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.

morgoth wrote:


I've yet to read a single top tournament player write those words.

Somehow it's always less skilled players who are under that impression.

There are DA lists that break MechDar. There are no DA lists that are both TAC and break MechDar.

Still, that's only true in the very tiny bubble of 40K w/ CAD+Allied @ 1850 points competitive.

I would be surprised if that has any effect at all on your friendly games.

.

TBH it does. From a purely personal (and somewhat limited) experience, if I put what I want on the table and my opponent puts what he wants on the table, a significant amount of times one of us have lost before the game even started.

List tailoring is often a necessity, and I've found that (IMO) at least some codexes have trouble list tailoring over a certain threshold.

I think the inclusion of titans and superheavies and such provoke far more list tailoring than unbound.
because most of the unbound armies you see are not power grabs but rather for fluff.And thats if you even see an unbound army to begin with as they are as rare as unicorns in the red light district.
On the other hand, you see a baneblade, trancendant ctan or something like that in virtually every army 750 points on up.

I feel that those items should have stayed in apocolypse (or in larger games such as 2k+.
I also feel that there should be SOME limit on unbound. For example still following a force or chart even if the choices are from different armies or if going outside the force org chart that the entire army be made up from one codex. Something of that nature.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I think the inclusion of titans and superheavies and such provoke far more list tailoring than unbound.
because most of the unbound armies you see are not power grabs but rather for fluff.And thats if you even see an unbound army to begin with as they are as rare as unicorns in the red light district.
On the other hand, you see a baneblade, trancendant ctan or something like that in virtually every army 750 points on up.

I feel that those items should have stayed in apocolypse (or in larger games such as 2k+.
I also feel that there should be SOME limit on unbound. For example still following a force or chart even if the choices are from different armies or if going outside the force org chart that the entire army be made up from one codex. Something of that nature.

I think having a minimum point game for superheavies would have been a good choice, unbound doesn't really bother me as anyone who was to abusive with it where they would quickly find a lack of willing opponents.

The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I think having a minimum point game for superheavies would have been a good choice, unbound doesn't really bother me as anyone who was to abusive with it where they would quickly find a lack of willing opponents.

The problem is there are no guidelines on what constitutes "abuse" if army selection is within the rules.

I could see a proper competitive player new to the game look at what the rules allow, pick what seems the most economical points/capability-wise and fully expect to go into a game with a fight on his hands.

Imagine the surprise that players do not pick to the most optimum lists they can make, they pick for theme or stick to one army out of stubbornness.

Looking more critically at the points costs for units would also raise an eyebrow.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.

To be honest, I see that as just as big a problem as Unbound. They've complicated and abstracted the normal army selection process to the point where you might as well just forget about it and play Unbound anyway.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone in previous editions asking 'Hey, is this a legal list?' unless it was to check an opponent's list when they don't have the appropriate codex themselves. This edition, there seems to be so much confusion out there as to how to build a Battleforged list, simply because GW have made it such a mess.


It's possibly also worth pointing out that Unbound wasn't actually added for the players' benefit. It was GW's way of encouraging people to buy whatever they choose to release this month instea of waiting for a release that actually fits your chosen army. The complete lack of any studio interest in updating their FAQs over the last 3 years or so shows that they have absolutely no intention of trying to maintain a functional game. The fact that Unbound somewhat levels the playing field is a side-effect, not a goal.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.

This exactly.

morgoth wrote:
The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table..

Which could have been resolved simply by including a note in the army selection section of the 40K rulebook pointing out that Forgeworld exists and that units from Forgeworld's books can be used in your army.

It was nothing more than that lack of 'official' recognition that had most people viewing Forgeworld with suspicion.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.

To be honest, I see that as just as big a problem as Unbound. They've complicated and abstracted the normal army selection process to the point where you might as well just forget about it and play Unbound anyway.

I don't disagree at all. I'm not at all a fan of multiple CAD's, formations, or unbound. That said, if people are going to take multiple CAD's, formations, etc, I just don't see the point in banning Unbound if you're allowing those.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone in previous editions asking 'Hey, is this a legal list?' unless it was to check an opponent's list when they don't have the appropriate codex themselves. This edition, there seems to be so much confusion out there as to how to build a Battleforged list, simply because GW have made it such a mess.

It's possibly also worth pointing out that Unbound wasn't actually added for the players' benefit. It was GW's way of encouraging people to buy whatever they choose to release this month instea of waiting for a release that actually fits your chosen army. The complete lack of any studio interest in updating their FAQs over the last 3 years or so shows that they have absolutely no intention of trying to maintain a functional game. The fact that Unbound somewhat levels the playing field is a side-effect, not a goal.

I agree completely.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table..

Which could have been resolved simply by including a note in the army selection section of the 40K rulebook pointing out that Forgeworld exists and that units from Forgeworld's books can be used in your army.

GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units.

In the end, GW got sick of answering "is FW legal?", and wrote in unbound to answer the question for everyone.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units. .

...in Forgeworld publications.

From the many, many discussions I've seen on this over the years, all that many players needed was a note in the actual rulebook endorsing Forgeworld. For those who viewed FW as not having the authority to publish ' official ' rules, FW themselves saying that was meaningles.

The main GW studio didn't ' get sick of answering ' that question, because they never did answer it.

Unbound is kind of interesting considering GW's other takes on "balance."

The GW design team knows their ruleset isn't especially balanced; they may not be very good at writing rules, but they're hardly ignorant. Their response to imbalance, or just through a lack of interest, is to apply random as a means of "balancing" an otherwise broken concept like Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers, Maelstrom and others. If the player could simply pick things, the glaring imbalances in those mechanics at present would become immensely frustrating.

And then they release Unbound, multiple CADs, formations out the wazoos, alternate FoCs (the last one I don't have any issue with at all; specific FoCs with their pros and cons for Marine First Companies, Carnivals of pain, etc, solid idea, and the execution is less terrible than is normal for GW). The problem, however, with this is now players literally can choose whatever the hell they want in terms of units are combos, with very little restriction.

What is the end result? Massively apparent imbalance. If someone wants to spam something, there is no hard final limit on FoC slots; there's alternate FoCs, or pay more troop taxes for other CADs, or go the furthest and play unbound. It makes the issues present in and between codexes much more apparent, and the gulf between a fluffy or casual player and a competitive one that much more apparent.

Casual players, in my experience, rarely step beyond the CAD + Ally combo. If there's something specific to what they've always wanted to do offered elsewhere, they'll go for it, but they won't adopt things that don't fit their style as readily. Competitive players are more likely to tweak, modify, adjust and adopt combos that will up their game; this isn't some WAAC behaviour, it's simply playing the game the way they enjoy it.

In a game with a tight ruleset, the difference in power level between these two shouldn't be as dramatic. In 5th in particular, fluff bunnies such as myself didn't suffer unduly unless the dice gods decreed it against even the most hardcore tourney player; the system just couldn't be gamed all that much. MSU spam in transports was the most efficient thing, and draigowing was annoying, you'd have an uphill battle, but you weren't browbeaten to death.

Now, a competitive player can drop multiple CADs from different codecii in the same faction, with formations, dataslates and other add-ons to up their game some more, which will allow them to bring ever more powerful lists and combos.

Using myself as another example, my 7th Edition Minotaurs dropped their two useless token tactical marine squads with lascannons, and the equally useless Stalker and now play at 1750 with an unbound 1st company list. They in turn have enjoyed fighting double CAD Tau with mountains of sniper kroot, and 3-4 Skyrays backed by HYMP Broadsides, or dual CAD Guard with 6 heavy choices filled with Russes, the pask punisher and a little psyker farm, or a Chaos summoning farm with a CAD of Crimson Slaughter and an allied vanilla Chaos with Ahriman in a rhino as a psychic battle bus.

With the gloves off, the casual player stands no chance against the competitive one on lists alone. The imbalance in the game has only been exacerbated by providing so little structure in which people can just run wild on the crazy stacking power-gaming crap to the point where I flat out don't enjoy the game anymore unless I'm fighting someone I know and trust to bring me a game we'll both enjoy.

I didn't have to do that in 5th; I could challenge mister uber-tourney optimal list, not one wasted point, and I'll lose more than I'll win, but I'll pull out a win, bloody his force and make him work for it. Now? About half the games I played in the last 6 months before I moved to France, I was tabled without killing more than 150 points of my opponent's.

The lack of structure is, of course, not the sole problem; massive codex imbalance, broken psychic phase, wonky flier rules, rules massively favouring certain unit types over others (Skimmer vs regular vehicle, MC vs Walker, bikes vs other infantry, etc), but these issues only become more apparent in an environment of absolutely no structure.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units. .

...in Forgeworld publications.

From the many, many discussions I've seen on this over the years, all that many players needed was a note in the actual rulebook endorsing Forgeworld. For those who viewed FW as not having the authority to publish ' official ' rules, FW themselves saying that was meaningles.

The main GW studio didn't ' get sick of answering ' that question, because they never did answer it.

Whatever man, the fact is that Apoc (v5), v6 and Escalation and v7 made Apoc/ForgeWorld mainstream and any new player starting right now would have no problem with anyone fielding a baneblade or some other fairly balanced choice (of course, mr donkey-cave with his twin tranC'tan at 1850 points will always be a problem, but that's what he's there for right).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

In a game with a tight ruleset, the difference in power level between these two shouldn't be as dramatic. In 5th in particular, fluff bunnies such as myself didn't suffer unduly unless the dice gods decreed it against even the most hardcore tourney player; the system just couldn't be gamed all that much. MSU spam in transports was the most efficient thing, and draigowing was annoying, you'd have an uphill battle, but you weren't browbeaten to death.

That's ridiculous. I tabled people over and over in 5th, with a list I wasn't even done optimizing, and clearly there was a huge gap between your average fluff list and a properly designed power list, as I was still learning and creating new tricks.

If anything, the next versions were more balanced.

In 6th for example, ToF statistics showed a 50% win rate for all the armies within the top 5 group.

That would have been impossible in 5th.

It's funny that you guys are complaining about unbound and titans with D weapons.

My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Now, a competitive player can drop multiple CADs from different codecii in the same faction, with formations, dataslates and other add-ons to up their game some more, which will allow them to bring ever more powerful lists and combos.

Using myself as another example, my 7th Edition Minotaurs dropped their two useless token tactical marine squads with lascannons, and the equally useless Stalker and now play at 1750 with an unbound 1st company list. They in turn have enjoyed fighting double CAD Tau with mountains of sniper kroot, and 3-4 Skyrays backed by HYMP Broadsides, or dual CAD Guard with 6 heavy choices filled with Russes, the pask punisher and a little psyker farm, or a Chaos summoning farm with a CAD of Crimson Slaughter and an allied vanilla Chaos with Ahriman in a rhino as a psychic battle bus.

With the gloves off, the casual player stands no chance against the competitive one on lists alone. The imbalance in the game has only been exacerbated by providing so little structure in which people can just run wild on the crazy stacking power-gaming crap to the point where I flat out don't enjoy the game anymore unless I'm fighting someone I know and trust to bring me a game we'll both enjoy.

I didn't have to do that in 5th; I could challenge mister uber-tourney optimal list, not one wasted point, and I'll lose more than I'll win, but I'll pull out a win, bloody his force and make him work for it. Now? About half the games I played in the last 6 months before I moved to France, I was tabled without killing more than 150 points of my opponent's.

The lack of structure is, of course, not the sole problem; massive codex imbalance, broken psychic phase, wonky flier rules, rules massively favouring certain unit types over others (Skimmer vs regular vehicle, MC vs Walker, bikes vs other infantry, etc), but these issues only become more apparent in an environment of absolutely no structure.

Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.

What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.

Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).

So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

morgoth wrote:
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

Alright so it's listbuilding and you admit he's building poor lists.

or the list building process.

Wait what?

 Pyeatt wrote:

morgoth wrote:
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

Alright so it's listbuilding and you admit he's building poor lists.

or the list building process.

Wait what?

It's not just list building, but arguably the lists that he builds are terrible, if he can't deal with bad lists like kroot snipers.

Or, he's playing against people who don't build TAC lists, which in itself is just janken.

And no, the list building process has not become worse with v6 or v7, but apparently his list building skills have not gotten better. Get the difference ?

"Everyone who doesn't like 7th is lying about trying it" Check

"You don't like 7th because you can't adapt." Check

You don't like 7th because you're a weak player" Check

Congratulations Ladies and Gentlemen we have now have a full hat trick.

If we can get Morgoth to defend wave serpents, I can call BINGO!!!!!

But on a serious note... Filthy Magic phase. Hate it. It can die. Go back to WHFB where it belongs.

Love them maelstrom missions though.

 Pyeatt wrote:

My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.

Yeah, I really don't see the problem with that. But then, 40K had a psychic phase (that worked identically to WHFB as it was back then as well) when I started, so it's not something new, just something returned in a slightly different format.

If they had bothered to proofread the rules before publishing them, the psychic phase would be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
...of course, mr donkey-cave with his twin tranC'tan at 1850 points will always be a problem, but that's what he's there for right).

But the TranC'tan isn't a problem because everyone can take them, right?

morgoth wrote:
Whatever man, the fact is that Apoc (v5), v6 and Escalation and v7 made Apoc/ForgeWorld mainstream.

I always thought sadness, depravity, contempt for your fellow man and an overall infatuation with winning a race to the bottom is what made apoc "mainstream".

morgoth wrote:
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

go on....

morgoth wrote:
And no, the list building process has not become worse with v6 or v7, but apparently his list building skills have not gotten better. Get the difference ?

That depends a lot on if people you play like to use silly crap.


At this point I'm just surprised we haven't seen you ask anyone if they even lift... bro.

A lot has been said already, but this is my bit:

I got into 40k because of several of my good friends got me into it. I knew going in that that rules were a bit wonky, and that armies were not on level playing fields. While it can be frustrating to know, the game still is fun and has merit. 7th has been better for me as an Ork player than 6th mostly because the Codex update was incredibly needed, with the Ork faction being in a far better boat than it was before. I've gotten better, won more games, and have been generally having a good time with it.

I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.

I enjoy 7th (Even 6th and the tail end of 5th) because I play with friends. I like eating food, tossing dice and making Ork sounds when things happen (Good or bad), and getting a laugh or ten with my friends. That's why I enjoy this game. Win or lose. Flawed or otherwise.

I also know that this is not a luxury that every player has, and I count myself very fortunate.

Melevolence wrote:
I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.

40k isn't designed for "casual" games with like-minded friends either, and the things that make it bad for tournaments also make it bad for "casual" games.

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.

40k isn't designed for "casual" games with like-minded friends either, and the things that make it bad for tournaments also make it bad for "casual" games.

Odd, considering I have the most fun with this game with my friends and like minded players than I do with people I don't see eye to eye with. And we have zero issues with the games flaws because we just work through it. Yes, the rules suck. But its enough of a baseline for us to get by and make sound judgement calls. Like the rulebook tells us to. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll keep having fun with the game.

My favorite edition yet. Would probably be better if it had 5ths force org chart, though.

morgoth wrote:


Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.

What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.

Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).

So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.

I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.

Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.

The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.

My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.

GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.

If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.

If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.

One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.

To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.

The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.

Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.

That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.

Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.

You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.

 Pyeatt wrote:
It's funny that you guys are complaining about unbound and titans with D weapons.

My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.

Just want to clarify this for you and others who think this, go play fantasy, then come back and apologise for this idiotic statement.

fantasys magic phase is superficially similar in the same way the shooting phase is similar In both games, magic in fantasy works much much better and had they brought that in, 40k pay phase would be much better, as it is now.... Crap.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.

What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.

Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).

So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.

I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.

Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.

The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.

My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.

GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.

If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.

If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.

One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.

To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.

The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.

Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.

That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.

Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.

You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.

Bloody well said

 Formosa wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
It's funny that you guys are complaining about unbound and titans with D weapons.

My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.

Just want to clarify this for you and others who think this, go play fantasy, then come back and apologise for this idiotic statement.

fantasys magic phase is superficially similar in the same way the shooting phase is similar In both games, magic in fantasy works much much better and had they brought that in, 40k pay phase would be much better, as it is now.... Crap.

QFT: If you bring an army with no casters in fantasy against an army with a pair of high level casters, a) magic dice are capped, and b) you won't be able to stop everything, but chances are you'll be able to cancel out a powerful spell or two with a little luck, or shoot said magic user with a cannon and your problems go away.

Having target values to beat for successful casts and denies makes things a lot more straightforwards and easier to balance than "roll x number of 4+s to cast, roll equal number of 6s to cancel" with no limit on dice pool. I've got an Empire army with no magic whatsoever, and the magic phase hurts (but my shooting hurts equally as much for them, cannons and muskets ahoy!), but if someone's going to unleash purple sun or dwellers or something at an inconvenient time, chances are I can stop at least that.

In 40k, I've had a single Tervigon using Paroxysm to reduce my 10 man terminator squad to WS/BS1 for an entire game and eventually killed with gaunts, it was the only power the tyranid player used and only had the one psychic bug, and I couldn't do anything to stop it; I never had more than 3 dice, and if he rolled a strict average of two successes on 4 dice, my probability to cancelling anything is about nill.

The only time you really stand no chance of cancelling something in Fantasy is when someone rolls irresistible force. In 40k, you almost never stand a chance unless you've got a high level psyker in the target unit or a librarian with their psychic hood. For many armies, they just get an extra phase to remove models or watch the enemy buff into obscenity. In fantasy, you have to make choices, what do you try and stop, what do you let through, no matter what, and can use your own magic phase, even with no magic users to dispell ongoing effects. There's some actual thought to the system, and actual choice involved for the players.

For now, who knows what 9th'll bring.

I see so many complaints about tran ctans and such. But how is it really related to edition of the game? It's the problem of bad unit design.