Current State of 40k?

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.

**Nazrak**

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?

**Peregrine**

master of ordinance wrote:
Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.

And my point is that these balance issues are problems with specific unit rules, not the general concept of LoW in standard games. The Baneblade-level units clearly demonstrate that "huge tank" type units can work just fine in normal games, if their individual unit rules are balanced. The issue with Wraithknights/Stormsurges/etc is that their individual unit rules are way too good, not that units of that type are not appropriate for normal games. If Wraithknights cost 500 points and were limited to 0-1 per army how many people would still complain about them?

Also, who cares about Warlord titans. It's a 3000 point unit that can't be taken in a normal game. It's worth more than 3000 points, but it's a balance issue that will literally never apply to a normal 1-2000 point game.

**Kaiyanwang**

Nazrak wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?

You silly.

On the other hand, match my 0-1 each aspect warrior army with my friends 3-4 riptides and see what happens, most of the times

**Martel732**

Nazrak wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?

I've actually started making this pitch. Most counter propose with "get a new army". I guess it's one way of playing into GW's hands.

**Wayniac**

Nazrak wrote:
Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.

Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"

A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."

A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"

See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit.

This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nazrak wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?

But... but... I only enjoy winning games. Stop making me dumb down my army because you want to make bad choices and expect to do well! The rules let me use it, so why be a donkey-cave and tell me I can't?

The above is sarcasm, but that's how a lot of these people think.

**JNAProductions**

Wayniac wrote:
See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit.

This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Or, crazy thought here-neither person is a jerk. They just want different things out of the game.

**Wayniac**

JNAProductions wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit.

This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Or, crazy thought here-neither person is a jerk. They just want different things out of the game.

Correct. Neither person is a jerk. The clash only happens because, IMHO, of "pick-up game culture" where two people who want different things out of the game may find that the other is the only opponent they have available that day, and either you come to some sort of agreement (which is rare) or neither person gets a game.

In reality I find a lot of the WAAC attitudes are grossly exaggerated. Only a supreme jerk would flat out refuse to remove something if asked nicely, especially if it was because the person obviously didn't have anything to deal with it and it would obviously make for an unfair game. However, part of the underlying issue is that you typically have to ask someone to, for lack of a better term, "dumb down" their list which a lot of people find to be an anathema.

**Gen.Steiner**

Or just continue to take an army that is horrendously sub-par and laugh hysterically as it is ritually slaughtered.

I do.

My latest favourite was a 500 point game in my local GW's escalation league.

I took:

Farseer.
5 Dire Avengers.
Falcon.

All upgraded to the limit. 465 points or something silly.

My opponent had 10 Grey Hunters, three Wolf Cavalry Wolf Rider Space Wolves, and a Wolf Lord.

He turn one charged my Falcon with his Wolf Riders and exploded it, after killing two of my Dire Avengers with boltgun fire (I was in cover, too).

My Farseer got off an apocalyptic blast (!!) psychic power that did... 1 wound. Which was saved.

I conceded. He was very apologetic, but quite honestly it was very funny.

**Bartali**

Insectum7 wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.

Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"

A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."

A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"

Right? Literally just had a version of this conversation last night.

1: How about a game?

2: Sure

1: Point's level?

2: 2000

1: Friendly list or competetive?

2: Mine's pretty friendly, only two Riptides.

1: Sweet. I'm gonna grab a burrito and put something together. (assembled CAD list without Grav-Cannons)

And a tight, challenging game was had.

master of ordinance wrote:

Pick up games are a very common thing in many places.

And it was a pick up game. Magic!

Didn't go so well for me around the time of Escalation in 6th ed. The majority of my club wanted to use Super Heavies, I didn't and was told 'You don't have to play'. So I didn't. Stopped playing pick up games and going to tournaments, GW spend dropped of significantly. Play once ever 3-4 months with a couple of friends now who similarly don't want to use Super Heavies or multiple formations/detachments.
As a side note, 40K play has dropped off significantly at the club now, most seem to be playing Bolt Action.

**Peregrine**

Wayniac wrote:
This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?

**Ankhalagon**

Formosa wrote:
Like I said, this is a problem with individual unit rules. The solution is to nerf Wraithknights, limit LoW to a 0-1 option (yes, including knights), etc, not to take those units out of the game entirely.

Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight.

So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.

These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.

Sure, of course LoW are going to beat an unprepared opponent. But at this point you have to ask why people are not prepared for LoW. They're part of the game, so you should expect to be able to deal with a single Baneblade or knight.

And a Stormsword isn't going to be deleting a whole platoon with one shot unless you bunch your models up into perfect template formation. Proper use of 2" spacing can significantly reduce the number of hits you take. And yeah, marines are going to feel some pain, but that should be expected when you're talking about a 450+ point unit designed to kill elite infantry.

Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.

It happened because "Apocalypse only" sucked. Apocalypse sucks, it's barely a game and almost never fun. So you either put everything into the standard game, or you don't make those things at all. Now that GW has made superheavies/flyers/etc those things are part of the game and they're not going anywhere.

in all fairness peregrine, thats just your opinion, i liked and still like apocalypse, but since i play 30k excusivly now, i cant really comment on how 40k at large is doing, but here is why i stopped playing 40k.

formations: anyone that knows me, knows i hate mechanics where you auto pass a roll of some sort, and i also hate "free" rules handed out for no particular reason aaaaand another thing i dislike is being confined and being forced to take XYZ in order to actually play the game effectivly, Formations add all this to greater and lesser degrees, so im not a fan of the horendibad formations and there ballance.

Power creep: 40k is a bleeding mess, worse than its ever been in my 27 years of playing on and off, 3rd had its issues, so did 4th, 5th and .... 6th... ergh, but its never been as bad as it is now, the difference between say orks and Tau, Eldar... and everyone else really, is so big it makes playing pick up games a real headache, i used to be able to rock up with an all comers army and get a fairly (not perfect) even game, now you almost have to tailor to beat certain armies, this is exacerbated by formations.

SSSSSSOOOOO MMMAAAANNNNNNYYY BOOOOOKKKSSS!!: jesus, back when 3rd had chapter approved, it still wasnt as bad as this, my mate the other day raised a good point, buy Blood angels codex, then all the supplements, formations etc. its gets stupid, add to this the much needed, in some cases DESPERATELY needed books that actually need updating (chaos, Orks, Tau, Eldar, SISTERS and more) to either fix the stupid ballance or just bring them in line, all the wasted time on supplements like traitors hate, for gods sake GW, stop wasting time, fix chaos, release sisters, nerf eldar, fix orks, nerf tau (slightly), nerf necrons (slightly) buff guard (slightly) i could go on.

Lords of war: this is plain slowed, how can a warhound be in the same catagory as Azrael, why are some armies allowed to take nothing but lords of war (eldar, Knights), its horrible for ballance and the game in general, add to that the utter stupidity of the points costs of these things, 30k at least did it kind of right, allow lords of war, but at 25% allowance of total points, this needs to be put into 40k if lords of war are staying.

i could go on, but the point is this, 40k is such a total mess right now i just dont want to play it, i get my GW fix from 30k, which may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better than the nonsense that is current 40k.

**Traditio**

Selym wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
fine as long as you're not trying to play it with someone who's a total melt.
Sadly, 40k seems to just attract (or possibly make) asshats. Personally, I have seen rather few players who weren't on the side of waac. And even fewer players who didn't just use marines all the time.

I feel like at least some of it is just ignorance. In most competitive games (clear loser, clear winner), the assumption is that there is sufficient balance to take all of the steps necessary to give yourself the best possible chances of victory.

This does not exist in Warhammer 40k.

Some people simply aren't aware of it.

Some only become aware of it after they've made extensive, expensive purchases.

And some are asshats.

But I honestly think that the asshats are likely in the minority.

**Wayniac**

Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?

I wrote out what I feel are my reasons for this in the AOS points thread, I'm combining them here and re-posting. For reference purposes "Type A" is a competitive player, "Type B" is a casual player. Also, if the paragraphs seem to run on, that's because this is three posts combined into one.
-----

Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents.

I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game.

Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively).

If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition [ADDENDUM: Especially if there is any sort of prize reward for the winner]), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures.

Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun.

Here's the other thing. How often does a Type A player get completely steamrolled and tabled? How often do they feel like they had absolutely little or no chance to win? Usually since Type A players are expecting the "filth" lists, they are usually prepared for it already (e.g. think to themselves before the event "How do I deal with X" where X is specific filth list) so I think it's pretty rare for a Type A player to just get completely crushed in a onesided game, and when it happens it's usually because they happened to get very unlucky and come up against the "perfect counter" to their own brand of cheese.

How how common is it for a Type B player to get absolutely steamrolled with little or no chance at resistance? Pretty common, I'd wager, doubly so against a Type A player. A Type B player goes into the game expecting a balanced, fun, enjoyable game. A Type A player goes in expecting a cutthroat game, which to them is often enjoyable and fun, but has completely different expectations out of it. Also very few Type A players want to just obliterate an opponent that has no chance against them (and the ones that do are often also the Donkey-caves), they want a cutthroat game but a hard fought one. Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army?

This is why I feel more of the responsibility has to be on the Type A player, because they often have less to lose. A crushing defeat for a highly competitive player is often not taken as badly (barring the occasional Type A Donkey-cave who is a sore loser and throws a tantrum), and typically just approached as something to watch out for (e.g. totally did not expect X Y and Z in that combination, but wow it was brutal, better keep it in mind for next time) but for a Type B player it's often completely demoralizing and soul-crushing because they aren't even in the same league; it's akin to a soapbox derby racer going against a NASCAR driver.
----

To give an anecdote from Warmachine, in a tournament a top of 2 assassination, while often uncommon, isn't seen as not having fun, it's seen as "Oh crap I wasn't aware of X/Should have done Y to counter it" type of learning experience. A top of 2 assassination in a casual game, while it is just as informative, is often less satisfying if it comes out of nowhere and can really hurt the other player's enjoyment of the game if they weren't expecting that sort of list. Thus a lot of even high-end Warmachine players if they're playing a more laid back game (as opposed to a tournament prep game) will not use those "killer combos" just because they know that their opponent isn't expecting it and wouldn't reliably be able to handle it; instead they try other tricks or just experiment with a "for fun" list (a common thing in Warmachine is to have your "tournament list" and your "for fun list"). I think we should expect the same sort of behavior from Warhammer players.

TL;DR
The competitive player has a specific type of venue for them to play competitively where they typically don't run into the casual players whilst the casual player doesn't and always has the chance to run into the competitive player. Also, the competitive player is less likely to "not have fun" if they get steamrolled by another competitive player, because both players are expecting the other to bring their A-game without hesitation, while a casual player's fun is basically crushed if they get steamrolled by a competitive player when they weren't expecting it. Therefore, IMHO the competitive player has more "responsibility" (note I am talking about regular games only, and possibly leagues/campaigns) because they can just go to a tournament if they want to play like-minded people, but a casual player has no "casuals only" event to do the same.

**Crablezworth**

Wayniac wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.

Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?

I wrote out what I feel are my reasons for this in the AOS points thread, I'm combining them here and re-posting. For reference purposes "Type A" is a competitive player, "Type B" is a casual player. Also, if the paragraphs seem to run on, that's because this is three posts combined into one.
-----

Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents.

I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game.

Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively).

If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition [ADDENDUM: Especially if there is any sort of prize reward for the winner]), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures.

Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun.

Here's the other thing. How often does a Type A player get completely steamrolled and tabled? How often do they feel like they had absolutely little or no chance to win? Usually since Type A players are expecting the "filth" lists, they are usually prepared for it already (e.g. think to themselves before the event "How do I deal with X" where X is specific filth list) so I think it's pretty rare for a Type A player to just get completely crushed in a onesided game, and when it happens it's usually because they happened to get very unlucky and come up against the "perfect counter" to their own brand of cheese.

How how common is it for a Type B player to get absolutely steamrolled with little or no chance at resistance? Pretty common, I'd wager, doubly so against a Type A player. A Type B player goes into the game expecting a balanced, fun, enjoyable game. A Type A player goes in expecting a cutthroat game, which to them is often enjoyable and fun, but has completely different expectations out of it. Also very few Type A players want to just obliterate an opponent that has no chance against them (and the ones that do are often also the Donkey-caves), they want a cutthroat game but a hard fought one. Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army?

This is why I feel more of the responsibility has to be on the Type A player, because they often have less to lose. A crushing defeat for a highly competitive player is often not taken as badly (barring the occasional Type A Donkey-cave who is a sore loser and throws a tantrum), and typically just approached as something to watch out for (e.g. totally did not expect X Y and Z in that combination, but wow it was brutal, better keep it in mind for next time) but for a Type B player it's often completely demoralizing and soul-crushing because they aren't even in the same league; it's akin to a soapbox derby racer going against a NASCAR driver.
----

To give an anecdote from Warmachine, in a tournament a top of 2 assassination, while often uncommon, isn't seen as not having fun, it's seen as "Oh crap I wasn't aware of X/Should have done Y to counter it" type of learning experience. A top of 2 assassination in a casual game, while it is just as informative, is often less satisfying if it comes out of nowhere and can really hurt the other player's enjoyment of the game if they weren't expecting that sort of list. Thus a lot of even high-end Warmachine players if they're playing a more laid back game (as opposed to a tournament prep game) will not use those "killer combos" just because they know that their opponent isn't expecting it and wouldn't reliably be able to handle it; instead they try other tricks or just experiment with a "for fun" list (a common thing in Warmachine is to have your "tournament list" and your "for fun list"). I think we should expect the same sort of behavior from Warhammer players.

TL;DR
The competitive player has a specific type of venue for them to play competitively where they typically don't run into the casual players whilst the casual player doesn't and always has the chance to run into the competitive player. Also, the competitive player is less likely to "not have fun" if they get steamrolled by another competitive player, because both players are expecting the other to bring their A-game without hesitation, while a casual player's fun is basically crushed if they get steamrolled by a competitive player when they weren't expecting it. Therefore, IMHO the competitive player has more "responsibility" (note I am talking about regular games only, and possibly leagues/campaigns) because they can just go to a tournament if they want to play like-minded people, but a casual player has no "casuals only" event to do the same.

Most people I've played are type a, won't admit it to themselves and drape themselves accordingly as type b social camouflage or "casual" social camouflage.

**Warzoner**

The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.

You want an advice ? Play 30k.

**Martel732**

Warzoner wrote:
The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.

You want an advice ? Play 30k.

You can play them against BA.

**Insectum7**

Warzoner wrote:
The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.

You want an advice ? Play 30k.

Oh sure, and I thought 40K was too obsessed with marines and had expensive books. . .

**SagesStone**

Martel732 wrote:
Warzoner wrote:
The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.

You want an advice ? Play 30k.

You can play them against BA.

I actually watched BA dominate some CSM yesterday, which was a nice change. Kind of sad after the days in 5th where the sanguinor seemed like this kind of scary thing along with the fast predators and such.

**Grimgold**

Honestly as others have suggested, limiting composition by points value seems to give us the best of both worlds. you just base what can be taken and what rules are used on the point total, kind of like AoS. If formations are still around they have a minimum point requirement, and perhaps certain armies get optional rules at certain point values.

**Gen.Steiner**

Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

**Wayniac**

Gen.Steiner wrote:
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?

**Gen.Steiner**

Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?

Two words:

Tough. gak.

**Wayniac**

Gen.Steiner wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?

Two words:

Tough. gak.

I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.

**Fenrir Kitsune**

Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?

Two words:

Tough. gak.

I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.

Isn't the health of the game dependent on the happiness of the players?

**Lord Kragan**

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Gen.Steiner wrote:
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.

Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?

Two words:

Tough. gak.

I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.

Isn't the health of the game dependent on the happiness of the players?

Apparently AoS was hated by anyone during the change and its doing better than fantasy in the prior years.

**Wayniac**

@Fenrir Kitsune Yes, but to a point. Sometimes you have to risk pissing off the players to actually fix the game longterm, not just short-term goals.

Again, I'll give a Warmachine example (sorry, it's what I mainly played the last year or so). They recently did a new edition, some people weren't happy with the changes, I totally get that, but the overall game needed improvements so the changes were for the best.

if GW were to put limits back on things, I have no doubt a lot of people would be unhappy and complain. But if that decision made the game more playable, had more people join, and overall provided better balance would it not be worth it? I say yes.

So to answer your question bluntly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). The game would benefit from more restrictions and balancing; if that means that people who bought 3 Imperial Knights or 3 Wraithknights or whatever can't use it all the time, then it sucks but it would make the game better overall.

**Vaktathi**

It also not like edition or codex changes havent made certain models or collections redundant before....many times.

**Verviedi**

Do something like I do with Riptides, and was done with fleet restrictions in BFG.
"You may take 1 of these units per X points. Points spent on these units do not count towards this total."

**Wayniac**

Verviedi wrote:
Do something like I do with Riptides, and was done with fleet restrictions in BFG.
"You may take 1 of these units per X points. Points spent on these units do not count towards this total."

You know I like that idea. I think that's how a lot of things should go, actually. Still limits them, but doesn't outright ban then because hey I mean Riptides look freaking amazing; I'd field one if I played Tau (likely ONLY one though).

**Crablezworth**

If they could hand 40k over to the people responsible for 30k I think the game would improve a lot. The one thing I constantly notice in 30k is there is often a downside for every advantage and there are plenty of checks and balances to keep armies from completely falling off the deep end on the power scale.