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.

There is always non PUG style 1.5k v 1.5k slug fests ya know.

There can be a ton of fun with just narrative scenarios and or asymmetric missions.

even un even points can be fun. especially in a attack defend type mission.

cant help ya in Tourny settings though.

I guess that's an upside of BA: I can field whatever I want.

For me personally this is the list of things that dont make the game fun for me to play, ill still do it because i never turn down a game/fight but...

Flyers when the opponent has no anti air on the field.

Wraith knights

Rip tide

Flyers are not an issue, as they can largely be ignored or out maneuvered.

Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

[quote

Flyers when the opponent has no anti air on the field.

 Drasius wrote:
While some people might suggest a points handicap, sometimes there's just no amount of points that's going to suffice. I've watched an 1850 Eldar army wipe the floor with a 2500 BA army in 4 turns and still be at almost full strength.

Yah. Most games I have never had army that has had significant advantage from the get go but in warmaster I did have that misluck. Not fan at all! It was so bad I could give 50% point advantage and talk about how to defeat my army with my opponent midgame(ie we were BOTH trying to figure out how to beat me!) with no luck.

Dominating army isn't fun for me to play either. Good thing we can fix that though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

That is major issue. I have played games where that is and often it results in the larger side being in advantage. Albeit other factors come to play as well but generally it's been "he who outnumbers wins". Big models get rarely fielded then.

Alas nothing is ever perfect :(

But bigger issue is simply that the 40k rules haven't been designed with unit activation in mind. Would almost certainly create whole pile of new problems if such a blanket rule would be introduced. And likely not fix the power level issue anyway...

Watched a friend of mine bring a solid BA list to go against a friend's tourney prep GK/Stormhammer list (3x Dreadknights, Stormhammer, some basic troops for scoring and what not). The BA player knew he was going to lose, but he was asked by my friend to help with his list and prep for the tourney, and the match was a lot closer than anticipated, where the GK player learned a lot about his list.

The imbalance was there and real, but it was still fun as they had the right attitudes going in.

That said, this worked because it was pre-arranged, in a club setting, with friends, with a clear goal of what they were trying to accomplish. Much learning was had.

tneva82 wrote:

That is major issue. I have played games where that is and often it results in the larger side being in advantage. Albeit other factors come to play as well but generally it's been "he who outnumbers wins". Big models get rarely fielded then.

Alas nothing is ever perfect :(

But bigger issue is simply that the 40k rules haven't been designed with unit activation in mind. Would almost certainly create whole pile of new problems if such a blanket rule would be introduced. And likely not fix the power level issue anyway...

Quite true.
there is defiantly a lot of options though.

playing things like Dystopian wars, Planet fall, DZC. i find that its a lot more fun just because at most 90% of your army is still alive by the time you go if you are second. but there is plenty of built in list building regulations to make it more even (not always)

iv seen games where opponents get completely neutered on first turn in 40k and thats absolutely frustrating.

Kriswall wrote:
So, I have a choice. Fundamentally change the army that I've lovingly built, painted and enjoyed for years, or shelf it and wait for the next meta shift. I chose to shelf it. Playing a game where the conclusion is foregone isn't fun for either player.

Have you explained to people why you play Tau and how you played them even before they got a rewrite? Also have you tried this? I know I am going to get a lashing for this.

Offer to play the game, and if the game gets too unbalanced that they get to bring a unit or two that was wiped out back? After all you want to play for fun right? So why not let them have some units come back if the game is going sour or give them a rule that will help them. Say after you wipe out 50% of their army and you have say 50% or even 75% more, some of their weapons are AP1 for a bit till things get more even. Just an idea so you can hopefully create some good will and show who ever rolled their eyes at you there are Tau players that are not Flavour of the month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

though there is some issues with it like having many units vs a elite army and stuff.

We already have a thread for that.

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly though i feel that 90% of this issue could be solved with unit activations over of whole game turns.

it lets you actually play units first turn and at most you lose 1 unit per activation.

Apocalypse blast. Split Fire.

THough alternating activations is a muuuuuch better way to play games with masses of firepower.

Davor wrote:

Kriswall wrote:
So, I have a choice. Fundamentally change the army that I've lovingly built, painted and enjoyed for years, or shelf it and wait for the next meta shift. I chose to shelf it. Playing a game where the conclusion is foregone isn't fun for either player.

Have you explained to people why you play Tau and how you played them even before they got a rewrite? Also have you tried this? I know I am going to get a lashing for this.

Offer to play the game, and if the game gets too unbalanced that they get to bring a unit or two that was wiped out back? After all you want to play for fun right? So why not let them have some units come back if the game is going sour or give them a rule that will help them. Say after you wipe out 50% of their army and you have say 50% or even 75% more, some of their weapons are AP1 for a bit till things get more even. Just an idea so you can hopefully create some good will and show who ever rolled their eyes at you there are Tau players that are not Flavour of the month.

Not posting this to give you a lashing but just to mention that a lot of people might not go for this idea on the losing side. Here's the scenario - You're stomping me completely, and then say "Oh man I'm destroying you, how about you throw a unit or two back on the board/in reserves/whatever." Man I came to play by the rules (as much as this game allows *nudge nudge*), not to be babied by a guy about to table me. (Kind of extreme reaction, but this can come off as condescending to your opponent, regardless of how you word it to them). Another reaction is a thought that the guy wants the game to go on so he can continue whuppin' my behind, and whup it even harder. I'm just saying it could come off to the person getting stomped that you're even more of a TFG than he assumed (whether you are or not).

This actually came up with my BA dread game example. After the game the guy was like "Oh man I pretty much wiped out your chapter, killing all your ancients, huh? How many more models do you have at home? How about you bring all those like reinforcements to our next game and I'll play this same list?" This of course was after he was actually acting like losing was so embarrassing and oh man this and that braggart-style statements, which I doubt most people would be doing, so my opinion on his offer was colored by his attitude through the whole game. Regardless, I took it as "this game was easy how about you make it harder for me next time" and it felt patronizing as feth. Like dude I lost a game, it's okay, I don't need a handicap.

I never plan on playing that guy again, but if I do, here comes the Eldar spam.

I just meant for the current game we are playing BossJakadakk. I see your point, and it's a very good point.

I don't play Tau but I do play Nids. Let's say the Nid codex is the most Over Powered codex ever. I would say I have played Nids since 4th edition. I am only making a list because I love the look of it and I just want to play for fun. So if by chance my list is Over Powered and you are loosing badly lets give you units back or what not. I just want to play for fun. I just want to play my list.

What is wrong with that exactly. Is that really being TFG?

Actually I did make a Tyranid/Genestealer Cult Unbound list but nobody wants to play it because I am told they don't have a chance at winning. I said bring units back or get free split fire, but still I am told no.

I just want to play for fun, damn the rules and lets make the the game fun for both of us. But I am told nope. I was also told if I play a game it has to be at 1500 points because that person feels their army is best played at that so will not play lower point games or higher.

So am I actually being TFG for saying to change the rules in their favour so I can play my way for once? I even said I would play their way for another game. That would be fair, but still get the "Nope will not waste my time."

That just floors me. Maybe I am too old and see that playing with plastic toy soldiers is for fun, not to win. I guess I am TFG sadly. :(

There are times that I have greatly enjoyed the odd power imbalance. Usually, I truly enjoy having a handicap, but there's a point where it is too severe to be fun anymroe.

During the 2nd ed, I played Imperial Guard- who were acknowledged at the time as the worst 'dex. I had to really squeeze my army list and get every ounce of usefulness out of my units. Even then, it was not fun to play against Eldar (the uncontested best 'dex of the edition). So there's a point where it stops being fun anymore.

In Blood Bowl (where the imbalance is overt and intentional) I really love playing the lower tier forces- mostly because if you play them well, they aren't nearly as bad as people think.. I've been having tons of success with my Vampires- often surprising my opponents who expect that they're in for a cake walk. I'm working on an Ogre team because they are considered the absolute worst team of all, and I have some good ideas about how to play them well. I have a friend who likes to attend tournaments with Goblins for the same reason.

On the flip side- I've had fun with my Movie Space Marines force. They were WAY over powered when they came out, and remain pretty powerful. The force list advocates playing them as a practical joke, but I've honestly find it more interesting to play them as sort of an "ultimate challenge" scenario. Also, it is fun to grant opponents extra points and see how large a force the Movie Marines can take on (equal points often nets you a table-wipe with 0 casualties on the Marines). They're also fun to convert.

The thing that no one likes is being power creeped out. It isn't fun if you got a top tier Amazon team that slowly transforms into a bottom of the barrel Halfling team, but that's the story of most 40k forces.

In my ocal group, me and a buddy always had very close games when I played GK and he played KDK. They were really good fun as we generally went for the rule of cool over actually playing to win.

I tried a game with my Necron army and the power difference was noticeable. I didn't have anything overly killy, I just lost very few models.

I enjoyed the game because I got to use a new army, but there was definitely an element missing.

That said, he is starting up a tau force, so we'll be back to even stevens soon enough

Davor wrote:


[snip] Is that really being TFG? [snip]

I don't think so, I'm just saying be aware that depending on the person across from you, they might take it differently than you mean it. I don't think you're TFG for offering a way for them to stay in the fight, it's just that perceptions or how a person who is losing is feeling can affect how they hear your words.

And I know it was in the context of current game, but I used the only example I had! It's all I got, man! It was just to illustrate that hey maybe he meant it nicely, but I wouldn't have believed you had you told me that at the time.

The power imbalance has been in 40k almost as long as I've been playing.

Back in the 2nd ed, if you were playing Eldar, your opponent would not actually get to kill any of your models unless you let him. Poor players regularly trounced much better players with Eldar. And if you actually went up against a very good Eldar player, you would wonder why we bother with the formality of "your turn."

Necromunda had issues with Spyrer gangs as well- plus the other Outlaw gangs were really underpowered in the league (scavvies and Ratskins).

Anyone who plays only the most cheddar'tastic gouda lists vs. the bottom of the barrel armies so as to simply stroke their toy soldier pee-pee and inflate their planetary-sized ego, should be ruthlessly ridiculed to no end.
That's akin to a AA hockey/baseball/footie/whatever team entering into a House League level tournament and then playing at least two age brackets below their own in order to guarantee they get the big shiny trophy through as little effort as humanly possible!

When it comes to playing PUG's vs. weaker armies, it's really not that hard to either;
1. open up a dialog with your opponent about how to try and make the game more fair & interesting for both players.

2. agree that maybe the match-up is likely beyond salvaging, shake hands as friends, and move along to find more appropriate games like happy adults.

The first can be anything from the top level army altering their army list to take far less optimised units/wargear combos, to perhaps arranging a slightly modified scenario, such as making the "top tier" army the 'Attacker', who only gets to begin the game with say 1 HQ + 2 Troops (leaving the rest of the force to come in as reserves), while the under powered army gets to be the 'Defender' and start the game with say any & all HQ's + Troops + Heavy Support options set-up in heavily defensive terrain.
Or else maybe a scenario where the top level army ends up playing a 'last stand' game, in which their opponent gets to recycle ALL their casualties every single turn, in an unending wave of inevitable death! (and even more fun afterwards/next time, when you switch sides and play each other's armies to see if you can last longer/kill the defender quicker than your opponent did!)


About the only time besides just being up against an arrogant TFG where I can't stand a game, is when an opponent gets super salty & sad panda over bad dice... Seriously, just grow a pair, laugh it off and accept that horribly unfair dice will happen from time to time in a freaking dice game!

Sure if there's actual money or prizes on the line such as in a tournament, give a curse or three to get that frustration off your chest and then try to pick up the pieces.

But to get super sour to the point of model or tantrum throwing in a nothing's on the line PUG? Yeah, not playing that sour puss ever again.

I like a challenge and to feel like I won, not that my list won. This is hard though, because half the strategy in the game is list building, which is ruined by codex imbalance and powerful generalist units that when spammed better than diverse lists full of specialized units.

I mean, I know I should run a drone net, bare bones cad for a stormsurge and then a riptide wing. I don't want to though.

 Jaxler wrote:
I like a challenge and to feel like I won, not that my list won. This is hard though, because half the strategy in the game is list building, which is ruined by codex imbalance and powerful generalist units that when spammed better than diverse lists full of specialized units.

I mean, I know I should run a drone net, bare bones cad for a stormsurge and then a riptide wing. I don't want to though.

So do it. Take less points. You want a challenge, there is your challenge. Do what they do in Golf and take a handicap. This way you can feel like you have accomplished something. Nobody is stopping you from doing so.

As people said before Golf is just as expensive if not more than 40K. If they can take a handicap we should be able to do so as well.

Klowny wrote:
Hey guys,

So this is geared to the people who play the "top teir" codex's. I have found lately that when I play my necrons against some of my friends armies, it isn't enjoyable for either of us as it is very apparent there is a massive power difference between some codex's. When I play against my mates AdMech I don't feel bad as the crazy amount of rules they have offset the crazy amount of rules I have, and it's an enjoyable game. I was just wondering if this is the same for other people? I'm not talking about power gamers and the like who build super competitive lists 24/7 and go up against the same all the time, I'm talking just casual games against friends. We buy our armies because we love the aesthetic/lore of them, and just want to throw dice around and have some good banter. Its frustrating because I love my crons yet I'm fielding my KDK as my primary army because of this.

If your games are so mismatched, it's your own fault.

Are you using the Necron decurion, for starters? Are you using death stars? Are you spamming things that either is 1. OP or undercosted gak or otherwise 2. something your opponent is weak against?

I bet you are doing at least one of these things.

The so called "codex imbalance" is only the material cause of the bad, broken games which are being played. GW writes rules that give you options. They give you choices. It's up to you to decide what to do with them.

If you're spamming grav centurions, librarius conclaves, scatter bikes, wraithknights, riptides, storm surges, etc., then that's not GWs fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without using formations, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without running a death star, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Stop power gaming, stop math-hammering and stop min-maxing and actually build something that actually looks like a bloody army, and you might have a different gaming experience.

Otherwise, don't be surprised when your friends start refusing to play with you.

The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:
Hey guys,

So this is geared to the people who play the "top teir" codex's. I have found lately that when I play my necrons against some of my friends armies, it isn't enjoyable for either of us as it is very apparent there is a massive power difference between some codex's. When I play against my mates AdMech I don't feel bad as the crazy amount of rules they have offset the crazy amount of rules I have, and it's an enjoyable game. I was just wondering if this is the same for other people? I'm not talking about power gamers and the like who build super competitive lists 24/7 and go up against the same all the time, I'm talking just casual games against friends. We buy our armies because we love the aesthetic/lore of them, and just want to throw dice around and have some good banter. Its frustrating because I love my crons yet I'm fielding my KDK as my primary army because of this.

If your games are so mismatched, it's your own fault.

Are you using the Necron decurion, for starters? Are you using death stars? Are you spamming things that either is 1. OP or undercosted gak or otherwise 2. something your opponent is weak against?

I bet you are doing at least one of these things.

The so called "codex imbalance" is only the material cause of the bad, broken games which are being played. GW writes rules that give you options. They give you choices. It's up to you to decide what to do with them.

If you're spamming grav centurions, librarius conclaves, scatter bikes, wraithknights, riptides, storm surges, etc., then that's not GWs fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without using formations, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

If you refuse to play a game without running a death star, that's not GW's fault. That's your fault.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Stop power gaming, stop math-hammering and stop min-maxing and actually build something that actually looks like a bloody army, and you might have a different gaming experience.

Otherwise, don't be surprised when your friends start refusing to play with you.

What a load of rubbish...

If both sides don't have a roughly 50/50 chance to win then I've no real interest in playing.

If you massively outgun the other guy then it not you winning but the army, I want a victory through skill.

Nothing's more frustrating than just standing there removing models all game while you get trounced and I refuse to do that to someone just because my army got buffed beyond his this edition.

 Stormonu wrote:
The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

This goes back to my point. You weren't getting stomped because of codex creep or bad rules. You were getting stomped either because 1. you aren't good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction), 2. your opponents were very good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction) or 3. your opponents weren't playing the casual game that you thought was being played.

I've had very close games with my casual space marines list against a relatively casual tyrranids list. Last game I played, I beat him 11 to 10 in Maelstrom.

I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations, and he only used one dakka flyrant.

If people want "good games," then it's actually very easy to do.

STOP NETLISTING!

"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

They can still spam big bugs that all ignore armor in CC. That runs over BA quite well, and by extension, "reasonable" marine lists. Reasonable marines fail at every task they are given. Can't shoot, can't assault, can't do well in the psychic phase.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations"

I use all those things and still lose to Nids. Your Nid player sucks.

Or they don't take flyrant lists. Tyranids are hardly brimming with good choices.

They can still spam big bugs that all ignore armor in CC. That runs over BA quite well, and by extension, "reasonable" marine lists. Reasonable marines fail at every task they are given. Can't shoot, can't assault, can't do well in the psychic phase.

And we all know how good cc is don't we? There are also things that aren't MC's.

CC is fine against "reasonable" marines. It's only poor vs those lists that are competent at shooting. BA have no chance of denting a Nid list heavy on MCs via shooting. T6 3+ is fantastic vs BA.