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.

I will preface that this post is not a response to gameplay, but more to reading tourney results online.

Every time I see "the new hot sauce" competitive list, it's always hinging on some ridiculous combo that grants units 2++ / rerollable 2++s, ignore cover shooting, crazy twin linking, etc. Sometimes these lists use mechanics from one army, but more often that not we see them abusing mechanics from two codices.

I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

Games that are won at the list are games that are more profitable to GW.

This is a direction that everyone should have expected since the very beginning of 6th edition. It's also one of the major reasons I got out of the game shortly after 6th edition hit.

Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

 Ailaros wrote:
Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

I have no problem with people pushing the limits of the game to design the most competitive lists possible. I just wish that the most competitive armies didn't rely on abusing mechanics from separate codices to create deathstars that are nigh invulnerable and blow away pretty much everything except other nigh unkillable deathstars.

My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Welcome to 6th edition. Allies made a mockery of game balance when they came out, and they've made more of a mockery of game balance as new codices come out.

As for people taking the new "hot combo", welcome to the tournament scene. The only acceptable amount of mental effort you can put into 40k is the kind that builds list that require the least amount of player skill to win games with.

I've found it's best for your mental health if you ignore the small group of people who play a dice game on easy mode and then think that winning means anything.

I have no problem with people pushing the limits of the game to design the most competitive lists possible. I just wish that the most competitive armies didn't rely on abusing mechanics from separate codices to create deathstars that are nigh invulnerable and blow away pretty much everything except other nigh unkillable deathstars.

My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

In my own opinion it's still better then dealing with 5th's near invincible vehicles.

No, is the short answer. In point of fact, quite the opposite. I wish there were less people digging their heels in and refusing to adapt to a changing game system. We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Games Workshop has altered the rules to the game in order to allow players to pick up new armies without breaking the bank. For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

What's more, I believe that one of the greatest aspects of 40k is the ability to combine units and characters in ways that other people have overlooked/dismissed/not thought of. Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I can certainly commiserate with your specific example of the humongous deathstar, however. When everyone does the same thing though, it means that once you find the effective strategy to use against it, it will be effective against many of the variants of that strategy.

I hope your games improve, though, and I hope this helped.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

Yes. Yes we are.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Well, but the problem IS the people. There would be nothing wrong with an abusable system if nobody ever chose to abuse the system. Furthermore, abusers are always going to be more clever than designers.

I mean, it's the fundamental paradox that exists with the rule of law. Laws are only written for people who break them.

Jimsolo wrote:We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

Plus, I'd note that will better is always different, different is not always better.

Jimsolo wrote:For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

Jimsolo wrote:Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I wish this were true. Alas, in reality it's pretty much the internet figuring out the combos immediately and then telling everyone else about them, and then everyone spamming them.

Perhaps the first taudar player a few weeks ago felt like a clever little snowflake figuring out something that no one else had yet, but that feeling must have been ruined pretty quickly by the internet.

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

 Ailaros wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:We all knew that 40k was a cyclical, evolving game when we got into it (or shortly after getting into it, surely). What that means is that our tactics have to change as the game itself changes.

Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

Of course not. But I DO think that the game studio considered the rules carefully enough to spot and correct the most severe 'adverse codex interactions' (to coin a phrase) that the new Eldar codex would have with the codexes it could ally with.

Jimsolo wrote:For many armies, there are useful combinations of a single HQ/troop choice, meaning the purchase of one unit (and an HQ) is all that is required to buy the beginnings of your new army AND play with it. It astounds me that anyone in the community can think this is a bad thing, especially compared to the horrors of yesteryear when you had to save up a small fortune and invest in a new army all at once if you wanted to be able to play with them.

Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

Well, I've never seen any real interest in low points games. When I started getting into 40k, all I ever heard was a lot of "oh well, we're really looking for a real game." I had to spend quite a bit of scratch to get an army large enough to play most opponents, and more still to get an army large enough to field a variety of competitive units.

Jimsolo wrote:Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I wish this were true. Alas, in reality it's pretty much the internet figuring out the combos immediately and then telling everyone else about them, and then everyone spamming them.

Perhaps the first taudar player a few weeks ago felt like a clever little snowflake figuring out something that no one else had yet, but that feeling must have been ruined pretty quickly by the internet.

See, I just can't agree with you. 40k isn't WoW. There's more than one right way to play a given army. While some of the popular lists are certainly useful (usually because they are easy to learn, see my lecture repeated ad nauseum elsewhere for details) they are also easy to defeat because you get so much practice fighting them. However, I agree that the majority of combo players only seek out the "most effective" list they can off the internet. And to repeat my original opinion: I wish more people were combo players. Specifically, I wish more people were seeking invention and innovation. The flaw you point out here isn't with the system, it's with the players. Assuming you think it's a flaw. (And while on the balance I'd have to agree with you, that's a whole different kettle of fish with deeply entrenched opinions on both sides.)

I think some people get a little blinded on this issue. I notice a lot of anti Games Workshop rhetoric here that seems to be the same thing over and over, and I think that it's all too easy for people to be so passionate about their (sometimes completely justified!) negative feelings for Games Workshop that they let their personal bias cloud their vision. In the case of allies, I think it leads people to ascribe malicious intent where none exists. I think that one of the things that makes Games Workshop one of the best games companies is that it balances both sides of that equation, the game and the company. Sure, sometimes they make decisions that are motivated more strongly by profit (because if you want to keep making your game, you kind of have to stay in business) but they also make plenty of decisions to produce a quality game, one that has improved greatly from its original form, and continues to improve.

In any event, I just wanted to take a second to take up a 'pro-allies' stance. (Some days I feel like the Lorax. I speak for Mat Ward, because Mat Ward has no voice. ) I understand that there's some strong feelings against it, and that I'm unlikely to change them. I'm just trying to make a reasonable case for people who are on the fence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

Well that hardly fits the bill of "effective one-two punch your opponent doesn't see coming." It's pretty obvious isn't it?

Oh, wait, I see what you did there. That's sarcasm! Aw! Ohhhhh snap!

Clever you.

Meh.

There has always been powerful units/combos/lists/builds/build types.

And then there has always been gakky players who whine about it and try to condescend tournament players because they themselves can't figure out a way to beat them.


What I do agree with, is that 6th seems to have brought with it a bunch of crap that's just frustrating to play against. And by that, I mean having to use seriously unconventional tactics instead of just "i shoot my tactical squad into your screamerstar, what, no kills? you're playing 40k on easymode, herpaderpderp."

I don't play with allies--my armies tend to have little room to fit them in because I'm detrimentally addicted to expensive toy soldiers and buy way too much for any given army project. However I rather like their inclusion--yes it I think it does horrible things to the tournament scene, yes I really hate what -that guy- (and boy does my FLGS have one!) does with the system. But for every WAAC copypasta Taudar list there is out there I bet there's three casual IG/Ork lists out there finally fulfilling Little Timmy's dream of having a Deff Dread march alongside his poor bloody infantry.

The tournament scene is a big part of 40k--don't get me wrong--but I don't remember hearing about Mat Ward, Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, or Jeremy Vetock playing in any tournaments recently (not that I've actually done a comprehensive search on the matter). Thus, I'm inclined to believe that the rules aren't written with a tournament setting in mind. It sucks that WAAC lists can drain the fun out of a game, but I would rather have a system for weird, fun combos that is abuseable, rather than a system without those zany combos. However, a non-abuseable system with wacky combos is preferred above either, naturally.

You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

40k has never been written with the competitive player in mind. Let alone the competitive tourney scene.

GW's game design is a haphazard affair and any perceived imbalance is a result of this piss poor effort at game design and coordination.

Remember GW do not care a jot of balance, they do not think it has a place in a 'fun and fluffy' game system.

I don't really see the problem if you're just playing socially. If you want to compete at a game which isn't designed to be competitive, then I don't have much sympathy.

they don't care much at all about the game. it's really only there to sell all the books and so that the sales people have something to sell you on if you're new to the hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

this sums it up.

People have been twisting the Codexes for every army since 2nd edition, where Wolf Guard in Termi armor had assault cannons AND missile launchers, because the codex didn't expressly permit that. So in tournaments people spammed the hell out of them.

It'll happen all the time. Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards, so that everything can buff or change how other things work, because of all the crazy rules and skills GW gave to units to affect other units. And while it used to be that a unit wasn't too bad affecting other units inside that army's own codex, now you have Eldar casting buffs on Blood Angels, etc.

I remember the old days when all you could like that was with specific psychic powers, and standard bearers.

Armies have no soul of their own on the board now, as they are all amalgamations of different armies/races just purely for the buffs they provide.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
People have been twisting the Codexes for every army since 2nd edition, where Wolf Guard in Termi armor had assault cannons AND missile launchers, because the codex didn't expressly permit that. So in tournaments people spammed the hell out of them.

It'll happen all the time. Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards, so that everything can buff or change how other things work, because of all the crazy rules and skills GW gave to units to affect other units. And while it used to be that a unit wasn't too bad affecting other units inside that army's own codex, now you have Eldar casting buffs on Blood Angels, etc.

I remember the old days when all you could like that was with specific psychic powers, and standard bearers.

Armies have no soul of their own on the board now, as they are all amalgamations of different armies/races just purely for the buffs they provide.

The CML and assault cannon wasn't so bad.

It was that you could alpha strike out all sixteen missiles in one turn and the *entire* squad could be outfitted like that which made it terrible.

The CML and assault cannon wasn't so bad.

It was that you could alpha strike out all sixteen missiles in one turn and the *entire* squad could be outfitted like that which made it terrible.

True. Luckily I have only ever played with a couple of other gamers who have the instincts and control to look at a codex entry like that and think, "Hmmm....I think that was an oversight. There is no way they meant for that to be possible, and still be fun."

Unfortunately, I think that mass of 40K players now are the types of gamers where nothing is sacred when you are trying to win, and GW making all these crazy combos possible, whether intentionally or through lack of oversight, and then having them change allies (I think back in older editions allies' abilities could only affect other units chosen from that allies own codex, right?) just encourages the wrong lines of thinking.

Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

But yeah, the codex crackers have been at the whole mathhammer game for years. I played a 500 point tourney in 2nd Edition where a guy brought a Chaos Lord with every mark who killed six of my genestealers in one turn of hand to hand combat. When you realize how ludicrously impossible that was with 2nd Edition hand to hand rules, yeah, mathhammer. It is what it is.

Of course, I rarely play the game, and when I do, it's with my friends, and not the stinky kids with a bunch of those new gundam models and a netlist. So I can empathize with the people who are facing the latest in 6th Edition ridiculousness.

I think it's definitely the universe that carries the game, rather then any merits of the game. Otherwise there wouldn't be video games and the entirety of Black Library. I think people really just like the depth of the universe of Warhammer and 40K, and if GW gives them easy ways to slaughter opponents, even if it's through horrible min-maxing and game balance, they figure "so be it".

I mean, my gaming group wanted me to run a tabletop RPG, and I was going to run it in the Warhammer World, just with non-FFG game rules. I just love the atmosphere.

I thought about playing it Call of Cthulu style. The players investigate weird things, then the slowest ones get eaten by them.

Anything else doesn't feel very 40Kish. I mean, I guess you could play Deathwatch, and roll dice for a few hours and decide who killed the most things. Or Black Crusade and be a complete sociopath (instead of a minor sociopath like Deathwatch). Or whatever the heck is going on in Only War.

People know how to break rules.... its a fact.... they play to win because they have some childish need to "be ahead"... one guy at my FLGS runs a space wolf list, 1750 of pure through and through thunderhammers, and power weapons.... put those bad boys in drop pods.... nobody has fun! Nobody plays with him as a result.

I can understand having a stacked combine list like that for a tournament, where you aren't necessarily playing for fun,which is what we are talking about, but still those broken combos probably shouldn't exist to begin with

I miss old cultists...

Personally, I would like a world where the new edition rules were accompanied by all the current codecies (SM fall into one massive category like they are currently with the new Dex) being redone simultaneously...

My only problem with this game is the simple fact that the newer codecies will also trump the ones that came before.. Its just GWs way of trying to pigeon hole people into buying multiple armies, if not ALL the armies so that people have the means to constantly play the 1 army at the time that is superior to all others due to some broken mechanic / exploit.

GoliothOnline wrote:

My only problem with this game is the simple fact that the newer codecies will also trump the ones that came before..

Really? Tell that to the Necrons. It took three new codex releases before we got a codex in 6E that could match the 'Crons: Tau. 6E CSM, Dark Angels and Daemons sure as hell weren't doing it.

6th Edition is largely fine- and it's certainly better than Metal Bawxes-Hammer that was 5th. 6th's biggest problems are MEQ getting crapped on by everything, assault getting crapped on by everything, and allies. But as far as actual balance quality, it really isn't all that terrible, imo.

I agree with BlaxicanX, the new rules are very fair.


it isn't an issue of balance at all, it's an issue of who knows how to work the rules. It's becoming more of a WM style game now with older codices being used with new rules. some old codices are just broken as hell with new rules, and are incredibly OP. once all the new books come out our hobby will be as perfect as it can get....once all the FAQ's are released

I actually quite like combos as long as they make it awesome. Examples such as Calgar, Lysander, Beliel and a DA Techmarine with the forcefield thing attached to a full unit of Deathwing TH Termies with the forcefield, vs a full squad of decked out paladins led by Mordrak, Draigo, Stern and GM with cheesegrenades, everybody having Hammers and 5 Psycannons, everything Mastercrafted with every upgrade and Banners and whatever else, clashing right in the middle of a huge 5000pts (not Apoc) game. The destruction was massive and ended with Beliel and Draigo, but it was Calgar and Lysander who did most of the heavy lifting actually, with Calgar being able to pass all the tests and Lysander giving the unit Stubborn and Calgar being able to let more Termies deep strike in. It was fantastic.

People must be forgetting how IG and SM variants fully dominated 5th. The combo back then was just massive amounts of mech, which most Xenos lists couldn't hope to handle (until broken Crons). "Competitive" players will always be trying to keep up, especially when there are imbalances between different armies. But, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and Crons are all fairly balanced against one another. It is problematic that only 4 codices are competitive, but I'd argue that 5th wasn't any better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I prefer the combos you can create with allies. There are a ton of good ones. It's just that people emulate the ones that make the most noise.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

I'm really struggling to find any sympathy for the whiners on this one. If somehow you thought 5th edition was balanced and competitive, then you clearly weren't playing at GTs (or more aptly GKs). But if that's the case, then you aren't playing GTs now, so TauDar shouldn't be an issue.

However if you never played GTs before (or WAAC games) and you are now, and you can't put it together that venue/game type is the issue... well your opinion is kinda worthless.

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

I play mainly straight CSM or straight SM. I love 6th. I'm thrilled xenos have some teeth again. The ally matrix is awesome for people starting new armies and for keeping the game fresh. If your own anecdotal losses keep you from seeing the big picture, that your failing, not the edition's. If youre entering tourneys and getting stomped... Welcome to GW tourneys, they haven't fundementally changed. It's been cheese since 2nd edition and its always been build the best easy button at the top (though I will note that plenty of regional tournaments and smaller GTs have seen non top tier lists do very well and even win).

If your not in tourney play, sit down and work out some league or club rules to blunt WAAC lists. If you can't, then most the people you game with must disagree with you and I'd say your issue is with them and again, not the edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Typed from iPhone riding in car, pardon mistakes