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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but that is one game. What if you played 50 or 100 games, and you lost every one of them. And opposing army did not change, neither does your army. And you know the next 50-100 games are going to be a losing grind too.

I am not claiming that someone who loses a game should sell their army, because it doesn't have 100% ratio. But trust me losing every time is not fun. People at some point don't even want to play with you anymore, there is nothing to prove or check, as both you and them know that the chance of them losing to GK is like winning in a lotto.

Oh I have lost a lot (usually to horde armies because my TAC list didn't have a lot of flamers) but I will gladly play a tablomg put to the end in hopes of turning a loss into a win or at least a tie.

It's basically the same sort of mentality that makes Dark Souls fun.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

I'd add the caveat that this doesn't just include the rules of the game, but also any self imposed rules for the purpose of challenge or other personal satisfaction.

For instance, setting yourself the rule that your faction will be Space Marines and that you're only using Primaris. You are not fully utilising all the rules of the game to win by putting such a restriction on yourself, but it is something most people do to one extent or another. It's definitely not 'doing it wrong'.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

And that is where you fail to basically everything. I am still playing to win the game, I just do it with an understanding my army isn't going to kick teeth in and take names without a lot of effort on my part. And army that can do that mindlessly isn't enjoyable to play with in my book.

Fun comes from the challenge for me, not from the win state.

And the game rules are there to give you a toolbox to craft your own sense of enjoyment, not dictate what that enjoyment has to look like. So min/maxers, challenge seekers and even painters can derive fun from the same game in different ways despite using the same rules.

 Stux wrote:

I'd add the caveat that this doesn't just include the rules of the game, but also any self imposed rules for the purpose of challenge or other personal satisfaction.

For instance, setting yourself the rule that your faction will be Space Marines and that you're only using Primaris. You are not fully utilising all the rules of the game to win by putting such a restriction on yourself, but it is something most people do to one extent or another. It's definitely not 'doing it wrong'.

Yep, I don't want to win in the armybuilding stage. I make a reasonably balanced force that I find visually and thematically appealing. Trying to win comes only when the game actually begins.

There's other ways to excel at the game that aren't so focused on winning, and more focused on the lore, etc.

From 3rd through 5th I had a Tyranid army of nothing but Ripper Swarms, a Malanthrope, and some Hormagaunts, and a Carnifex or two (as well as the old FW Broodnests), as a competitive list, it was the worst thing I could make, but it perfectly fit the End Stage lore that I was replicating.

I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

I had a small joke game with my friend of Rangers and Illic Nightspear versus a Tervigon and Termagants. Very fun even if I did win on pure luck.

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

You're conflating the purpose of the game with the objective of the game.

The objective is to win the game.
The purpose of any game is to have fun. As in, that's literally the dictionary definition of the word 'game'.


You can have fun by doing everything you can to achieve the objective. You can have fun by pushing models around the board with your eyes closed and hoping for the best. The only way either of those approaches (or anything in between them) is wrong is if they prevent your opponent from also having fun.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

That's only true in events, not in the casual play most of us actually play games in.

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

When I was playing this way in the minorly competitive scene I was in a loss was 0, draw was 1, win was 2. In a 5 game round, Drawing 3 losing 2 still gave 3 points. Yeah, I was nowhere near the top, but I wasn't at the bottom either.

Also, "unnatural", really?

I know that the way scoring works has changed in the big tourney scene, and with the game in general, so that Draws aren't really a thing anymore, which, honestly is kinda sad in a way.

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

Not really - if you consider it an asymmetrical scenario from a force perspective, then achieving that draw is still denying the opponent a victory.

There are quite a lot of historical scenarios where one player is going to "lose" the battle by being wiped out, but they may still be able to draw, or even win, depending on what they needed to achieve during the game.

insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

You're conflating the purpose of the game with the objective of the game.

The objective is to win the game.
The purpose of any game is to have fun. As in, that's literally the dictionary definition of the word 'game'.


You can have fun by doing everything you can to achieve the objective. You can have fun by pushing models around the board with your eyes closed and hoping for the best. The only way either of those approaches (or anything in between them) is wrong is if they prevent your opponent from also having fun.

Have an exalt, sir, and a tip of the hat I'm not currently wearing.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

...please don't get him started.

Now that the discussion has shifted around to the nature of why we play the game, it reaffirms the blurred line of 'optional'. Personally, I play to win. Not to WAAC, but I'm never going to take a deliberately terrible list, because having my arse kicked for two turns only to get tabled turn three is never fun. If these new rules provide a real competitive edge, and you don't like getting your butt kicked in every game, they aren't really optional, you either buy or pirate them. (Of course it is possible to have fluffy, thematic armies that are still strong, if not super strong, you can have both, certain people thing it's either or for some reason.)

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Now that the discussion has shifted around to the nature of why we play the game, it reaffirms the blurred line of 'optional'. Personally, I play to win. Not to WAAC, but I'm never going to take a deliberately terrible list, because having my arse kicked for two turns only to get tabled turn three is never fun. If these new rules provide a real competitive edge, and you don't like getting your butt kicked in every game, they aren't really optional, you either buy or pirate them. (Of course it is possible to have fluffy, thematic armies that are still strong, if not super strong, you can have both, certain people thing it's either or for some reason.)

But this assumes that your opponent makes as tough list as possible as well. If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

Maybe this will finally see the release of that rumored psychic-vore/plastic bio/pyro vore kit.

Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money. That is completely a you thing, and in no way is it mandatory. You could be better off getting really good with your army (lots of reps) within the boundaries of one or two supplements, rather than seeking the holy grail of lists. This is not meant to be a git gud post, it's just a fact that reps will improve your game (heaven knows I need more reps for sure).

Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

No it isn't. The point of game is to simulate anachronistic warfare in a cool setting using your beautifully painted miniatures.

It's kinda lame that's how narrow your viewpoint is BCB. You also don't actually play the game, so there's that.

BrianDavion wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

Fun is not in the RAW, so it is not allowed. Permissive ruleset, you see.

RAW is always right? Right? Except when its not.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

That seems very binary. I don't have everyone who is not my family. I go to a sport school, I have to daily wrestle with people, I don't hate them just because they are not from my family. Hating 7 bilion people would be very tiring, I think.

Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money.

What about all the people that aren't "meta chasers", but they armies are still bad?

If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

Try playing a termintor army vs casual eldar or casual IG, if you think that is true.

 bullyboy wrote:
Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money. That is completely a you thing, and in no way is it mandatory. You could be better off getting really good with your army (lots of reps) within the boundaries of one or two supplements, rather than seeking the holy grail of lists. This is not meant to be a git gud post, it's just a fact that reps will improve your game (heaven knows I need more reps for sure).

I'm not meta chaser, I just don't like getting wrecked. Losing a fair game is fine, losing a game where you were always going to lose just isn't fun. I'm not after the 'holy grail of lists', I'm after a list that can hold its own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But this assumes that your opponent makes as tough list as possible as well. If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

a) in the two places I play, rarely are the lists weak. They aren't tournament strong, but they're strong. b) why should a fluffy list be weak? I play space marines, I can field a demi company or thereabouts with support elements and have it be strong This is the false dichotomy I referenced earlier. People who only play 'fluffy lists' that are weak seem to think people who play decent lists are automatically not interested in the fluff or lore, only in winning tournament matches. My iron Warrors are chosen with lots of plasma and vehicles (with the FW doors, not something you buy if you're saving money for the next great unit), with a kick arse lord (the metal warsmith model) and a demon prince with a hellbruts, and a few cultist slaves. I've got my own backstory for them, I've gone down the mechanised advance route rather than demon engines, it is still 'fluffy', it's just not bad, it can hold its own. I'm not putting it on the table to lose.

And if it sways anyone's opinion or matters, I have only ever played in one tournament in my 10 years of 40k.

I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

To quote one TotalBiscuit: pre-order nothing and wait to make informed purchases.

And on that note, wait to make informed complaints as well. Without knowing if Psychic Awakening will even give your army something worth using it's too soon to complain about being forced to spend money.

So, we should wait till it comes out and if it seems to feel mandatory then complain ? I'll be there.

Jokes aside, we actually play games the same way, I like challenge and I actually didn't get vigilus but I can see why people don't really view it as optional content when its a straight buff to some units.

We will need to see what this new supplement system has but I bet my bottom dollar it'll have much power in it for all concerned.

I really hope the GK see some of it, as they tend to need a bit of a buff and if they don't get one, being so psychic heavy, I don't know what I'd think about that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

To quote one TotalBiscuit: pre-order nothing and wait to make informed purchases.

And on that note, wait to make informed complaints as well. Without knowing if Psychic Awakening will even give your army something worth using it's too soon to complain about being forced to spend money.

Very true. But it's still fun to have a good grumble.

 Blndmage wrote:


When I was playing this way in the minorly competitive scene I was in a loss was 0, draw was 1, win was 2. In a 5 game round, Drawing 3 losing 2 still gave 3 points. Yeah, I was nowhere near the top, but I wasn't at the bottom either.

Also, "unnatural", really?

I know that the way scoring works has changed in the big tourney scene, and with the game in general, so that Draws aren't really a thing anymore, which, honestly is kinda sad in a way.

I wasn't thinking about tournaments, but normal games at a store. Am not sure tournaments would like to have people that draw 3 games and lose 3, anyone who matchs up against them would automaticly end up with fewer small points. It would be like trying to make the tournament expiriance of other worse. Comperable to droping after two games, and for the next 4 rounds someone ending up with a buy.

I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

Maybe it is the data speaking through me, but history is important too. From what I understand from this and other threads, the last GK good update was in 5th ed. This new update could be of course super awesome, and better then anyone elses update. But what is the chance for that in reality, I thought the first CA going to be full of fixs for GK.. Now am kind of a disllusioned, I think. Plus there is the odd think of the supplements being 2 armies each. Even if they make 4 a year, yours could still be 8th and happening in 2 years time.

All we have is assumptions and not much else right now. Just because there as some guesses how it'll all work doesn't mean we know for sure how it'll all work.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

That seems very binary. I don't have everyone who is not my family. I go to a sport school, I have to daily wrestle with people, I don't hate them just because they are not from my family. Hating 7 bilion people would be very tiring, I think.

I'm sorry Karol, are we getting something crossed here, a mistranslation perhaps? you said "Family/Friend." I interpeted that as family and or friends. and there's nothing binary about it. if you wanna play a game with someone they should be someone you like. if you hate them and, more importantly, cannot trust them, why would you want to play a game with them. Lives too short for me to put up with people whose company I don't enjoy in my leisure time.

Well I bought models, they are there to play games. Having paid money for an army, and not playing it and getting something out of playing the game would be a huge waste.
And to a degree I do think, that I would have been better if I bought a tablet like my sister did. Only time she was not happy with it, was when it broke for a week.

On the other hand nothing in the rules says you have to like people you play against. In general I don't like people, mostly because I don't understand social interactions. But I would never say I hate people. I don't think there are only two states, hate or like. I mean most people are just indifferent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
All we have is assumptions and not much else right now. Just because there as some guesses how it'll all work doesn't mean we know for sure how it'll all work.

Well that is true. But there is living in fear of livingstone vulcano erupting and ending all life probability, and next year being a draught here again, like it was for the last 9 years.

If the supplement is going to be for everyone, and all faction would get similar type of rules or what ever. Then the most profiting from it are going to be armies with a wide number of usable models, those that points structure can be easily adjusted to fit in new or more stuff. Otherwise it is going to be like the CA point drops that everyone got. It only really helped the mid and high tier armies, it didn't really have much impact on those that were weak.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours.

Note that one can be of the opinion that the earth is flat and be entirely wrong.

Warhammer is a little less clear cut, but the notion that opinions are unassailable or always of equal weight is a major problem with society these days.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours.

Note that one can be of the opinion that the earth is flat and be entirely wrong.

Warhammer is a little less clear cut, but the notion that opinions are unassailable or always of equal weight is a major problem with society these days.

I'd say angryangel80 is right, all opinions have equal merit. the problem is people confuse their beliefs about what facts are true with opinions. An opinion is something entirely subjective, such as cake is nice/bad. Those have equal merit, because it's personal taste, i.e. an opinion. Saying the earth is flat is proclaiming a belief that the earth is a certain shape. This belief is wrong, as anyone with half a brain can tell the earth is round, you need only look at a ship going over the horizon, but people think their beliefs and opinions are one and the same.

So the context of my last post in this thread was.
1) The constant invalidation of existing rules going "out of date" is one of the worst aspects of 8th edition. This isn't a criticism on new products existing.
2) The whole narrative around "optional" purchases is just a useless statement. This is a typical response that people like to bury legitimate criticism.
3) GW gotta earn money. Yeah and the way they do it matters, I rather sum this up as extreme incompetence rather than malicious intent.
-As the track record of various releases have been testing the waters on "are the rules too strong or too weak." What has harmed more armies than helped.
4) GW has a track record "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks design."

The Codex for Space Marines and their Chapters are outdated by Psychic Awakening statement
-These new release do not include PA stuff thus have become an incomplete product for [insert faction].

Unlike say Dnd books / campaigns that are very pick up and play at your own groups desire.
40k runs like a very bad TCG game, rulebooks, codexes, supplement [insert gw pr speak] are nothing more than bloated booster sets.
It wouldn't be bad if GW where smart and had a "rules only version" of these books as a side product or FREE DL.
The quantitative need/desire for a complete product is not something that can be measured so it a waste of everyone's time to do so.