 18:01:40
2019/01/02 18:30:30
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 21:05:52
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 21:12:04
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:20:47
2019/01/02 21:28:42
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:32:13
2019/01/02 21:38:08
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:41:28
2019/01/02 21:50:31
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 21:54:15
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 22:17:03
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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
2019/01/02 22:34:22
Subject: Re:The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 22:50:01
2019/01/02 22:56:06
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
2019/01/02 23:11:00
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 23:12:26
