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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

The base assumption when talking on a forum about a game must be that the goal of playing the game is winning the game as per the game's rules. Becoming offended when someone says your strategy is wrong and stupid when your strategy is in pursuit of something other than winning the game does not make sense to me as I was not informed of your pursuit or responding to your post. For all I know you might be trying to make a political statement about the art of an 1800s French painter when you charge your missile launcher Heavy Weapon Squads into melee. I am sure you are making a wonderful political statement, it remains wrong and stupid in the context of trying to win the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Proof that claim.

What would you take as proof? If you make a list of units in 5th edition that were busted or useless for FW and GW and the number relative to the total number of units produced by the respective team is smaller for FW you could convince me.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

The base assumption when talking on a forum about a game must be that the goal of playing the game is winning the game as per the game's rules. Becoming offended when someone says your strategy is wrong and stupid when your strategy is in pursuit of something other than winning the game does not make sense to me as I was not informed of your pursuit or responding to your post. For all I know you might be trying to make a political statement about the art of an 1800s French painter when you charge your missile launcher Heavy Weapon Squads into melee. I am sure you are making a wonderful political statement, it remains wrong and stupid in the context of trying to win the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Proof that claim.

What would you take as proof? If you make a list of units in 5th edition that were busted or useless for FW and GW and the number relative to the total number of units produced by the respective team is smaller for FW you could convince me.

you claimed that, bring it on. Also why 5th? Why not 6-7th? You know, where gw massivly fethed up?

 vict0988 wrote:

Clearly the guys who never considered that Salamanders players would spam flamers or use the two flamer Stratagems printed in the same book would be used in a combo know what's best for the game. /SARCASM

Lol, if you actually believe them when they make such claims....
They're lying to you.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

The base assumption when talking on a forum about a game must be that the goal of playing the game is winning the game as per the game's rules.

No it isn't. Base assumption when talking on a forum about a game is that we all enjoy the game.

Nothing to do with winning. Can you show me where that much be the case?

Becoming offended when someone says your strategy is wrong and stupid when your strategy is in pursuit of something other than winning the game does not make sense to me as I was not informed of your pursuit or responding to your post.

Alternatively, have you considered that people might pursue something other than winning, and that calling those people "wrong and stupid" is pretty short-sighted of you?

You came in here with an assumption. It was the wrong assumption to make, especially as this is in the General Discussions forum. There is no reason that this was only about "winning" 40k, as opposed to enjoying playing it.

For all I know you might be trying to make a political statement about the art of an 1800s French painter when you charge your missile launcher Heavy Weapon Squads into melee. I am sure you are making a wonderful political statement, it remains wrong and stupid in the context of trying to win the game.

Great, but show me where this was about "winning" the game as opposed to "enjoying" it.

You're the one who decided that this whole topic has to be purely about winning the game. I'm here to politely inform you that it isn't, and that calling people "stupid and wrong" is something you really ought to walk back, especially as no such parameters were laid out.

So, like I said - are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

I'd like a lot less granularity in unit costs and upgrades. A bunch of it from what I have seen over 9th edition seems completely pointless. As in some different weapons combos costing the same points, so just roll those together in a list if nothing else. But also giving some cool thing to a unit leader who is slain before that cool thing is ever used, why am I paying for that again?
The only place I see it really being important would be Character model units where those models will actually benefit from a weapons swap. Or at least stand the highest chance of seeing a benefit. Baked in costs save time and energy. Constantly updating points is just a headache that some players, not unlike myself, just don't care about because it's just adding work. Maybe points as we knew them should have been dropped already.
The other side of the coin is it fits into GW's thinking very well, if it isn't in the kit then the option to change item for other item does not exist. Giving them even more control over how you play their game. I'm not a fan of less options historically but GW's gunna GW.

 vict0988 wrote:
A bolt pistol is better than a las pistol therefore it should cost more

Devil's advocate - this is a really terrible argument. Let's take for example bolt vs las pistol on IG sergeant. Taking bolt instead of las causes all of 0.02 extra wounds to a Space Marine on average. Let's be generous and call it worth 0.1 extra points.

Hello? Anyone sane can tell me why we should bother with such pointless, absurdly miniscule point changes?

As for argument usually used in response ("but they will fully load up on upgrades now!") it's a non-sequitur. All you need to do is limit upgrades somehow. Say, said IG sergeant can take 1 upgrade. You can pick either a bolter (for shooty squad) or bolt pistol (to pair it with CCW) for CQC one. There, done. Much less hassle than mucking about with fractional points changes. It would also encourage fluffy loadout, instead of minmaxed, stupid cherrypicked gak that looks ugly and makes no sense (2x chainsword spam squad, or characters juggling combi-weapon, two handed melee weapon, and storm shield all at once, looking at you).

You could then make some rarer (in fluff), stronger weapons cost two upgrade slots, discouraging spam and allowing weaker stuff like grenade launchers or flamers to have a purpose. Similar to points, except way more user friendly and you don't need to waste an hour pointlessly ensuring all these 1 pts upgrades add up to 2000 or if you're (GASP!) one whole point over, oh no!

I don't think they should but I suspect they will.

They've clearly been moving in this direction since the beginning of 9th, when they abandoned any attempt at balancing wargear or (in many cases) bothering to cost it at all.

 Irbis wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A bolt pistol is better than a las pistol therefore it should cost more

Devil's advocate - this is a really terrible argument. Let's take for example bolt vs las pistol on IG sergeant. Taking bolt instead of las causes all of 0.02 extra wounds to a Space Marine on average. Let's be generous and call it worth 0.1 extra points.

Hello? Anyone sane can tell me why we should bother with such pointless, absurdly miniscule point changes?

As for argument usually used in response ("but they will fully load up on upgrades now!") it's a non-sequitur. All you need to do is limit upgrades somehow. Say, said IG sergeant can take 1 upgrade. You can pick either a bolter (for shooty squad) or bolt pistol (to pair it with CCW) for CQC one. There, done. Much less hassle than mucking about with fractional points changes. It would also encourage fluffy loadout, instead of minmaxed, stupid cherrypicked gak that looks ugly and makes no sense (2x chainsword spam squad, or characters juggling combi-weapon, two handed melee weapon, and storm shield all at once, looking at you).

You could then make some rarer (in fluff), stronger weapons cost two upgrade slots, discouraging spam and allowing weaker stuff like grenade launchers or flamers to have a purpose. Similar to points, except way more user friendly and you don't need to waste an hour pointlessly ensuring all these 1 pts upgrades add up to 2000 or if you're (GASP!) one whole point over, oh no!

That you couldn't keep your list contained to not be one point over is on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Will they? No idea? Should they? No clue. Would I like if they did? Yes. I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit. Now, that does also mean I'd like the weapons to have a way that they're brought relatively into line with one another (chainswords getting more attacks to compare to power swords, heavy power weapons such as thunder hammers and powerfists having an increased drawback, or laspistols getting more shots compared to bolt pistols), but yes - I actually do like the idea of units choosing upgrades that are lateral.

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

As an EC player all I can say is that a sonic blaster and/or a blastmaster is definitely an upgrade from a bolter. If I don't have to pay extra for either of them then I'll be very happy.

I really don't mind if they eliminate wargear cost. I already play AoS so I am used to that reality.

Problem with wargear is that all too often it usually gets in the way of more bodies on the ground. I never touched the Plague Marine upgrades until they were free. Same with Blightlord terminators and Death Shrouds.

Because as someone wrote, if the lethality of the game is this high then upgrades are all too often liabilities that may vanish in a single volley. So either GW needs to drastically change lethality or just make upgrades free as you might not even get to use that upgrade once in a game.

I mean, in some of the armies I play the upgrades cost only 5 points and even then people didn't want those upgrades because 5 points could be used for cheap chaff that has more utility.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

That you couldn't keep your list contained to not be one point over is on you.

On a related note, I miss having 1-3pt upgrades that I can slap on to round out a list.

It bugs me when I end up with a list that's, for example, 1997pts, and I have nothing to spend those extra 3 points on because now every upgrade is 5pts minimum.

I suspect they'll not only reduce wargear costs, but also reduce wargear choices.

I.E. you can't balance Tyranid Warriors having talons/claws/pair of boneswords/whip+bonesword (or more if trade out the gun)? Stop trying. Just call them "Tyranid Warrior Melee Weapons" all with the same stat line and move on. You can model them however you like, but they'll all hit at WS3+, S7, AP2 damage 2. Or whatever is appropriate. On the table they do the same as everyone else's warriors.

This may represent an attack on the fluff, and I suspect may induce much complaining - but its much easier to operate from a game perspective.

I wonder how this would work with squads or even armies designed to have options, which have different effects and rules.
If a heavy psycanon, psi lancer and a incinerator cost the same points. Then one of those three will never be used. If a nemezis sword, falchion, force staff, nemezis halabard and a Nemezis Thunder Hammer cost the same, then not taking a full loadout of hammers or majority load out of hammers would just be stupid. The other options may as well not exist most of the time. It would be just as bad as it is playing PL.

The main problem as far as I'm concerned is when units have vastly different weapon options that would ordinarily be adjusted for in points.

For example; the rumor mill says that Plasma Inceptors are going down to 40ppm. For those non-marine players out there; this means that they are making the plasma option free. Currently it costs +20ppm to upgrade your inceptor with plasma. A 40ppm plasma inceptor is identical in cost to an inceptor with assault bolters. While it's possible that the assault bolter version is also getting an unmentioned massive point drop; lets assume for the sake of argument that this is not the case and that the assault bolter and plasma variants will cost the same.

Even at the steep cost of +20 points/model, marine players *already* vastly preferred the plasma variant over the bolt variant. Giving out this upgrade for free means you may as well remove the bolter option. There is nearly no scenario where the bolter version will be stronger. Against any armored or tough target, plasma is very much stronger. Against lighter targets the blast rule means that the non-overcharged plasma is still getting 6 shots/person, the same as the assault bolter; while at higher strength (which. is often relevant) and better ap (maybe not as relevant against hordes, but never can be completely discounted either). There is no target to which the assault bolter would be a preferable choice except maybe very small units (5 models or less) of very light infantry. Considering that plasma will easily obliterate this target also.... effectively the assault bolters are out of the game.

Already we see this with the current Lasfusil eliminators have crowded out bolt sniper eliminators after the cost of lasfusils was removed. Bolt sniper eliminators are now the wrong choice. The lasfusil costs the same, at better strength, ap, and damage. The bolt sniper still retains one small selling point of being able to ignore look out sir, so it is not as egregious as the plasma inceptor will be... but still a situation where points were keeping things in balance, and with the removal of that things have skewed vastly in favor of one particular weapon option.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What would you take as proof? If you make a list of units in 5th edition that were busted or useless for FW and GW and the number relative to the total number of units produced by the respective team is smaller for FW you could convince me.

you claimed that, bring it on. Also why 5th? Why not 6-7th? You know, where gw massivly fethed up?

Are you saying you would recognise it if I proved it using my suggestion? You'll take whatever my definition of useless and busted units are? 7th would be pretty easy, Skatach from FW was busted and the rest of the FW units were useless because they didn't fit into the Decurion system. Necrons didn't have a lot of useless units in 7th outside of FW (maybe 20% busted, 20% useless), the number in the game overall that weren't busted or useless was probably something like 30%, but for FW it was 0%. Lack of balance has been a major complaint against FW units which is why FW was banned at tournaments, I am a bit confused why I have never seen you put forth the idea that FW has done balance better before, maybe I just forgot. How about we make this a new thread for discussion in a couple of weeks when I have more time?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, like I said - are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

Let's just go with deliberately slow to understand.

Great, but show me where this was about "winning" the game as opposed to "enjoying" it.

Are you assuming that I enjoy 40k? Very bold of you to assume that, I only play to have an opportunity to steal dice from people. So for me, playing smart is playing in ways that lets me steal dice, roll one dice into opponent's dice pile, score another couple of dice on the retrieval, that's why I always slow roll everything. No opponent has ever gone home from a game with me with a full dice box. That's why they call me the dice devil hæhæhæ. /særcæsm Victory conditions are in the mission pack, they don't list fun or political statements about 1800s French artists.

 warhead01 wrote:
But also giving some cool thing to a unit leader who is slain before that cool thing is ever used, why am I paying for that again?

I don't know, have you considered giving cool things to the unit leaders that don't get killed before they do their cool thing? You know that buying melee weapons on Space Marine Sergeants is occasionally meta right? /sarcasm All it takes is the right pts costs and then whether you choose to take the upgrades or not will be an efficient choice depending on the situation instead of it automatically being the better choice. Making weapon upgrades free also doesn't lower lethality for extremely obvious reasons.

Constantly updating points is just a headache that some players, not unlike myself, just don't care about because it's just adding work.

Don't you have a phone? There's an app for this.

 Irbis wrote:
As for argument usually used in response ("but they will fully load up on upgrades now!") it's a non-sequitur.

I have a great way to limit how many upgrades people take, make them cost pts! Generally, I'd go with making whatever was popular last remain popular. So if everyone has been taking bolt pistols on AM Sergeants for 10 years and they're only worth 0,5 pts, then let them keep the free bolt pistols. If everyone is taking bolt pistols on Space Wolves Wolf Sergeants and plasma pistols are only worth 0,5 pts then plasma pistols should cost 1 pt. The moment you change that 1 to a 0 you are forcing everyone to switch. With something like plasma gun vs melta gun it's complicated, I can let it slide if they're the same points but one of them is more popular, there just isn't an excuse to make bolt pistols 0 pts for AM Sergeants.

vict0988 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, like I said - are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

Let's just go with deliberately slow to understand.

Nah, go on. I know you're mincing your words, but the intent is still there.

Stop hiding, and just say it. It'll make this easier.

Great, but show me where this was about "winning" the game as opposed to "enjoying" it.

Are you assuming that I enjoy 40k? Very bold of you to assume that, I only play to have an opportunity to steal dice from people. So for me, playing smart is playing in ways that lets me steal dice, roll one dice into opponent's dice pile, score another couple of dice on the retrieval, that's why I always slow roll everything. No opponent has ever gone home from a game with me with a full dice box. That's why they call me the dice devil hæhæhæ. /særcæsm Victory conditions are in the mission pack, they don't list fun or political statements about 1800s French artists.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The only people who'd miss out are the people who modeled 'naked' units to save points.

I have certainly been experiencing this as IG.

I generally ran/run troopers with no upgrades, except maybe vox-casters, because they die anyway and upgrading one special weapon does not generally help the unit fulfill the battlefield objectives I have for it.

It's notable that the effective increasing in cost of all my infantry from 50 to 60 to 65+ points on the "baked in" cost of a special weapons costs me a whole tank.

I don't really like this. I would much rather have another tank or gun or two more squads of rifles that provide zoning, objective control, and critical redundancy than some plasguns that will die when looked at and will at most destroy about 1 MEQ over the course of the game if they don't get erased. Most of my special weapons are never even fired, because they're either out of range or performing actions.

Yes, but you are playing the game not to play the game, but for some other reason, a few people here do not understand.
To everyone else that is not a bot or an AI construct here, winning is stricktly corelated to fun. Even rats will stop playing with other rats, if the bigger rats don't let them win 1/3 of the time. Thankfuly, as higher beings then rats, we require higher win rates of enjoyment then 33%.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Karol wrote:Yes, but you are playing the game not to play the game, but for some other reason, a few people here do not understand.

To have fun. Is that hard to understand?

To everyone else that is not a bot or an AI construct here, winning is stricktly corelated to fun.

So you're saying that only bots or AI can can fun when they're not winning? That's a hell of a claim.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

No, of course not. My models have chainswords. I play them using chainswords. If I wanted them to use power sword profiles, they'd be armed with power swords, or power axes, or some other "power" weapon that would fit the "power sword" statblock. But, as a chainsword model can be reflected with the chainsword statblock, I'll use the chainsword statblock.

Problem?

JNAProductions wrote:Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Very well put.

So, with that said, can we get a walk-back on the idea that someone is "wrong and stupid" for not taking free gear from those who have said it, and move on?

So you're saying that only bots or AI can can fun when they're not winning? That's a hell of a claim.

Well I a first year no one in terms of the theory of winning/losing. But there is close to two centuries of literature on how winning and losing impacts stuff ranging from physical to mental health, stuff like muscle growth, speed of healing, concentrations, enjoyment of everything etc. But be my guest write your papers about how winning is not linked to fun, or in fact a seprate thing, as you claim it. Will make as much sense as other claims you made in the past.

To have fun. Is that hard to understand?

Because you are in a thread about a game and its rules, and the impact of potential changes on the game and people playing it, and putting forth a claim that somehow all those things, crucial to determinate who is the loser and who is the winner, are not only unimportant, but somehow not linked in anyway. Because fun is somehow separate from winning. Now can you have fun not participating in something like a game, but still taking part in it? Of course. Ton of people go to the olympics knowing they will lose. But what are they are after are other, outside of the game things. Sponsorships, higher potential to get a training career etc. In w40k terms you are the guy who claims, that "the game" is okey, because even if games is bad and unfun to many other people, you are having fun by drinking beer and spending time with your friends. Nothing wrong with that, aside for one thing. You can do outside of the game activities without spending money or time on w40k. You can have fun with "friends and beer" without w40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

yes, but coming in to a thread concering rules and their impact on the game, and claiming that the first option is unimportant or less important, makes as much sense, as if I now went to the lore section of the forum. Found someones thread about how they don't like the new lore for a faction, and me droping in the bomb in the form of stuff like "Not a problem the army has a 53% win rate there for it is good". On top of that w40k is game, first and far most. Without the game there would be no new models, no new lore , no new nothing. This makes any problems related to stuff like balanced and enjoyment of the game crucial to the community. Because you know what happens to game that is not played? AoS happens to the game.

Karol wrote:

So you're saying that only bots or AI can can fun when they're not winning? That's a hell of a claim.

Well I a first year no one in terms of the theory of winning/losing. But there is close to two centuries of literature on how winning and losing impacts stuff ranging from physical to mental health, stuff like muscle growth, speed of healing, concentrations, enjoyment of everything etc. But be my guest write your papers about how winning is not linked to fun, or in fact a seprate thing, as you claim it. Will make as much sense as other claims you made in the past.

That's not what I said. I said "is the only way you can have fun through winning"?

You're saying you CANNOT enjoy yourself unless you're winning? What a sad life.

To have fun. Is that hard to understand?

Because you are in a thread about a game and its rules, and the impact of potential changes on the game and people playing it, and putting forth a claim that somehow all those things, crucial to determinate who is the loser and who is the winner, are not only unimportant, but somehow not linked in anyway.

No, I'm not.

This is a thread about 40k rules, yes, but I haven't claimed "they're not linked in any way" - I actually have only really said that "some people don't care about the minutia of certain upgrades/parts of the game, and that calling those people 'stupid and wrong' is pretty inflammatory".

Instead of agreeing, certain folks, yourself included, have now decided that, no, instead of letting that simple statement go, you MUST assert how actually, the only way to enjoy yourself is to be winning the game at all costs, and that anything less than than is "stupid and wrong".

Because fun is somehow separate from winning. Now can you have fun not participating in something like a game, but still taking part in it? Of course. Ton of people go to the olympics knowing they will lose. But what are they are after are other, outside of the game things. Sponsorships, higher potential to get a training career etc. In w40k terms you are the guy who claims, that "the game" is okey, because even if games is bad and unfun to many other people, you are having fun by drinking beer and spending time with your friends. Nothing wrong with that, aside for one thing. You can do outside of the game activities without spending money or time on w40k. You can have fun with "friends and beer" without w40k.

Sure, yes, I could enjoy socialising without playing 40k. Does that mean I should be playing 40k though, because I'm not playing to win? I could be socialising without playing 40k, but we like playing with out little plastic minis, using the rules GW have given us. Should we not be doing that? Are you going to come and confiscate our stuff until we start playing "properly"?

Yes, fun is separate from winning. I don't know why this is a contention issue for people. All I'm taking objection here is the idea that not taking free equipment is "wrong and stupid". Is it not enough to say that *maybe* that's a little bit of an exaggeration, and maybe a little inappropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

yes, but coming in to a thread concering rules and their impact on the game, and claiming that the first option is unimportant or less important, makes as much sense, as if I now went to the lore section of the forum. Found someones thread about how they don't like the new lore for a faction, and me droping in the bomb in the form of stuff like "Not a problem the army has a 53% win rate there for it is good".

Good job that no-one did that, let alone me.

Maybe actually read what I put, instead of coming in and saying that I'm slagging off someone's enjoyment of the game, when I never said that.

In fact, the very OPPOSITE happened - I was swayed by Haighus that EVERYONE should enjoy the game, but still opposed vict's comment that people who enjoy the game differently are "wrong and stupid".

Maybe you should be having this conversation with them instead.

On top of that w40k is game, first and far most.

Yeah, a game to *enjoy*. Do you know why games exist? To have *fun*.

Without the game there would be no new models, no new lore , no new nothing.

I think you'll find it's the other way around, actually. The game exists as a justification for making the models. The lore exists to give a reason why you can push your plastic models around. The video games, media, and shows being made? They exist because of the lore. The lore, video games, media, and shows then provide a reason to make new models.

It's a circle. Every part exists to feed the others.

Because you know what happens to game that is not played? AoS happens to the game.

Strange - AoS is doing pretty well, with some gorgeous models, and a thriving community. Sounds like I like the sound of that.

mrFickle wrote:I don’t see how it would benefit the game. It would just make it easier to try different army list and feed the meta.

Maybe that’s what they want

Sure looks that way...

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

They have no idea, they live in a world where mot taking the best is not even an option.

Karol wrote:Yes, but you are playing the game not to play the game, but for some other reason, a few people here do not understand.
To everyone else that is not a bot or an AI construct here, winning is stricktly corelated to fun. Even rats will stop playing with other rats, if the bigger rats don't let them win 1/3 of the time. Thankfuly, as higher beings then rats, we require higher win rates of enjoyment then 33%.

Must be some good crack you have access to in Poland.
Honestly I might have more fun playing 40k with a rat than some players.
WINNING HAS ZERO IMPACT ON MY ENJOYMRMT OF THE GAME! Not a very difficult concept to understand. Unless you live in the ultra-competitive hellscape that is (wherever Karol lives in Poland)

Racerguy180 wrote:

WINNING HAS ZERO IMPACT ON MY ENJOYMRMT OF THE GAME! Not a very difficult concept to understand. Unless you live in the ultra-competitive hellscape that is (wherever Karol lives in Poland)

So you'd be fine with your armies taking an arbitrary 10 point increase per model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

When they're the same cost, yes. You have literally no reason not to use Power Swords.

So, just to confirm, you are calling me "wrong and stupid" because I want to use chainswords on my guardsmen, because I prefer my guardsman sergeants to use a more rugged and savage looking weapon? And that I prefer them to not use a different profile to the rest of their squad?

Can I just have that confirmed? Just so you know how ridiculous you sound?

Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Only if you're trying to min/max the last percentile point of power out of your list, and not everyone chooses to play like that.

 vict0988 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
But also giving some cool thing to a unit leader who is slain before that cool thing is ever used, why am I paying for that again?

I don't know, have you considered giving cool things to the unit leaders that don't get killed before they do their cool thing? You know that buying melee weapons on Space Marine Sergeants is occasionally meta right? /sarcasm All it takes is the right pts costs and then whether you choose to take the upgrades or not will be an efficient choice depending on the situation instead of it automatically being the better choice. Making weapon upgrades free also doesn't lower lethality for extremely obvious reasons.

Constantly updating points is just a headache that some players, not unlike myself, just don't care about because it's just adding work.

Don't you have a phone? There's an app for this.

Well there it is the best advice for a casual player. Git Gud Bro. Nice.
Stay classy Santiago.

Yes, I know there's an app. We all know there is an app.

Having units with no cost upgrades can work if you design it from the beginning.

AoS tried doing it from the beginning and it sucked because most units had mathematically better options.

Imagine trying to replicate that in 40k where units have been designed with the idea of having cheap options and expensive options.

Theres no way you can make a grenade launcher a horizontal upgrade to a lascannon without going agaisnt the fluff (Or having a better system where things like a grenade launcher shooting smoke grenades are possible, offering flexibility and utility over a lasscannon firepower).

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Only if you're trying to min/max the last percentile point of power out of your list, and not everyone chooses to play like that.

It's literally the same cost in this scenario.