Switch Theme:

Do you actually want balance in 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Did you ever consider that list building can have an impact despite the game being balanced?

If it doesn't matter whether you bring intercessors, a predator or a storm raven, of course, the game will be boring.

Best case would be if your army brings anti-tank, anti-infantry, screening units, scoring units and some CP generating units, it should measure up to an army that does the same, while an army that focuses on nothing but anti-infantry should get its but handed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 12:00:59


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
Did you ever consider that list building can have an impact despite the game being balanced?

If it doesn't matter whether you bring intercessors, a predator or a storm raven, of course, the game will be boring.

Best case would be if your army brings anti-tank, anti-infantry, screening units, scoring units and some CP generating units, it should measure up to an army that does the same, while an army that focuses on nothing but anti-infantry should get its but handed.


Makes sense. There is of course problem of some armies lacking most of the stuff. Per se it isn't bad, can be even very characterful. And army for example has anti tank and anti horde, has good scoring units, but doesn't screening or CP generation stuff. Lacking some aspect of the game can make an army more interesting, maybe even more fun to play with. The hurdle starts when your army can't anti tank, struggle to do anti infantry, has no chaff or good scoring units. Then if the other army is even halfbaked the game is not very fun for either side.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 auticus wrote:
I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.


basically build an armored colon and forgetting AA and get punished.

Or another exemple build a speed freaks waagh and propperly balance between transports tanks and buggies for maximum effect and concentration?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

I'd think list-building in an unbalanced game would actually be MORE boring than in a balanced one. I'm not talking "every unit can do everything exactly the same" balance, but rather a balance where every unit has something to offer to the game. For example, I believe Burna Boyz and Boy Mobz should both be equally good at dealing with infantry (but in different ways), but under the current rules, Boyz are far superior to Burnas in every way.

In other words, how is list-building where every list for a Faction is pretty much identical due to imbalance more interesting than list-building where you have multiple options for each "role" on the battlefield?
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maybe if units were different enough it could work. Although this can be hard with how cheap in points most stuff in w40k is.

The difference in rules has to be substential, and both units have to be good for both to be taken. For example, I think that 12pts tac marines and 11pts scouts can have a place in game. If marines had troop choice in form of 11pts scout, 20pts primaris and 16pts tact, then it would be exactly like you say it. Technicaly 3 options for troops, but in reality only scouts would be run.
   
Made in dk
Dakka Veteran




 auticus wrote:
Chaospling wrote:
@auticus
Are we sure that the complainers know the exact reason to why, they're unhappy with said ruleset/codex/points cost?

Let's say that the points are "balanced" to a certain degree and the units do not interact or affect each - then I agree that it's rather transparent and rather easy to predict (not saying that you can predict the exact game turn and what your opponent will bring and do) the battle itself, but if there's a myriad of ways to boost or otherwise affect your units through the battle, based on the selected units, then won't this puzzle of list building and boosts be fun and interesting to work out no matter how balanced?


... and listbuilding should have a large impact on the game or else the game is boring because then you can just field 2000 points and it will be just as good as someone else's 2000 points".


So when it's not boring, it's because they assume they have worked out the puzzle and the opponent has not and so they have an advantage from the start. I've made my own ruleset and made a virtue out of balancing the points cost and were I to meet such a response, I'd say that that is a coward's way to avoid a fair fight and that I would have no need to attract such players.

Furthermore, do such players play actual battles? Maybe certain broken lists could be made, but as everybody have access to the same information, the opponent could make an equal broken list, and so the game is balanced anyway - the optimal lists have just been narrowed down.

Don't get me wrong, I completely respect your professional experience, but the complaints do not seem rational or consistent with what a person, who actually played the game, would want.

Andy Chambers wrote:
To me the Chaos Space Marines needed to be characterised as a threat reaching back to the Imperium's past, a threat which had refused to lie down and become part of history. This is in part why the gods of Chaos are less pivotal in Codex Chaos; we felt that the motivations of Chaos Space Marines should remain their own, no matter how debased and vile. Though the corrupted Space Marines of the Traitor Legions make excellent champions for the gods of Chaos, they are not pawns and have their own agendas of vengeance, empire-building vindication or arcane study which gives them purpose. 
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 auticus wrote:
I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.


in an ideal world sure... but this is 40k. a tournament list somehow has to be abel to contend with both the possibility of a pure horde ork boyz list and a pure imperial knights list.

The problem for some armies though is their codex does great against some builds but get wrecked against others. I think part of this has to do with GW deciding to simplify points and give a piece of wargear a set amount of points. simply put a fusion gun on a autarch is worth more than a fusion fun on a fire dragon. a cyclic ion blaster is better on a commander than it is on a crisis battlesuit... and it can take more of them. that is even before the character protection. Another example on my orks... why is the power claw on the nob the same price as a warboss's claw? more attacks, tougher, character protection and higher str. I hoep the enw space marine codex happens to everybody in chapter approved where nob/sargent equivilents get a discount on equipment compared to the HQs. ditto regular crisis suits vs comanders in crisis suits. currently in the crisis suit side there just is not really a reason to take them.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in dk
Dakka Veteran




I think I have to add the following:
I recognize that we all seek an advantage over our opponent, but list building should just be a part of it. List building and strategy made before the battle need to be carried out and executed in the actual battle, which also takes a lot of thought and (here's the point again) if a player wants the process, which happened pre-battle, to be all that matters, then such a player would not need to play - why listen to what they have to say, if they do not want to play the game on the board?

Andy Chambers wrote:
To me the Chaos Space Marines needed to be characterised as a threat reaching back to the Imperium's past, a threat which had refused to lie down and become part of history. This is in part why the gods of Chaos are less pivotal in Codex Chaos; we felt that the motivations of Chaos Space Marines should remain their own, no matter how debased and vile. Though the corrupted Space Marines of the Traitor Legions make excellent champions for the gods of Chaos, they are not pawns and have their own agendas of vengeance, empire-building vindication or arcane study which gives them purpose. 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





Don't get me wrong, I completely respect your professional experience, but the complaints do not seem rational or consistent with what a person, who actually played the game, would want.


It was an eye opener for me as well. The only question I have is how prevalent is that opinion really. While I see it often that doesn't mean that its hugely prevalent, just more "vocal". However I have no way to really gauge how predominant it is to the general population since forums and facebooks and twitters are only slices of the population as a whole (and some facebooks heavily lean towards one paradigm over the other giving an impression its an overall value as opposed to just a fraction)

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

Some level of balance yes. GW's level of balance no. There can never be a perfect balance (and that would be incredibly boring anyways), but there can and should be the expectation that people won't get curbstomped for picking something that is thematic and should be able to work.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

 auticus wrote:
Chaospling wrote:
@auticus
Are we sure that the complainers know the exact reason to why, they're unhappy with said ruleset/codex/points cost?
Let's say that the points are "balanced" to a certain degree and the units do not interact or affect each - then I agree that it's rather transparent and rather easy to predict (not saying that you can predict the exact game turn and what your opponent will bring and do) the battle itself, but if there's a myriad of ways to boost or otherwise affect your units through the battle, based on the selected units, then won't this puzzle of list building and boosts be fun and interesting to work out no matter how balanced?
The people that complain about it would need to go into detail. The summaries I have heard over the years are "balanced games are boring, if you want balance go play chess (thats probably something I read once a week either on an AOS player's twitter account or a facebook thread), and listbuilding should have a large impact on the game or else the game is boring because then you can just field 2000 points and it will be just as good as someone else's 2000 points".
What makes a game "balanced" is also accounting for how impactful certain units are in the game in certain situations.
In fantasy battle it was a big deal if you had a unit hit another unit from the side so fast moving units (better positioning) helped get you there to make use of that "bonus".
40k is rather lacking in some more complex bonuses/advantages for positioning: there is no difference in attack or defense when attacking from front or rear of a unit (and there is no such thing effectively).
Normal Napoleonic battles you can change infantry formation: column for fast movement, line for effective fire and square to present no flank or rear to the predations of cavalry.

Deep-strike is all about how to "assassinate" a given unit (character model is "closest") or getting harder hitting short-range weapons to their targets (melta, rapid-fire for a particular infantry unit).
Drop pods are useful again by being able to "hide" units for deepstrike and not have them count as units points in reserve.
Warfare has always been a form of rock/paper/scissors: If your enemy is good at short-range, use artillery, if your enemy has mainly artillery you air-strike or air-drop in troops...

Any time rules create some "goofy" looking applications to models, it always seems to prompt the "broken" comment.
We are looking for a somewhat "accurate" representation of warfare that makes some measure of sense.
<edit> By rights the more powerful all-around effective unitt should always be your troop unit (or why would they be your most fielded unit otherwise?).
Spam should only be effective against the one thing they are strongest against and precious little else (I rarely hear a horde of troops being referred to as spam'ed oddly enough).
Some measure of balance is needed in a force or you get thumped the majority of the time by not being adaptable to varying battlefield conditions (open field, congested city streets, underhive, forests, blasted ruins...)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 13:41:21


A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





 auticus wrote:
I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.


My serious opinion? You probably did a great job with your AOS points and some people were just bitching about no longer getting easy wins in the list building phase.
I had a player drop out of P&P group because I denied him an invincible character build that was based on a series of generous interpretations of unclear rules. There are people on these forum complaining that their taudar armies don't work anymore.
Human nature has it that less people will send you a "thank you, your points are awesome" than they will send you complaints.

Then again, once you reach a stable position with your balance, little is going to change anymore, but your playerbase is used to stuff changing all the time. Naturally the game will feel stale - gaming companies who reach this point start shaking up the game on purpose, to start the balancing loops again, just to keep things fresh. Riot games has admitted doing this to keep LoL interesting for players. No one wants to play the very same game for years.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





My serious opinion? You probably did a great job with your AOS points and some people were just bitching about no longer getting easy wins in the list building phase.


That could be and is something we considered. It was just a numerous complaint from over a hundred posters.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

To be fair games like LoL also encourage you to play EVERY single day and sometimes multiple times a day. So the game gets stale a lot faster. Plus a lot of that ilk of games are often pretty light on the tactical elements once you master the mechanics of the game - its mostly a rinse and repeat gameplay pattern. It's designed to be simple and basic so that teams can work together with minimal communication.

For them its the other coin in that gamers likely get way too many games for their own good and eventually you've got people iwth 800 hours playtime and more complaining about the game getting sale.


Warhammer games you don'tget anywhere near the volume of matches.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 auticus wrote:
My serious opinion? You probably did a great job with your AOS points and some people were just bitching about no longer getting easy wins in the list building phase.


That could be and is something we considered. It was just a numerous complaint from over a hundred posters.

Out of how many total?

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





We had a user base of a little over 1,100 players.

Towards the end we started losing players to the SCGT comp (what became the foundation for gw official points) because our system (and a couple of the other systems) were "too balanced" and the SCGT at the time openly made things like monster units cheaper than they should because they wanted to encourage people to take more monsters, and that was what a lot of people thought was fun (and because SCGT was based in the UK close to GW, we all knew that if any point system was going to be adopted it would be a UK-based one and people wanted to back that horse).

When you do an online points system for a game that has none, and it becomes popular, you will get a lot of feedback. At our peak we were hitting almost 100 emails or posts a day for a solid month.

The "too balanced" complaint was the top complaint, the rest were shot gunned into a bunch of different little categories (such as "unit x is too cheap for what it does!" followed by another poster saying "unit x is way too expensive for what it does!" -> those were my favorite)

GW has professional game designers on staff, I know they can balance 40k and AOS. The fan comps did a pretty good job (nothing was perfect, nothing can be perfect, but they were many times closer than what gw official does) so I know if fan comps can do it, that GW can do it. GW chooses not to do it for whatever reason they choose not to do it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 14:10:41


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





 Overread wrote:
To be fair games like LoL also encourage you to play EVERY single day and sometimes multiple times a day. So the game gets stale a lot faster. Plus a lot of that ilk of games are often pretty light on the tactical elements once you master the mechanics of the game - its mostly a rinse and repeat gameplay pattern. It's designed to be simple and basic so that teams can work together with minimal communication.

For them its the other coin in that gamers likely get way too many games for their own good and eventually you've got people iwth 800 hours playtime and more complaining about the game getting sale.


Warhammer games you don'tget anywhere near the volume of matches.


Yeah, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that balance stagnation exists. At their current pace, GW will probably need decades to get there, both because of missing data and slow iterations. But in general, balancing both games works the same, just at different paces.

If you were hinting at the "WH40k is complex" myth - if would automate all the dice rolling, measuring, auras and whatnot and have a software support your deployment, movements, pile-ins and powers, a game of WH40k would be no more complex than an average strategy game on your phone and could be finished within 20 minutes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 auticus wrote:
The summaries I have heard over the years are "balanced games are boring, if you want balance go play chess (thats probably something I read once a week either on an AOS player's twitter account or a facebook thread), and listbuilding should have a large impact on the game or else the game is boring because then you can just field 2000 points and it will be just as good as someone else's 2000 points".
The issue is that not every army's A tier list is equal to another's A tier list. This is the balance issue the post is about and not a call for system for homogenizing all armies to the point where they have same rules but different models.
 auticus wrote:
I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.
And the issue is that some armies have a highly point efficient all-rounder units which others do not. Some armies don't even have units that fill a particular role, let alone be it in point efficient manner.

The armies/factions need to be balanced in a way where their pro's and con's make them unique to each other while maintaining overall power level between the units and the armies/factions.
 auticus wrote:
List building and balanced points are indeed two different things, but they conflict with each other.

You cannot have both meaningful list building and truly balanced points at the same time. You have to sacrifice from one to get the other.
This is true only if "list building" actually meant the practice of breaking the game & it's systems. It's like those video game players who exploit hacks and code manipulations to achieve the means - speed running video games come to mind.

List building is (and if not, needs to be) about how to compose your army according to your play style & focus. You may want to focus your army on deep striking, so you put it some durable transports and maximize your single model units in order to put more units into reserves. You may want to focus on sitting back and gunning things down with big guns - so you fill your list with many multi-hit heavy weapons and some cheap troops for screen and CP. You may want to take a balanced approach so that you can tailor to many different kinds of opponents - so you take a bit of anti armor, a bit of anti horde, and some anti-knight weapons.

Here's the issue - weight of dice is a hard counter to everything in the game, which makes specialization pretty much useless. Whoever can bring the most shots within the given points limit generally wins the game. And I say general because it's a chance based game. Currently, it's possible to generate a list where it's mathematically impossible to fully wipe.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 14:22:01


 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





The issue is that not every army's A tier list is equal to another's A tier list. This is the balance issue the post is about and not a call for system for homogenizing all armies to the point where they have same rules but different models.


Whenever any balance thread comes up, it seems to mean different things to different people.

Not all armies even have an A tier list. Hell in AOS there are armies that don't even have a B tier list.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 auticus wrote:
The issue is that not every army's A tier list is equal to another's A tier list. This is the balance issue the post is about and not a call for system for homogenizing all armies to the point where they have same rules but different models.


Whenever any balance thread comes up, it seems to mean different things to different people.

Not all armies even have an A tier list. Hell in AOS there are armies that don't even have a B tier list.
Right. If its a matter of "should all thematic armies be just as competitive as a min-maxed meta tourney list", then the answer is obviously no. By taking a thematic list, you, as the list builder, have foregone specific 'balance' in your list in order to achieve that "theme".

The issue here is the question "should all TAC lists be just as competitive as another TAC list?" or "should all min-maxed meta tourney lists be just as competitive as another min-maxed meta tourney list?" or better yet - "should this army's only viable list be just as strong as one of that army's viable list?" Not all TAC lists are made equal and not all meta lists are made equal. Some are simply mathematically superior lists, and only certain faction/army has access to them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 14:36:19


 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





I would say, for my money, that balance in a game would dictate that the ability to min/max would be lessened overall (you can't completely remove it, that would be impossible).

So long as min/max lists remain as staggeringly powerful as they are, to the exclusion of 90% or so of the game, I wouldn't consider the game to be balanced.

That leads down the path of "are you ok with chasing the meta and having to buy/sell armies on the regular to make sure you have a powerful enough army to have a chance of winning your games". Some people will say yes, others will say no.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in de
Sinister Chaos Marine




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

Not Online!!! wrote:


basically build an armored colon and forgetting AA and get punished.



But at least an 'armored colon' would make getting shafted less painful

DR:70+S+G++MB-IPw40k94#-D++A++/cWD143R++T(D)DM+
~11,000 pts painted 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Snugiraffe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


basically build an armored colon and forgetting AA and get punished.



But at least an 'armored colon' would make getting shafted less painful

Funny, happens when you are multilingual and had to talk french for 3 hours.

Also shouldn't you have learned by now that slapping armor on something does not make it better? Especially not against aircraft?


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 21:35:58


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

 auticus wrote:
I suppose when I hear someone talking about list building I am hearing them talking about breaking the game and bending it and running an OP gimmick or searching for the OP gimmick.

I know 100% in regards to the complaiints to our AOS points packet that that was the case (because AOS didn't really have roles it was all about finding the undercost units and spamming them)

The best games to me would be the game where you have roles and you need all of the roles present in your army or you will lose (like what you have referenced above).

I guess technically thats list building but not in the sense that I hear a lot of people talk about it. The people that play the game as a puzzle to solve certainly wouldn't want a game where you just have to make sure all roles are in your list, because thats easy to ensure.


Yup...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
armored colon


I have wished for one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 21:38:48


   
Made in de
Sinister Chaos Marine




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

 jeff white wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
armored colon


I have wished for one.


I hear you. In the grim darkness of... but perhaps this is neither the time nor the place.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
Snugiraffe wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


basically build an armored colon and forgetting AA and get punished.



But at least an 'armored colon' would make getting shafted less painful

Funny, happens when you are multilingual and had to talk french for 3 hours.

Also shouldn't you have learned by now that slapping armor on something does not make it better? Especially not against aircraft?


I regularly have to speak French for considerable lengths of time to my mother-in-law. Which is when I most ardently wish for both armour and aircraft. Now, there's a lack of balance if ever I saw one...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 21:52:37


DR:70+S+G++MB-IPw40k94#-D++A++/cWD143R++T(D)DM+
~11,000 pts painted 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Jesus fucken chriest is the grammar Gestapo out today in force?!!
Ones even a covert dutch operative!

I regularly have to speak French for considerable lengths of time to my mother-in-law. Which is when I most ardently wish for both armour and aircraft...


Course you would.

Now be a nice german flatland yokel and build something instead of bothering me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 21:54:06


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Listbuilding with the aim of improving your chances at winning is totally a puzzle-solving aspect of 40k. What is listbuilding, if not puzzle gameplay?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/04 22:09:49


   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit




San Jose, CA

CH jokes now, nice.

The Swiss are better at german humor than germans.

What's next? High vs Low German 40k smackdown?

in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is only, GERMAN humor.

now that's funkin scary.
   
Made in de
Sinister Chaos Marine




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

Racerguy180 wrote:
CH jokes now, nice.

The Swiss are better at german humor than germans.

What's next? High vs Low German 40k smackdown?

in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is only, GERMAN humor.

now that's funkin scary.


Everyone's better at German humour than the Germans

Of course, the best thing about it is that I'm a Brit!
But I'll cease further off-topic commentary in this thread lest I incur the admins' wrath.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 22:52:22


DR:70+S+G++MB-IPw40k94#-D++A++/cWD143R++T(D)DM+
~11,000 pts painted 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: