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.

No matter what I see, there will be WAAC lists in any game.

That's on the game designers, then.

You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games.

No, they want balanced games because games with poor balance are easy to "solve" even if you're a less-skilled player. When every random newbie can spend a few minutes searching online and discover Riptide spam the "skilled" player has no real advantage. What they actually want is a balanced game because it makes identifying the advantages in list building much more difficult and excludes the less skilled/determined players.

The only people who want poorly balanced games are the seal clubbers who take the most powerful lists possible and then refuse to play anyone who isn't a newbie or "fluff" player with a weak list. But those people are so rare that they might as well not exist.

It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to.

Lol, no.

1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.

2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.

On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.

Yeah, it's just awesome that the only way to use, say, rough riders is if you want to deliberately take a weak list to give yourself a bigger challenge. If you just like the fluff/models then too bad, have fun losing games. This is so obviously superior to the alternative, which is a balanced game where you make things harder on yourself by taking fewer points.

Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.

No, you just don't understand what game balance is. Balance doesn't mean that every combination of choices, no matter how bad, is equally effective. It means that every option has an appropriate price and is a viable choice in the right situation, and that there is a wide range of potential winning strategies to use. It doesn't mean that you can deliberately make the worst list you can and still have a chance of winning.

But of course you know this because we've told you countless times. I expect you'll just continue to ignore it and keep posting the same ridiculous claims.

I'm quoting this so a certain someone will see it.

Agree with everything here.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.

Cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal are neither Waac or tfg.

There are plenty counters to it.

And while it's definitely a valid option, it's not dominating the meta, winning every tournament, or roflstomping everything in its path. In other words, it's good, but can be dealt with.

I repeat - hardly tfg or Waac.

There is a huge difference between BEING WAAC and people thinking that it is WAAC.

Deadnight wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.

Cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal are neither Waac or tfg.

There are plenty counters to it.

And while it's definitely a valid option, it's not dominating the meta, winning every tournament, or roflstomping everything in its path. In other words, it's good, but can be dealt with.

I repeat - hardly tfg or Waac.

My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot

The key is to make everything work. Don't put useless units in the game. Which 60% of 40K is: useless units.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.

From what you hear?

X Wing does have TIE swarm, yes, but to call it a WAAC is plain daft. It is a strong list, and one that you need to consider your capability of dealing with if you're planning on competing in a tourney, but there are plenty of options which allow you to deal with it, including just being flat out better at the game, as you can pull all sorts of tricks with your movement to disrupt the close formation the list needs to function optimally, or simply be better at guessing your opponents moves than he is at guessing yours.

Contrast that with a 40K game, where say a BA or Orks player, statistical outliers aside, is as close as possible guaranteed to lose as one can get in a probability based game against Tau or Eldar, assuming a no holds barred, efficient approach to list building, then that comparison is laughable.

Orks have a better chance than BA. Just saying. There's more "to wound" rolls that might go wrong for the Eldar, LOL.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks have a better chance than BA. Just saying. There's more "to wound" rolls that might go wrong for the Eldar, LOL.

We get it Martel. BA suck, and MEQ in general are awful.

We get it.

There's always someone new to educate, though. Someone who thinks the shoulder pads makes them cool or something.

Martel732 wrote:
Someone who thinks the shoulder pads makes them cool or something.

They don't?

Here I was, thinking I could glue SM shoulder pads on my Guard to make them cooler. There goes that plan.

Hey, if you want to pay for the power armor, I'm more than happy. But your durability/pt against the scatter laser goes DOWN. Yes, guardsmen tank the best weapon in the game better than marines. I think I'll go cry in a corner now and eat ice cream.

Martel732 wrote:
I think I'll go cry in a corner now and eat ice cream.

Probably for the best.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot

The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.

I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.

Noir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?

Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?

I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.

I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.

How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.

I explained earlier, but the current set up can be better balance wise, but it cant be balanced. So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love? Who knows, you cant just say it will be better. Im sure there are very balanced games that nobody plays because they suck. Its just a risk and if we enjoy the game currently, why risk change?

However im all for balanced supplement edition, because that gives me a chance to see what im in for before agreeing that a balanced rule set does nothing but good.

It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change. When there are more people who want it to change (real people) then I dont think we will mind, as players are better to have than rules.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

Noir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?

Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?

I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.

I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.

How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.

I explained earlier, but the current set up can be better balance wise, but it cant be balanced. So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love? Who knows, you cant just say it will be better. Im sure there are very balanced games that nobody plays because they suck. Its just a risk and if we enjoy the game currently, why risk change?

However im all for balanced supplement edition, because that gives me a chance to see what im in for before agreeing that a balanced rule set does nothing but good.

It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change. When there are more people who want it to change (real people) then I dont think we will mind, as players are better to have than rules.

Ah, this post allows me to get you more than anything I've read previously. You err on the side of cautious, no wonder you're happy with how things are, don't want things to change and tried to argue it was somehow the customer's fault that 40K wasn't as good as it could be because they should have "tried it first."

Your last sentence is preposterous though. Are you saying that people posting on Dakka aren't real people? Are you again consulting this detailed breakdown of global 40K player satisfaction you appear to have access to, but have refused thus far to share? Or are you in fact making huge assumptions based on the fact that you play in one of the smallest countries by population that GW are active in, in a small town, with a limited number of players, and it would appear one of the fastest shrinking player bases (looking at the sales from the last report) and extrapolating that up to make some very shaky conclusions?

I'm coming to the conclusion that most players are just bad players. The 40K community in general must not be experience what the Eldar can really do, else they'd be sick being burned to the ground week after month.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that most players are just bad players. The 40K community in general must not be experience what the Eldar can really do, else they'd be sick being burned to the ground week after month.

I wouldn't say bad. In my experience, most players are aware of what makes a good list. They just choose not to utilize those tools either because they don't want to be "That guy", want a different sort of army or can't really afford it.


Out of curiosity, Swastakowey, what exactly does your group do to make 40k enjoyable? Just avoid more point's efficient choices like SM bikes, Heldrakes and Riptides?

 Swastakowey wrote:
but it cant be balanced.

Better balance is what people are asking for. Not perfectly balanced. Why do you not understand that? We know it can't be perfectly balanced. Someone will go first. Someone who doesn't bring anti-tank can't win against a tank heavy list. Someone without AA is going to have trouble against flyers. We're asking that in the tactics section, when someone starts a thread saying "How do I use Mutilators" that we can actually answer something other than "Not taking them." That when someone asks for advice on his fluffy Thousand Sons themed army he can get some legitimate advice on how to keep it fluffy and fun.

So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love?

Why would this be something to make you like the game less? Why would having Mutilators and Warp talons be useable be bad? Why would Riptides and Wave serpent spam not being auto-wins somehow make the game less fun?

Who knows, you cant just say it will be better.

So that justifies that things are fine being bad. Isn't that a tad Nihilistic? Surgery can some times lead to death. But guess what? Some crazy people actually preform surgery.

why risk change?

It's not a good system. Why would you stick with a system when there are known methods of improving upon that system? Play testing for one. Someone actually putting in an hour of work to set up a LotD army on the table and realize he is tabled turn 1. How is something as simple as that going to fundamentally ruin 40K?

It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change.

Can we actually get a poll on this? Where are the numbers coming from. It's really simple too.
Are people:
1.) Happy with the current system and don't want to see any changes
2.) Wishing more balance within the codex (i.e. Mutilators being worth running)
3.) Wishing for more balance between the armies (Not like chess, but having armies with appropriate options to allow them to stand decently against others)
4.) Wishing for more play testing and coherent rules (i.e. LotD not auto-losing without allies and more frequent FAQs)

Before any one side declares themselves right by majority, I would like to see who actually is that majority. I have never met one person who has said the system couldn't use a bit more balance.

I've seen a lot of (justifiable) hate towards Eldar. The other day my LGS had a tournament. 1650 points, no named characters, codex (and supplement) armies only, no escalation, no SA, no FW.

There were 15 players. Of the 15, 8 brought Eldar and/or Tau (9 if you include Dark Eldar).

The top 4 players (in order)
Eldar with Tau allies, 2 Wraithknights, can't recall if he had Serpents.
Raven Guard with Grav gun spam.
Eldar with Tau (FE), no spam. 1 Wraithknight, 1 Jetbike squad, 2 Serpents
CSM with Nurgle Marines and Spawn.

Now as a tournament, it was fairly competitive. By the same token, it was also friendly. People would remind their opponents about special rules, remind them when they forgot to shoot with a unit, let them do things out of phase if they forgot (such as using Nova Reactor in the Shooting phase), One guy went to shoot at a Nurgle Prince who was behind Ruins and his opponent reminded him that the Prince had a 2+ Cover save.

That said, I completely forgot where I was going with this.

Sorry, with a high priority customer, please dont ask too many questions because Im gonna have to answer them all in about an hour...

I will say this before I go but the gamers number the hundreds within an hours drive. there are players ages from 10-60 and there are off the top of my head around 20 ish games that are regularily played by these groups. That number grows on big events like our 2 anual swap meets and open games days etc. Its a huge, huge community thats very diverse. But anyways I will come back, but please dont ask heaps of questions or I will struggle to answer them like in all the other threads

But I get what you guys mean, but I dont agree.

I don't think Swastakowey understands the arguments he's arguing against.

I don't think he understands what he's arguing for either.

But I'm sure he'll respond by telling me how he's happy so everyone else who isn't happy should quit the game entirely.

This may be flamebait and I do apologize in advance for any flaming I cause but...

I think the difference between casual and competitive players is that casual players (At least CAAC players like some posters in this thread) feel morally superior for not taking the best options.

So I decided I wont bother (to the joys of many ) simply because it goes nowhere.

I just think that the joys of wargaming (especially today) is found when you pick a set or sets of rules you enjoy then play them as you please. I really do not understand the people who pick up a 40k rule book and play it in spite of all the flaws they see, or stop playing yet linger because "they long to enjoy a game among many".

There are going to be things people dislike with all rule sets, but if a rule set is so bad that you have to rally against it at every opportunity then I dont see why you bother keeping at it.

I do understand that many are unfortunate enough to have to play pick up games without planning but thats not GW fault. I also dont see why its so hard to get peoples numbers or emails that go to your area for pick up games and start becoming friends and developing your own trends and unspoken rules etc and go from there.

I also disagree that balance automatically = good.

I am cautious. I dont buy codices willy nilly because I would rather see whats in them first or do research. I wont buy the 7th edition rule book unless I like the rules. If it means I have to find people willing to play an old edition so be it. Thats not GW fault.

The constant blame being put on GW comes down to player choice 99% of the time. You are blaming GW for putting the option there. Sounds really dumb.

I will agree that things like GW prices are at times very odd. So complain about price, thats not player fault thats GW fault.

I get that you all want a game thats focused on tournament play that eliminates any pre game talk, but thats not what GW rules are about. You have to acceot that and move on. There are so many games out there (as you all know) so use on of their rule sets.

So the divide between casual and WAAC stems from one group playing the game as they wish it to be, while the others play the game as is. 40K doesn't cater to you clearly as much as you want it to. I dont see vegetarians complaining at food joints for having the option of meat. Its there for those that want it.

So instead of seeing this divide as a bad thing, see it as different options and each person fits into a group. A vegetarian wont try your meat dish, so dont get mad and blame the chef. They just catered to the wants of those who are buying their food. Just like GW is just selling what people will buy.

You can argue all day that people are buying less, or that GW is declining (like it has for decades...apparently) or that other games are growing. But it changes nothing. Just find your place in the hobby and enjoy it. If that means leaving 40k for a better rule set then so be it. If it means playing 40k and loving it, so be it. If it means buying GW models but not rules so be it. Just find the rules that suit you and move on. If they dont cater to your needs make a statement for others to see why then move on. Just like you would a cafe or airline.

We arent super special customers who should be treated differently to other customers. There is plenty to choose from, so go choose. There are more wargaming opportunities then ever. So enjoy it while it lasts.

Otherwise you are just like the You Tube commenters that find popular music artists and state how much you hate them and how people should listen to this band instead, or the artist needs to change so I like the music. The world doesnt work like that.

The divide isnt because of balance, or bad rules. Its because its a large community (in wargaming terms) and we are all trying to cater to our needs. We are all at different stages and all have different situations.

Im ranting now, but you get the idea. (I hope). I can grantee, if Infinity gets as big as 40k or replaces it for example, people will be complaining. There will be a divide as the community gets larger and more peoples come into it. It just comes with any hobby.

You may complain in piece. On all threads you please. Without my gibberish.

I also disagree that balance automatically = good.

I'll be honest, I tried, but that line pretty much undermines everything else you say, and I couldn't really take much else seriously after that.

But this one thing jumps out...

You say it is the players fault that GW have a poor ruleset, ostensibly, I think, because people continue to buy and play the game,

But, almost in the same breath,

You say that pricing is GW's fault? But surely that's our fault too, because "we" are paying them?

Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're arguing any more, or even if you really already did, I think you're speaking from a very narrow perspective in terms of your experience with the game, and are unwilling/unable to accommodate what people with a wider/different perspective than yours may be able to add, and also have approached the whole subject without accepting even a glimmer of a hint of a possibility that you might be wrong!

 Swastakowey wrote:

So instead of seeing this divide as a bad thing, see it as different options and each person fits into a group. A vegetarian wont try your meat dish, so dont get mad and blame the chef. They just catered to the wants of those who are buying their food. Just like GW is just selling what people will buy.

It's more like two people go to a Restaurant and order some food. At first it's okay, but one person starts getting noticeably sick the more times they go. It turns out the restaurant has slowly been adding more and more peanut products into all food items due to improper cleaning and control of their culinary ware. Customer A is allergic to peanuts. Customer B however likes the decorations and as long as he sneaks in some ketchup the meals are perfect. He keeps dragging Customer A along with him, despite the fact that the food is killing him, saying that the restaurant never claims to have any peanuts in their food. Customer B doesn't care about Customer A because Customer B is getting what he wants. No need to complain about the food.

Analogies aren't really needed. Some customers like the game because they can work with it and don't care if others can't enjoy it. Some want improvement overall at no cost to other players.

One thing I really want to know from the "casual" side. Where does GW come out and say they are a non-competitive game? I know the rule book says to have fun and all, and really any rule book will. But where did GW state it's a beer and pretzel game meant to be unbalanced and played a certain way.

I'm genuinely curious to know. I really want to play the game the right way. I've heard so many casual players say they're playing it the absolute right way and with the full spirit of the game. I just want to know how you know you're doing it right.

I'm a casual player and swastika does not reflect my views at all. I play SOB and have never been in a tournament and really have no desire to do one. I mostly play fluffy, battles with people I know.

But the game is horribly imbalanced and needs some changes. I'd play more in stores if the game was balanced. I don't like to show up with SOB army and then get tabled by turn three by a cron air army. (That wasn't my idea of fun.)

The game should be playable for casual and competitive.