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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.

In fairness to GW, the restriction of one Infantry Command Squad or Stormtrooper Command Squad per Infantry Officer or Stormtrooper Officer respectively is one that makes perfect sense to me, and is a restriction I know I have no issue with.

You want to take the Officer without his command squad, that's fine, but I don't think the other way around should be a thing.

Frankly, the reason I brought it up is because there's a weird current of "it can't be the players' fault, ever!" that comes up with some of these kinds of things.
I agree that it makes sense...but it only became an issue because people used it as a way to stack plasmas. That's all. They used Command Squads to circumvent the "3 trash lasgunners" in a Special Weapon Squad for the Veteran element while the Scion one was just cheaper to field than the actual Scion squads.

For what it's worth though? There's a distinct problem that shows up with Command Squads:
Veteran Command Squads are 3 tops, while <Regiment> Officers (Master of Ordnance, Platoon Commander, Company Commander) on foot can be 9.

I don't know how to solve it all. I don't know how to do anything with Guard until we get a new fricking book and a design that isn't still locked in 3/4E.

I think restrictions only work when the game has design to incentivise a natural army selection to the desired outcome.

40k is too top heavy for damage output as most of the factions have no design towards the game itself.
Games workshop wants a buy and play anything you want, and will design it open to that until it breaks. And try to plug the holes with a design team years behind.

I think it’s noticeable that most other games don’t really have much restrictions and where they do, it’s more for unique units.
Rather than specifically powerful ones.
I think it comes from poor management over years, than the rules itself.

It’s why I think people do enjoy the older editions with the restrictions set by the force org, as it restricted all equally before allowing factions to break it under specific circumstances.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.

In fairness to GW, the restriction of one Infantry Command Squad or Stormtrooper Command Squad per Infantry Officer or Stormtrooper Officer respectively is one that makes perfect sense to me, and is a restriction I know I have no issue with.

You want to take the Officer without his command squad, that's fine, but I don't think the other way around should be a thing.

Frankly, the reason I brought it up is because there's a weird current of "it can't be the players' fault, ever!" that comes up with some of these kinds of things.
I agree that it makes sense...but it only became an issue because people used it as a way to stack plasmas. That's all. They used Command Squads to circumvent the "3 trash lasgunners" in a Special Weapon Squad for the Veteran element while the Scion one was just cheaper to field than the actual Scion squads.

Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.

It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.

GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists.
That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".

Things that are not the players' fault:
-When a unit they took for fun previously suddenly becomes a powerhouse overnight.
-When a subfaction they liked becomes a powerhouse in the next book.
Etc. Etc.

There very much is a number of things that can have the blame laid at GW's feet. Just like there is for the people who chase the meta.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.

It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.

GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists.
That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".

If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?

I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW

EDIT: Didn't see your edit, when I was replying

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.

It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.

GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists.
That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".

Things that are not the players' fault:
-When a unit they took for fun previously suddenly becomes a powerhouse overnight.
-When a subfaction they liked becomes a powerhouse in the next book.
Etc. Etc.

There very much is a number of things that can have the blame laid at GW's feet. Just like there is for the people who chase the meta.

No it's not.

The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.

 Lance845 wrote:

No it's not.

The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.

The goal of a game is to play the game.

And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".

Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

No it's not.

The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.

The goal of a game is to play the game.

And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".

Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.

No.

The POINT of a game is to have fun playing. Which means different things for different people.

The GOAL of a game is to win.

You don't get to tell someone they are playing wrong while in pursuit of the goal. Especially if they find that pursuit to be fun.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

No it's not.

The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.

The goal of a game is to play the game.

And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".

Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.

Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

No it's not.

The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.

The goal of a game is to play the game.

And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".

Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.

At what point does, I have fun wining and am willing to put effort into that become the players fault.

And it isn’t the players fault if they want to avoid units that provide little fun, at GW prices a bad unit can effectively be wasted money and see no value in play.

Waaaghbert wrote:

If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?

I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW

EDIT: Didn't see your edit, when I was replying

One of the problems is that your comparison is a bit flawed. Deathwing is, by its nature, a highly specialized entity. It pays for it in points. There's also a lore restriction that doesn't get talked much about(the Deathwing number exactly 100 when deployed in Terminator Armor...that's all the armor they can field in one engagement at the First Company level, characters obviously are said to have their own suits) but realistically won't be a Big Deal in most instances because who is going to field 100 models in Terminator Armor?!

Snakebites, even themed around Gretchin, are still going to have other elements in them. And it's not like being Snakebites locks you out of the rest of the army for your theme anyways. It just reduces what you might have, numberswise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

At what point does, I have fun wining and am willing to put effort into that become the players fault.

And it isn’t the players fault if they want to avoid units that provide little fun, at GW prices a bad unit can effectively be wasted money and see no value in play.

And now you're getting into something entirely different.

If someone doesn't find value in a unit, then they shouldn't have to play it. If they can't find anything in the army that appeals to them?
Maybe. Just maybe...they shouldn't be playing that army!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?

I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW

EDIT: Didn't see your edit, when I was replying

One of the problems is that your comparison is a bit flawed. Deathwing is, by its nature, a highly specialized entity. It pays for it in points. There's also a lore restriction that doesn't get talked much about(the Deathwing number exactly 100 when deployed in Terminator Armor...that's all the armor they can field in one engagement at the First Company level, characters obviously are said to have their own suits) but realistically won't be a Big Deal in most instances because who is going to field 100 models in Terminator Armor?!

Snakebites, even themed around Gretchin, are still going to have other elements in them. And it's not like being Snakebites locks you out of the rest of the army for your theme anyways. It just reduces what you might have, numberswise.

That doesn't answer my question at all....also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.

This is obviously not true for many of you.

Waaaghbert wrote:

Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)

And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.

People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.

Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghbert wrote:

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Your question wasn't really worth answering. You picked a goofy concept with not one but two restrictions in it(Snakebite themed Gretchin) and paired it with a well-known theme(so much so that it inspired a whole moniker of 2+ save army concepts being called <insert name here>-wing) that only has one restriction(Deathwing has Terminator Armor: that's it. That's the restriction).

also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?

If you're going to claim you're playing Deathwing, having more than 100 non-character models in Terminator Armor is breaking the lore.

Nothing stopping you beyond that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)

And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.

People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.

Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.

And this is where you're wrong. SOME people do want it to be the (figurative) knives out deathmatch. They enjoy the pure competitive side of the game and want to find the most effective list and hone their skills against the bestest of the best players. This is one way to play the game, I don't like it, but it's exactly of the same value than narrative gaming.

Now you ask one of those players to play a "friendly" list in a pickup game and you can be sure that this list will still be much more optimized than my fluffy Ulthwe Storm Guardian list. There was communication, the players talked to each other but still the experience will be bad for both of them.

It's GWs job to create a rulesystem where both end of the spectrum can enjoy the majority of the games they play, and it seems to me they failed miserably.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)

And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.

People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.

Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.

If GW actually balanced the game properly (or at least made a better attempt than they do now) we wouldn't be in a position of having to moderate our armies to the extent we currently do. It's entirely possible for all selections to be balanced and armies to be structured in such a way that it's not really possible to break the game to the extent it is now.

All you're doing is blaming the players for GW's ineptitude. This is especially problematic if GW manage to break things so badly it's almost impossible to self-moderate. That happened with SM 2.0 in 8th edition. I eventually had to stop playing mine against certain armies because it was almost impossible to reduce the power level enough to make for an engaging game without entering into loads of negotiations and discussions about what would and wouldn't be fair. That's not my fault.

Waaaghbert wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghbert wrote:

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Your question wasn't really worth answering. You picked a goofy concept with not one but two restrictions in it(Snakebite themed Gretchin) and paired it with a well-known theme(so much so that it inspired a whole moniker of 2+ save army concepts being called <insert name here>-wing) that only has one restriction(Deathwing has Terminator Armor: that's it. That's the restriction).

also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?

If you're going to claim you're playing Deathwing, having more than 100 non-character models in Terminator Armor is breaking the lore.

Nothing stopping you beyond that.

Wat

You: It's the player fault
Me: If those two themed armies battle each other, one of them has a major advantage (Implying that it is not the players fault, since some armies simply are more powerful, no matter min/maxing)
You: goofy concept, its still the players fault

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, with armies having 10+ units for each slot limiting those slots to max 3 is a concept that doesn't make sense anymore, while limiting spam always makes sense. I agree that with the current rules the limitations to reduce spam can be bypassed somehow though, that's why I'd remove most of the squadrons (making those units single models) and merge all similar datasheets into a single one. About Ro3 I'd go even further, making it rule of 2 or even rule of 1 is some cases, and I'm glad that at least commanders are getting limited to max 1 per detachment, although I think they should be limited to 1 per army.

My issue is that this system doesn't limit spam as a whole. It limits spam of individual units, but does nothing to stop you from spamming similarly-roled (or outright redundant) units, and the factions with 10+ units for each slot certainly have those. Even without squadrons, a list that takes three each of three different types of tank is every bit as much a spam/skew list as one with six Flyrants, but only the latter is limited by Ro3.

An army being entirely composed of tanks (of four different types) or 300+ infantry (Troops, so no restriction) is more of a problem than a player wanting to bring four MSU squads of Nobz. Ro3 isn't providing appropriate structure.

Making Ro3 become Ro2 or Ro1 would only make it worse for player freedom in army composition, and brings me right back to my original point- that this system already constrains reasonable army builds in artificial ways, yet doesn't limit skew as well as the old FOC did.

 Blackie wrote:
But you can still run a list that respects the old FOC if you want to, you just want to limit other players' options for some reasons.

Well, yes? You want to 'limit other players' options for some reasons' when you suggest a stricter Ro3; don't phrase it like that's an unreasonable concept now.

I am asserting that allowing an army to be composed of nothing but Heavy Support choices (or nothing but Elites, or nothing but FA) is bad for competitive balance, and since Ro3 is already constraining fluffy/interesting builds that could otherwise take advantage of the unlimited slots, it would only be a positive to structure Matched Play a bit better. Not the old FOC specifically, just more structure. The 'some reason' is because the game is easy to break and hard to balance, and virtually unlimited ability to skew is certainly part of it.

Waaaghbert wrote:
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

Yeah, this. I get where Kanluwen is coming from, but I don't see other games get this sort of treatment. When games have balance problems that are easily exploited, that should be called out as a game problem, not pinned on the players. You can't design a game where the in-game objective is to destroy the enemy, give players the option of what units to take in order to destroy the enemy, and then go 'whoah, why'd you take units that are good at destroying the enemy?'.

What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?

Waaaghbert wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)

And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.

People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.

Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.

And this is where you're wrong. SOME people do want it to be the (figurative) knives out deathmatch. They enjoy the pure competitive side of the game and want to find the most effective list and hone their skills against the bestest of the best players. This is one way to play the game, I don't like it, but it's exactly of the same value than narrative gaming.

COOL! There's a whole bloody place for them to be:
Tournaments! But some of those same people that claim to want those things also will do everything they can to keep being big fish in small ponds.

Because it's not actually competition they want. It's domination. And this is an important thing to suss out. Stomping all over people isn't playing the game. It isn't being competitive. It's just ruining someone else's fun.

Now you ask one of those players to play a "friendly" list in a pickup game and you can be sure that this list will still be much more optimized than my fluffy Ulthwe Storm Guardian list. There was communication, the players talked to each other but still the experience will be bad for both of them.

Funny you mention that. I backtracked on posting this anecdote earlier but I guess you opened the door for this.

When the Skitarii codex first dropped? I arranged a game locally. I wanted to get my 1k force built so there was a week or so prior to the game, and I saw zero harm in keeping my opponent appraised of stuff in the book since it was effectively still a new army on the scene and nobody locally was playing them. My opponent played Eldar, owning some 7k+ of models since RT. Opponent kept commenting that the Skitarii seemed like they can't handle Wraithknights(which was true--Wraithknights were a hard target because of GMC rules and since they weren't vehicles couldn't really do tricksy Armourbane Sniper stuff on them) so I asked if they wouldn't mind running a Wraithknight-less list. Never got a firm committal from them on it, but I was excited for the game and didn't think much to press the issue.
Game day comes, and I'm fighting a Wraithknight and an all-Wraith army.

Is that GW's fault? No.
It was my opponent choosing that list, knowing full well the capabilities of my army.

It's GWs job to create a rulesystem where both end of the spectrum can enjoy the majority of the games they play, and it seems to me they failed miserably.

It is not GW's job to babysit you during the listwriting stage when you're playing in a non-tournament environment.

End. Of. Story.

 catbarf wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault

Yeah, this. I get where Kanluwen is coming from, but I don't see other games get this sort of treatment. When games have balance problems that are easily exploited, that should be called out as a game problem, not pinned on the players. You can't design a game where the in-game objective is to destroy the enemy, give players the option of what units to take in order to destroy the enemy, and then go 'whoah, why'd you take units that are good at destroying the enemy?'.

This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players.
"It's not your list, it's you"

So yeah. Maybe I do overly place blame on the players...but when you hear them constantly lamenting how X or Y is too samey and suggestions of "using different mission packs" or the like is met with "IT'S DLC!!!", it becomes hard to have sympathy.

macluvin wrote:
What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?

The idea that casual and competitive are inherently separate is a fallacy.

You don't have different rules for casual and competitive chess. You just have chess. And you have different skill levels involved. 40k should just have rules. And that rules should be functional at all levels of play with the difference being the PLAYERS skill. Not the games rules.

40k is so baked into the list building and competitive versus casual lists and the players themselves have so little to do with anything outside of building their lists. Its broken because the game itself is broken. Its broken because the game is so inherently decided by your list that games are decided before the models touch the table.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Is that GW's fault? No.

YES.
If GW did its job properly at balancing the game you would have been able to have a fair game regardless of which armies you took.

Kanluwen places the burden of responsibility entirely on the opponent. On all opponents.

Which means it is the responsibility of every player to not just understand the capabilities of their own property with the most up to date rules, but also to understand the capabilities of every other persons property with THEIR most up to date rules, and then to own enough stuff to change your list to meet the lowest common denominator. Which, btw, the points are supposed to be doing for us. So feth it. Lets ditch points and PL. Since they don't work and it's the players responsibility to suss all this out anyway it's all open play all the time from here on out.

Basically, Kanluwen's position is unrealistic in any sense of a real world application. In order to play 40k you need to buy multiples of everything and then list tailor to your opponents equivalency. And it's not GWs fault for making the game this terrible. It's YOURS for not doing it. fething insanity.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Is that GW's fault? No.

YES.
If GW did its job properly at balancing the game you would have been able to have a fair game regardless of which armies you took.

No it’s my dumbass fault for thinking that chaos space marine squads belong in a chaos space marine list. And buying 30 of those models... also right before they got an updated box XD

 Kanluwen wrote:
This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players.
"It's not your list, it's you"

What rot. I've never seen anything approaching the level of toxicity in Infinity that is present in 40k, a significant portion of it because of people like you who bitch and whine that a player built a functioning army. As if netlisting is a crime and not ubiquitous in every comparable game, and is literally only an issue because GW sucks at rules writing. As if playing to win is bad sportsmanship. That you need to be perpetually vigilant that you aren't playing the game too well or somebody is going to accuse you of being a dirty WAAC player.

If the game has holes then GW should fix them. The game is exactly as they've made it.

Well if GW won’t fix it then I suppose we can either argue and be bitter about it and be uncourteous to each other or discuss how to live with it. Or we can gtfo the hobby. I’m more interested in figuring out how to live with it because I have no control over what GW does and I am trying not to be a toxic douche, which I fail at at times.

macluvin wrote:
Well if GW won’t fix it then I suppose we can either argue and be bitter about it and be uncourteous to each other or discuss how to live with it. Or we can gtfo the hobby. I’m more interested in figuring out how to live with it because I have no control over what GW does and I am trying not to be a toxic douche, which I fail at at times.

Play literally any of the other rule sets that exist that are better. Or stop playing all together.

GW is the problem. Cut them out of the equation.

macluvin wrote:
What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?

So older editions? The problems aren't a 'competitive edition' thing. The wombo combos and buff stacks aren't a 'competitive edition' thing. They're just the way modern GW does rules design, and really came to the forefront when they started with the 'Forge the Narrative' and '3 ways to play' nonsense. I'm not saying its a causal relationship, its just that marketing push accompanied the change in rules design.

Past editions didn't have the rules layers that modern 40k does and didn't pretend there was some magical separation between 'casual, narrative and matched play.' There was just... the game. We don't need this weird tribalism. It doesn't help anything at all.

 Ventus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players.
"It's not your list, it's you"

What rot. I've never seen anything approaching the level of toxicity in Infinity that is present in 40k, a significant portion of it because of people like you who bitch and whine that a player built a functioning army.

Feels like I struck a nerve here. Hrmh...let's explore why!

As if netlisting is a crime and not ubiquitous in every comparable game, and is literally only an issue because GW sucks at rules writing.

Nah. It's "literally only an issue" because people do not bother to netlist non-winning lists. They only go for whatever they see winning events. They make no attempt to play the army beforehand. They make no attempt to understand what the army is or how it functions. They assume that everything is correct.

I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list(funny how few people who found the list found out that part!) and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.

Netlisting is detrimental to this game and every game out there. This isn't Ye Olden Days where these lists might show up in one spot online. They're bloody everywhere. Some of them get pointed towards people when they first ask for advice on the armies in question.

As if playing to win is bad sportsmanship. That you need to be perpetually vigilant that you aren't playing the game too well or somebody is going to accuse you of being a dirty WAAC player.

Where did I say "playing to win is bad sportsmanship"? Or any of the trash you and Lance are throwing out there?

I said the point of a game is to play the game. I also said that there are some individuals who aren't actually "competitive" and avoid playing in actual competitive environments, instead preferring to be "big fish in little ponds".

Yes, there are some people who will accuse someone who plays well of being something bad. That person might be (gasp) a poor sportsman too!

The door swings both ways. Winners can be poor sports and so can losers.

If the game has holes then GW should fix them. The game is exactly as they've made it.

Or you could just not try to constantly take advantage of holes and then crying whenever they get plugged up later. That's the toxicity that I've seen the most in 40k over the years.

As for the blaming players vs blaming GW tangent:

Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.

I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.

I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.

Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.

I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.