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.

Erp - the post above mine rubs me the wrong way.

Anyone who thinks that "Spammy != fluffy" as a universal truth should go read any military history book ever. Logistics NECESSITATE armies that are relatively spammy.

There aren't any posts above yours

I didn't say Spammy=Fluffy nor did I say that spammy armies can't be fluffy. I was agreeing with Laughing Gods previous statement that there are quite a few Competitive lists that in my opinion most people have just copied off other people, that get very repetitive and boring i.e Leaf blower Guard, Draigo Wing, Purifier spam. were as I think green tide orks are very cool as well as blobbed guard. And If I didn't see Leafblower guard everywhere I'd think that they were really cool(also If I saw some that were painted to a better standeds and didn't look like they'd been spray painted just in time for that tournament on the weekend). To get at the point I'm tired of seeing the same old competitive lists used to death by players out their. I realise blob guard and green tide orks are also played by alot of people, but in my area and with the group I play with, I don't seem them very much, and those that I do see usually have lots of little differences that are sufficient IMHO to make them stand apart from eachother.

And don't worry I've read quite a few military history books, I'm wanting to eventually become a university proffessor on history, specialising in Prussian History, which I think most people who know anything about Prussians would realise that understanding Military is quite integral to understanding Prussian history.

Edit - I probably should have quoted the lines I agree with.

Laughing God wrote:I think some people are misunderstanding me here on exactly what I'm complaining about. I don’t have a problem with people brining multiples of the same unit to a game. The point has been made already several times that in some lists it just makes sense (IG lots of artillery or infantry, Deathwing lots of Termies, ect, ect,). If the fluff and the idea of the armie makes sense to have those units then so be it.

captainliger wrote:I agree with Laughing God on this one,

captainliger wrote:There aren't any posts above yours

I didn't say Spammy=Fluffy nor did I say that spammy armies can't be fluffy. I was agreeing with Laughing Gods previous statement that there are quite a few Competitive lists that in my opinion most people have just copied off other people, that get very repetitive and boring i.e Leaf blower Guard, Draigo Wing, Purifier spam. were as I think green tide orks are very cool as well as blobbed guard.

Ok, I understand now. Sorries - I did overreact. Perhaps I hit the pub too hard earlier. But at any rate - I quoted the lines that stuck out to me above, just to explain my side of the misunderstanding.

EDIT: The last part, where you say what is boring vs what is not boring is what confused me. That and I misread laughing god entirely.

I think there's a missing distinction between when spamming is necessary, and when it's just obnoxious. If you field two or three tactical squads of Codex Marines, I don't think anyone's going to bother you overly much. It's a troop choice. Bodies on the field. You're supposed to have a lot of them, that's the entire point. Same with the IG, or green-tide Orks. The entire POINT is that there's a lot of them. It's all nice and dandy to say you hate when people spam units, but when he's playing foot-guard, how the hell is he supposed to hold objectives without a ton of guardsmen?

But then you get the Purifier-spamming GK guys, and things start to get ANNOYING. Not that I have any right to speak, considering my non-existent battle-field experience. Just my two cents. What may be perfectly acceptable to one guy is annoying spam to another.

So yeah. Very subjective topic, with a lot of potential to be sensitive.

TermiesInARaider wrote:I think there's a missing distinction between when spamming is necessary, and when it's just obnoxious. If you field two or three tactical squads of Codex Marines, I don't think anyone's going to bother you overly much. It's a troop choice. Bodies on the field. You're supposed to have a lot of them, that's the entire point. Same with the IG, or green-tide Orks. The entire POINT is that there's a lot of them. It's all nice and dandy to say you hate when people spam units, but when he's playing foot-guard, how the hell is he supposed to hold objectives without a ton of guardsmen?

But then you get the Purifier-spamming GK guys, and things start to get ANNOYING. Not that I have any right to speak, considering my non-existent battle-field experience. Just my two cents. What may be perfectly acceptable to one guy is annoying spam to another.

So yeah. Very subjective topic, with a lot of potential to be sensitive.

I understand this, but I think the line is more with the number of players rather than what each player plays.

For example, seeing an entire army of purifiers in a vacuum is fine by me, I'm sure that the GKs feel the need to deploy them as an entire Grand Company sooner or later. Hell, I'd be privileged to think that my lowly Armored Regiment deserves such... special ...attentions.

Seeing 100 entire armies of purifiers is bad, admittedly. But that isn't any one player's fault - so I don't blame anyone, except perhaps the codex.

All good Unit1126PLL Its pretty late over here so I'm sure my post was ridden with gramar errors and what not that made it confusing. and I really should start quoting.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

TermiesInARaider wrote:I think there's a missing distinction between when spamming is necessary, and when it's just obnoxious. If you field two or three tactical squads of Codex Marines, I don't think anyone's going to bother you overly much. It's a troop choice. Bodies on the field. You're supposed to have a lot of them, that's the entire point. Same with the IG, or green-tide Orks. The entire POINT is that there's a lot of them. It's all nice and dandy to say you hate when people spam units, but when he's playing foot-guard, how the hell is he supposed to hold objectives without a ton of guardsmen?

But then you get the Purifier-spamming GK guys, and things start to get ANNOYING. Not that I have any right to speak, considering my non-existent battle-field experience. Just my two cents. What may be perfectly acceptable to one guy is annoying spam to another.

So yeah. Very subjective topic, with a lot of potential to be sensitive.

I understand this, but I think the line is more with the number of players rather than what each player plays.

For example, seeing an entire army of purifiers in a vacuum is fine by me, I'm sure that the GKs feel the need to deploy them as an entire Grand Company sooner or later. Hell, I'd be privileged to think that my lowly Armored Regiment deserves such... special ...attentions.

Seeing 100 entire armies of purifiers is bad, admittedly. But that isn't any one player's fault - so I don't blame anyone, except perhaps the codex.

That hit it on the head right there. If straight-Purifier lists where something people did the same way they do triple-Landraider lists, for the awesome, this wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is, since, for whatever reason it may be, this is all the rage among the TAC crowds.

Ultimately, I see an easy, if slightly distasteful, approach to deal. When you play with friends, play what you like. Play for fun. Tourneys, apparently, are SERIOUS ING BUSINESS. Is that a good thing? Probably not. Does it lead to the whole TFG-syndrome? Quite possibly. Is that the way things are at the moment, and the way it seems they'll stay for at least a while? Sadly, it looks like it.

I think that it's actually not really about spamming but about experimenting.

In a friendly (non-tournament) setting, I can understand that it's annoying if your opponent plays maximized netlists and never tries out anything on her own.

I play both to have fun and to win. Part of that is to try out new stuff. Some of that could be spammy, some of it could not be. I think there's a difference between playing the same Purifier list every time or playing it every now and then and stirring it up a bit to see what else works...

Just as an example, my CSM-playing "friend" used to always play Khorne, for years. He then decided to play each other chaos god once, just to try it out. Of course, he spammed e.g. Thousand Sons, but it was great fun for us both to try something new...

I agree with the OP's statement but this is because of my experience at my club.

I agree with it to be sometime boring to play against spammy lists, and I have a confession I play BW rush list and can I just say I hate it, mainly because it was fun the first few times but it got boring but here is the trouble of spamming sometimes it can be fluffy such as the oh so dreaded "Venomspam" list that is fluffy and competitive so its hard to build an argument up against spamming.

Although I understand where the Op is coming through though because I have the same problem at my LGS, mainly because I like fluffy battles such as playing battle missions planetstrike, death word missions, etc... but my club like to play "by the book" (as in will only play deployment types in the rulebook or tournament missions and tournament deployment types), this fustartes me to no end, because while I agree its important to get practice in for it, but not 6 months before the actual tourney, and while there will be someone at my club who will play me with fluffy battles I like my variety of army's in my games, hence I shall agree with the OP on spammy/cheesy lists, some people just want to play for fun and to actually think for a moment that they are in the 41st millennium (like me ), not playing just a big game of numbers...

Another point though.
Sometimes you cant avoid spam in an army.

Take nids for example.
Elite choices: Lictor, leaper, ymgarl, thrope, doom, guard, venoms, pyros.

So, i see 2 clear cut choices there for an army that lacks anti-tank.
1 being better than the other (IMO) so im going to be running 2x3 guards and 1x3 thropes.

This really is a case of picking the only decent options available, rather than spamming them.

Same as oblits for chaos really.
Alot of the other options arent up to par to compete with them.

There is a difference between a non-competative army, and one that will lose no matter what you play against.

Competative, standard, sub-par: my view of list strength.

Jackal wrote:Another point though.
Sometimes you cant avoid spam in an army.

Take nids for example.
Elite choices: Lictor, leaper, ymgarl, thrope, doom, guard, venoms, pyros.

So, i see 2 clear cut choices there for an army that lacks anti-tank.
1 being better than the other (IMO) so im going to be running 2x3 guards and 1x3 thropes.

My first army is 'nids, and as they are definately one of the "horde" armies you have to be a bit more flexible on the whole "spam" label. Running 2x3 guards and 1x3 thrope is definately not spam, as the rest of your FOC would be made up of other units (as you cant have guards or thropes as troops or heavy support choices).

Maybe if you were running 3x3 thropes it would be borderline, but again I feel even then the list would be varied as your troops and HQ and all the rest would be totally different units. Unlike say a space marine list with 6 dreadnoughts, 3 elite and 3 heavy support, which I would say is very spammy.

This is all very subjective though. I would never run a 6-dreadnought grey knight list (even if it is supposed to be uber-competitive), cos i'd consider it exploitative.
I probably *would* run a 3x3 'thrope Tyranid list though, cos I do love my 'thropes! I only own 3 though so...

Niiru wrote:
My first army is 'nids, and as they are definately one of the "horde" armies you have to be a bit more flexible on the whole "spam" label. Running 2x3 guards and 1x3 thrope is definately not spam, as the rest of your FOC would be made up of other units (as you cant have guards or thropes as troops or heavy support choices).

Maybe if you were running 3x3 thropes it would be borderline, but again I feel even then the list would be varied as your troops and HQ and all the rest would be totally different units. Unlike say a space marine list with 6 dreadnoughts, 3 elite and 3 heavy support, which I would say is very spammy.

This is all very subjective though. I would never run a 6-dreadnought grey knight list (even if it is supposed to be uber-competitive), cos i'd consider it exploitative.
I probably *would* run a 3x3 'thrope Tyranid list though, cos I do love my 'thropes! I only own 3 though so...

Again, the spam all comes down to context and how it's implimented. Your 6 dreadnoughts for example could be;
a) The SM player is playing their Iron Hands or similar army. They have those 6 dreads sure, but they've included multiple armaments on them, for example a plasma cannon/storm bolter on one, then an assault cannon/heavy flamer on another, followed by a twin-lascannon/missile launcher, etc... Perhaps only a couple are duplicate loadouts.
While there's 6 dreads, it's not spamed in an obnoxious sense because each dread is pretty much an individual as befits the background.

b) The SM player plonks down 4x double autocannon + 2x asscan/heavy flamer. It's quite clear the intention is to simply put down as many maximised, pts-efficient duplicates as possible in order to have a better shot at simply winning the game.
It's highly obnoxious becuase there's little thought processess going on, and it even looks bland to see all those clones across the table. The psyflemen variety are even worse, simply because of the OTT cheap upgrade that turns those autocannons into the equivilant of an ap4 krak missile that gets 4 twin-linked shots! Now making that gun a clear 'no-brainer' option that can tag any vehicle in the game to some extent!


I think it really comes down to asking, "is this spam for coolness/background, or is this just spaming for the win?"

My Daemons army for example is a heavy Tzeentch theme list. I'll run 4 Heralds of Tzeentch, so yes, I'm most definately spaming them! But I'll only have 2 with the tried & tested Bolt/MoS/Legion build, one will be on a chariot w/Icon and the other flits about on his disc.
I also run 4 squads of Horrors, but 1 is 18 w/changeling follwed by 3x9 w/Bolt. I spam Horrors, but I've purposely avoided the more obnoxious & pts-efficient route of 5-6 Horrors w/Bolt.

Hope some of that rambling made sense?!

Experiment 626 wrote:Again, the spam all comes down to context and how it's implimented. Your 6 dreadnoughts for example could be;
a) The SM player is playing their Iron Hands or similar army. They have those 6 dreads sure, but they've included multiple armaments on them, for example a plasma cannon/storm bolter on one, then an assault cannon/heavy flamer on another, followed by a twin-lascannon/missile launcher, etc... Perhaps only a couple are duplicate loadouts.
While there's 6 dreads, it's not spamed in an obnoxious sense because each dread is pretty much an individual as befits the background.

b) The SM player plonks down 4x double autocannon + 2x asscan/heavy flamer. It's quite clear the intention is to simply put down as many maximised, pts-efficient duplicates as possible in order to have a better shot at simply winning the game.

Oh yeh, this totally makes sense to me. My 6x dread example was drawn from my Grey Knights army, where people (who shall remain nameless) keep saying that I should crowbar in as many "psyrifleman" dreads into my lists as possible, to make up for my armys lack of long-ranged firepower...
Which does make sense. but I find the idea of fielding 3 (or 6) identical dreads in a list to be unimagintive at best.
In fact I generally avoid putting any dreadnoughts in at all, which is probably why my lists always lack long range AT weaponry. Psydreads may be the GKs only decent long-range option, but personally I'd prefer to try the conversion beamer :p

However, having an army of 6 dreads, each outfitted differently and filling a different role (couple furiosos for CC maybe, with a couple with meltas for AT and a couple more with anti-infantry firepower) would definatly not be a "spammed" list, as theres more strategy involved than simply throwing dice at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Laughing God wrote:I have been playing since third edition. I can't help but notice over the past year maybe year and a half local gaming groups and tournaments have all fallen into these disgustingly boring and monotonous lists of just throwing 3 or 6 of the same unit into a list. There is no fluff, no originality, no creativity, just the desperate attempt to win a table top war game. Now in a tournament I understand the sentiment to use what works and destroy, but I'm starting to see this trend more and more in casual pickup games and it just makes me worry about the future of this game and the type of people playing it. Lists like GK all Purifier and DE million venom warrior blaster spam infuriate me to no end anymore out of how boring it is to play. Most biased competitive players on here I'm sure are going to chime in because they play these lists with "The point of the game is winning" my response is simple... no the point is not winning.... it’s to have fun. Tournaments excluded. To the point... is spam hammer killing the fun of the game for anyone else?

As always: Good beer, Pretzels, and warhammer... that is what is best in life. get back to the root of the game people

I find it amusing the you're complaining about how the game has devolved into a stale meta with "disgustedly boring and monotonous" lists "in the last year"...

With all due respect mate, thats what 40k had ALWAYS been about. I remember third when armies came in 2 types - you either had "rhino rush" armies, or "shoot the rhino rush" armies. Do you remember 4th? when skimmer-less transports never saw the table top? every SM army was a 6X6man las/plas army that camped in its deployment zone. or when every tau/eldar army was based on "skimmerspam". that is, if you were lucky enough to see an army that wasnt the 3x3obliterator, basilisk, 3 hankhunting autocannon havok squads, daemon prince, nike lord and 2X5man infiltrating CSM squad Iron Warriors doom list.

fifth ed? tankhammer. its the same. GW dont improve their games. they're not interested in making them "better". they're only interested in "changing" them.

Another thing that bothers me in your post. the "what the game is all about" comment. good beer, pretzels and warhammer. Now, fair enough. i like all 3 of those things. but that is only what the game is to some people. With all due respect, i hate it when people tell me how i "should" play, or "this is how it SHOULD be done". Who are you (or anyone) to tell me? Its my money, my time, and my bloodsweattears that are going into all the painting, custom jobs, conversions etc and making my army mine. Its "my game" too. Spam doesnt ruin the game. Spam is merely a product of how GW design their games. its the end result of a monolithic, and ancient fossil of gaming mechanisms. Its because of GeeDubs horrid lack of consstency, and lack of internal/external balance. Only some things are worth it. Now if you're the guy whose bought a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and you end up in a random game with me, and my fully converted, themed and fluffy Harakoni Warhawk 531st Elite Airborne Wing (aka leafblower, vendetta + plasma veteran spam) there are gonna be issues. Is it my fault? No. its not. again, this is my army. my time, effort and money has gone into it. I've got as much a right to play it and be proud of it. you cant tell me that "im doing it wrong" because who are you to say what is right? Same with the other guy. he might be casual tim who just wants to roll a bunch 'o' dice. his approach is as valid as my own. Its his game too.

Sadly enough, the "im bored of this game" that you're essentially saying is a feature of 40k and has always been that way. For me, the golden time of 40k was the start of 4th when i started playing properly. the game had been shaken up and people were still figuring things out. no one really knew what the optimum way to play was, so every game felt new and exciting. But once things got figured out, the meta solidified, and it got stale, and boring. then again, others will say that 3rd was golden, or 5th. but the meta is always cracked. and things always get boring. bloody hell man, 5th has been around for what? 4 years? 5 years? its old, and tired. sadly, people are looking forward to 6th to shake up the meta. I hope it does. I really do. I want to see a game that isnt just different. i want something "better", where multiple builds are reliable, and competitive. ironically enough though, it will take one hell of a game to take me away from Warmachine/Hordes which to me, is all of those things. ironically. thats where it is. there is no "the list" syndrome in warmachine/hordes/ everything can be built into an effective, winning strategy. and spam wont generally work.

Maybe its just 40k thats getting to you. think of taking a break. I burned out at the end of 4th, and walked away from the game for the best part of 2 years. maybe think about other games. variety is the spice of life. Dont think you have to be confined to just GeeDub games either. mix things up. It might give that spark back to your table top gaming. malifaux. infinity. warmachine. dystopian wars. flames of war. heck, look at some OOP games like starship troopers (what CHambers had intended 4th ed to be. in many ways, its the most underrated game system i've come across. its like firefly. it could have been brilliant. ). maybe those things wil do it for you?

Deadnight wrote:

Laughing God wrote:I have been playing since third edition. I can't help but notice over the past year maybe year and a half local gaming groups and tournaments have all fallen into these disgustingly boring and monotonous lists of just throwing 3 or 6 of the same unit into a list. There is no fluff, no originality, no creativity, just the desperate attempt to win a table top war game. Now in a tournament I understand the sentiment to use what works and destroy, but I'm starting to see this trend more and more in casual pickup games and it just makes me worry about the future of this game and the type of people playing it. Lists like GK all Purifier and DE million venom warrior blaster spam infuriate me to no end anymore out of how boring it is to play. Most biased competitive players on here I'm sure are going to chime in because they play these lists with "The point of the game is winning" my response is simple... no the point is not winning.... it’s to have fun. Tournaments excluded. To the point... is spam hammer killing the fun of the game for anyone else?

As always: Good beer, Pretzels, and warhammer... that is what is best in life. get back to the root of the game people

I find it amusing the you're complaining about how the game has devolved into a stale meta with "disgustedly boring and monotonous" lists "in the last year"...

With all due respect mate, thats what 40k had ALWAYS been about. I remember third when armies came in 2 types - you either had "rhino rush" armies, or "shoot the rhino rush" armies. Do you remember 4th? when skimmer-less transports never saw the table top? every SM army was a 6X6man las/plas army that camped in its deployment zone. or when every tau/eldar army was based on "skimmerspam". that is, if you were lucky enough to see an army that wasnt the 3x3obliterator, basilisk, 3 hankhunting autocannon havok squads, daemon prince, nike lord and 2X5man infiltrating CSM squad Iron Warriors doom list.

fifth ed? tankhammer. its the same. GW dont improve their games. they're not interested in making them "better". they're only interested in "changing" them.

Another thing that bothers me in your post. the "what the game is all about" comment. good beer, pretzels and warhammer. Now, fair enough. i like all 3 of those things. but that is only what the game is to some people. With all due respect, i hate it when people tell me how i "should" play, or "this is how it SHOULD be done". Who are you (or anyone) to tell me? Its my money, my time, and my bloodsweattears that are going into all the painting, custom jobs, conversions etc and making my army mine. Its "my game" too. Spam doesnt ruin the game. Spam is merely a product of how GW design their games. its the end result of a monolithic, and ancient fossil of gaming mechanisms. Its because of GeeDubs horrid lack of consstency, and lack of internal/external balance. Only some things are worth it. Now if you're the guy whose bought a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and you end up in a random game with me, and my fully converted, themed and fluffy Harakoni Warhawk 531st Elite Airborne Wing (aka leafblower, vendetta + plasma veteran spam) there are gonna be issues. Is it my fault? No. its not. again, this is my army. my time, effort and money has gone into it. I've got as much a right to play it and be proud of it. you cant tell me that "im doing it wrong" because who are you to say what is right? Same with the other guy. he might be casual tim who just wants to roll a bunch 'o' dice. his approach is as valid as my own. Its his game too.

Sadly enough, the "im bored of this game" that you're essentially saying is a feature of 40k and has always been that way. For me, the golden time of 40k was the start of 4th when i started playing properly. the game had been shaken up and people were still figuring things out. no one really knew what the optimum way to play was, so every game felt new and exciting. But once things got figured out, the meta solidified, and it got stale, and boring. then again, others will say that 3rd was golden, or 5th. but the meta is always cracked. and things always get boring. bloody hell man, 5th has been around for what? 4 years? 5 years? its old, and tired. sadly, people are looking forward to 6th to shake up the meta. I hope it does. I really do. I want to see a game that isnt just different. i want something "better", where multiple builds are reliable, and competitive. ironically enough though, it will take one hell of a game to take me away from Warmachine/Hordes which to me, is all of those things. ironically. thats where it is. there is no "the list" syndrome in warmachine/hordes/ everything can be built into an effective, winning strategy. and spam wont generally work.

Maybe its just 40k thats getting to you. think of taking a break. I burned out at the end of 4th, and walked away from the game for the best part of 2 years. maybe think about other games. variety is the spice of life. Dont think you have to be confined to just GeeDub games either. mix things up. It might give that spark back to your table top gaming. malifaux. infinity. warmachine. dystopian wars. flames of war. heck, look at some OOP games like starship troopers (what CHambers had intended 4th ed to be. in many ways, its the most underrated game system i've come across. its like firefly. it could have been brilliant. ). maybe those things wil do it for you?

To risk sounding like a total ass, even if it may not be my tabletop-virgin place to say, you're doing it wrong.

If the stale, boring meta that dominates the game these days has you feeling so without hope as to go for the tired, fightless old man's route, and say this is ALWAYS how it's been, it's ALWAYS how it will be, and nobody has any hope for anything better because GW will ALWAYS work this way, you're clearly, CLEARLY, playing the game wrong. You're letting the meta play for you. You're letting Games Workshop play for you. You're letting that Mark guy, whoever it is that everyone complains about who writes the codex, play for you.

Do you know why people run triple-Landraider lists? Do you know why people play Eldar, even though its possibly the weakest codex in play, if the meta is to be believed?

Fun. Who cares if any meta-relevant melta-spam list is going to wreck those Raiders on turn one? IT'S ING AWESOME, DAMN IT!

Geez. I'm nineteen. I haven't even finished my first army yet. Why do I have to remind people what games are designed for? Fun. Not bs metagame cheese-spam garbage to keep your win-loss record clean.

The problem isn't in the meta, or the spam, or with GW, or with the individual opponents. It's in the individual players who let all that ruin their fun.

TermiesInARaider wrote:
To risk sounding like a total ass, even if it may not be my tabletop-virgin place to say, you're doing it wrong.

If the stale, boring meta that dominates the game these days has you feeling so without hope as to go for the tired, fightless old man's route, and say this is ALWAYS how it's been, it's ALWAYS how it will be, and nobody has any hope for anything better because GW will ALWAYS work this way, you're clearly, CLEARLY, playing the game wrong. You're letting the meta play for you. You're letting Games Workshop play for you. You're letting that Mark guy, whoever it is that everyone complains about who writes the codex, play for you.

Do you know why people run triple-Landraider lists? Do you know why people play Eldar, even though its possibly the weakest codex in play, if the meta is to be believed?

Fun. Who cares if any meta-relevant melta-spam list is going to wreck those Raiders on turn one? IT'S ING AWESOME, DAMN IT!

Geez. I'm nineteen. I haven't even finished my first army yet. Why do I have to remind people what games are designed for? Fun. Not bs metagame cheese-spam garbage to keep your win-loss record clean.

The problem isn't in the meta, or the spam, or with GW, or with the individual opponents. It's in the individual players who let all that ruin their fun.

As i was saying, there is more than one way of playing this game. You're doing what i hate. telling some guy how he SHOULD be playing. And trying to impose your vision on what the game SHOULD be on them. And what SHOULD matter. you speak of "fun". well, termiesinaraider. please, define "fun". "fun" for me is those tournament games. I love tournaments. especially with warmachine. I enjoy the tense games. I enjoy going up against the best opponents. Page 5. PLYGAP. Just as with my running and kickboxing, i enjoy pushing my wargaming armies to be all they can be. I certainly am not "doing it wrong" as you say. fun, simply put, is different things to different people. Ideally, and what i love with Warmachine is the excellent balance. there really are very few units that are "bad". everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. Unfortunately, that is not the case with 40k. I wish it was. I really do,

my problem is that the meta makes certain things unplayable. Honestly, i applaud the 3 land raider army playing guy. I applaud the eldar players. and the tau players. My problem isnt this. My problem is that this edition of the game punishes you for taking certain builds, and yes, even certain codices. I play tau. Love them. love the models. love the fluff. but 4th ed burned me out. because simply put, my army could not compete. you can play an army for "fun" and for "enjoyment" all you want, regardless of its lack of ability/competitiveness. THats fine. All well and good. and fair deuce to you. But when your army simply cant match up, time and time again, losing again and again because of the codex being badly designed? Awesome? Not the word i'd choose. believe me, it gets incredibly frustrating. fun disappears. and all this after you've put hundreds of pounds/euros/dollars into your army, and countless hours painting and converting your army? *shrug* you end up hating the hobby you're supposed to love.

Honestly, it can be as "fun" as you want, but that element of "fun" gets sour pretty damned quick when you realise your idea gets curbstomped. every time.

you've said it yourself. you're 19. you're building your first army. and i hope it goes well for you. But i've been playing this game for nigh on 10 years now, and im sorry if i sound like an old moaner when i say it, but i am simply jaded from it. When you play for 10 years, and through 3 editions, you'll have a different perspective as well. im jaded from GeeDubs attitude to the game. Its why i play Warmachine/Hordes as my main game these days. Which is a game, that simply put, made me love this hobby again. *shrug* take that for what you will

cheers

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on the definition of fun, cause yeah, I didn't give it's subjectiveness proper due. So maybe come back when everything's up to 6th edition, eh? Maybe then things will be a little better.

TermiesInARaider wrote:Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on the definition of fun, cause yeah, I didn't give it's subjectiveness proper due. So maybe come back when everything's up to 6th edition, eh? Maybe then things will be a little better.

well, with all due respect, im as entitled to post here on the 40k boards too in the meantime there is always the fluff to moan about in the meantime!

but yeah, the supposed 6th ed leaks looked very enticing. Im hoping when it does arrive that its more along those lines. Id genuinely like to be able to take my tau out of the box and give them some proper board time

Deadnight wrote:

TermiesInARaider wrote:Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on the definition of fun, cause yeah, I didn't give it's subjectiveness proper due. So maybe come back when everything's up to 6th edition, eh? Maybe then things will be a little better.

well, with all due respect, im as entitled to post here on the 40k boards too in the meantime there is always the fluff to moan about in the meantime!

but yeah, the supposed 6th ed leaks looked very enticing. Im hoping when it does arrive that its more along those lines. Id genuinely like to be able to take my tau out of the box and give them some proper board time

Tau just need a new codex, there's nothing in the rules that's holding them back.

Deadnight wrote:

TermiesInARaider wrote:Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on the definition of fun, cause yeah, I didn't give it's subjectiveness proper due. So maybe come back when everything's up to 6th edition, eh? Maybe then things will be a little better.

well, with all due respect, im as entitled to post here on the 40k boards too in the meantime there is always the fluff to moan about in the meantime!

but yeah, the supposed 6th ed leaks looked very enticing. Im hoping when it does arrive that its more along those lines. Id genuinely like to be able to take my tau out of the box and give them some proper board time

No respect needed! I was more referring to the game, since you seem so alienated by how things are. I don't blame you, honestly. I haven't even dealt with it yet, and I can already feel the meta starting to annoy me. I could imagine the ten years of that you describe could get old fast.

Joey wrote:
Tau just need a new codex, there's nothing in the rules that's holding them back.

That's true, I don't think any changes short of some kind of defensive fire will make the current Tau codex good, the points cost for the infantry and lack of "money weapons" like melta or plasma for them is what does them in.

I'd probably start collecting a warmachine army, if I knew anyone who played it lol. As it is, its 40k or nothing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Panzeh wrote:
That's true, I don't think any changes short of some kind of defensive fire will make the current Tau codex good, the points cost for the infantry and lack of "money weapons" like melta or plasma for them is what does them in.

Interestingly.. One of the rules in the "leaked" 6th edition codex is all about defensive fire.
Basically seems to be that, one of your units can be "triggered" by certain events, such as an enemy deepstriking within a certain range of your unit. Or something like that. And this means your unit can perform a round of shooting at the triggering unit, even though its your opponents turn.

Not sure if thats what you meant, but might be interesting. Tbh if the new 6th edition rules are particularly disappointing, I may start playing games with these "leaked" rules instead lol