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.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Just following on from the terminator example used btw, I'm not saying they are bad or good. Which is because I haven't really done a proper analysis of them as a whole. And if I had, my opinion would be subject to change if presented with logical counter evidence. This is the only smart way to discuss tactics. In my opinion.

Good point shuppet - I have found terminators to still be amazing units - but overall the game has grown more deadly - all infantry choices die a lot easier now - guardsmen, crisis suits, guardians, termagants and yes, terminators.

Its about adapting to the game, and not relying upon just an perceived invulnerability of a unit. Heck, back in 5th I remember a player who was very sloppy in his terminator use - just running them out in the open all the time, not making tactical choices etc.

The first time he ran into some plasma weapons, he cried foul...."terminators are broken! that unit is broken! etc.".

The other space marine player who loved termies he would ask "so, what ap2 weapons do you have?" if there were a lot he would go "wow, thats dangerous, I better use cover more or a land raider, or distraction units, etc.".

A year later one player dropped terminators because "they suck now" (and this was way before grav guns or riptides) - the other player?
He was doing well, playing smart, and smashing face with his terminators.

Both players were presented with the same evidence (you cannot always rely on your armor save to bail you out) one chose to adapt and play better, the other to blame the unit and the game.

Now, don't get me wrong - I do think there is a too much ap2 in the game, and even worse, a huge disparity to its access (not all armies have access to ap2 in multiple slots on the cheap) - even more ironic, is that to me this was a predictible outcome of when they reduced power weapons to ap3....they had then introduced too much ap2 to compensate.

But I digress....

Well yeah, all I'm saying is that there was a terminator example used in one of the original statements and I'm just carrying on from that as the current nominated "bad unit".

I think some units, are just bad. Ailaros I know is of a very one minded opinion that anything can be good, being almost on the other end of the spectrum here. However, while not labelling units as bad because the internet says so is important, I think for the sake of strategy it's also important to label a unit as bad because YOU think so. A general rule of thumb should be, if you can EXPLAIN why it's bad, you can tell people it's bad. If you can explain to them in a logical manner why their reasoning behind it being good is mistaken, you can have the argument. But being closed to logical questioning of a units playability, as if it's locked in cast iron, with the only response to logic being those "L2P"-esque comments, then honestly, just stay out of competitive tactical discussion. At the same time, it's important to recognise when a unit does suck, and not defending it with comments like "any unit can be good if played well!". Doesn't make it not a terrible unit comparatively, and that's what's relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I the way 1d4chan is written is good, while I don't agree with all their opinions, it's good that they share the units they think are bad, for the most part with a solid and concise explanation, and still share the best way to use it in their opinion, while making no excuses for bottom tier crud. It's often, well, wrong, but at least their opinions are well thought out and not based at all off what circulates the net, even if they do sometimes make slip ups in their logic. Can't fault the correct approach.

Makumba wrote:
But in the end after you learn and test, eldar are more powerful codex then other. Yes a super player will have a better chance beating a new or bad eldar player. But if both are super and one picks eldar and the other one picks anything, but a counter list, the non eldar player will lose more then the eldar player.

Both armies in the unfun eldar thread were unoptimal. But there are a worlds of difference between playing a non eldar power list and a non AM power list. With eldar you have to realy try to find bad or unoptimal unit set ups, while other army books have maybe one or two power builds and all other combination are weaker , with more then a few units being totaly unplayable. For eldar unplayable means there is a unit that does the same thing better for less points.

Agreed. I made that thread to emphasize that I don't find playing against Eldar fun, and posted it in GD. The thread devolved into an army list, tactics, and l2Play thread. With the l2players ignoring my issue with Eldar being unfun. Lit wasn't a 1v1 where I got tabled. It was essentially a 1v2 where the Eldar player used 1000 points to obliterate about 1600 points of IG while losing about 200 points of models. The Eldar's allied Tau was a nonfactor, losing about 500 points, inflicting about 150-200 points of damage.

 Ailaros wrote:
We're talking about a strategy game, right?

I think that's part of the problem. I'm going to disagree with NedTCM and say that 40K's primarily a strategy game, not a tactical game. Now, that's not to say you can't use tactics, and I've heard from one or two tactical players who can runs rings around people with WAAC netlists. But abstract tactical thought in the - if you'll pardon the term - 'heat of battle' is a lot tougher to learn than sitting back in a comfortable seat for a few hours, picking out the units and gear with the best power:points ratios, and engaging in a spot of mathhammering (The existence of and devotion to mathhammer is, IMO, a pretty big pointer about how much of 40K is devoted to strategy); particularly for most of 40K's target audience - the 13yo 'noobs' that I've heard some ironic complaints about on Dakka, lately.

People with powerlists can be annoying, but they're only playing 40K as it was intended, or one of the main ways it was intended. I.e. building a list and buying the models with the most powerful special rules. Fluff gamers are playing in another intended way, I suppose, if you fall for that 'forging the narrative' bit. (Though don't get me wrong, I like fluff armies much more, but as modelling projects that look nice when they're all carefully lined up. In themselves I dont think they have a snowball's chance of doing a lot - let alone autowinning - against rules armies.) Then, according to some in this topic, there are the 'jerk, asshat, donkey-cave, douchebag' gamers, which is so helpful I think I'll just leave it there. Problem is, this topic*, the game, and even dedicated 'tactics' boards like here and Warseer, only just touch on the subject of the tactical gamer.
I haven't the slightest idea what proportion they are in the totality of 40K players, but I'm going to guess they're not common. Besides having a natural propensity for it, or accidentally stumbling across one or two neat tricks, a tactical gamer would have to recognise 40K's state as a strategy game, learn to think outside that particular box, and react more intelligently to new situations on the tabletop. Not all that easy, I would think, due to 40K's nature as a strategy game with not-terribly-great balance (not easy to think outside that box when strategy gamers can just pile on the deadliest new release); the simplistic IGOUGO sequence (despite aaall the special rules and gunz piled onto units, they're still pretty much confined to the 'move, shoot, beat-his-face-in-with-a-medieval-weapon, then-sit-back-and-watch-him-do-the-same' rails. Though did I see that overwatch and other things were reinjected into 6th?); the constantly changing meta (good luck with that unbound, y'all); and the likelihood of dropping out thanks to GW's standard churn and burn policy, disgruntlement with GW's practises (prices, imbalance, bullying), and just plain growing beyond the above-mentioned demographic.

*Close in Blaxican's post and (almost?) directly addressed in the link DarknessEternal posted. (And BTW excellent avatar and sig, Blaxican)
So for this post to have some kind of actual relevance to the original topic: I agree that pure-fluff gamers are scrubs to listbuilders, but I'd say that both are scrubs in the face of a tactical gamer who knows what they're doing. In this case the listbuilder, or even just a relative newcomer to the game, has their own 'made-up mental set of rules' in the form of what GW designed, what is most apparently (and most actually) successful: the strategy phase. Listbuilding is all. Mathhammer is the key. Picking out the units that most easily defeat MEQ's on paper with a few sums is the way to win. So when someone beats them tactically, even with a simple, one-trick sleight of hand, they get mad because that's not how the rules and the mathhammer etc. promised it would go. That's not the way it was supposed to go. That's not how it was planned. But to coin a phrase, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

I can't fault them much if they are in the target demographic, even though they might be most likely to get their backs up. The listbuilding aspect, with it's uberkewl powerful models, is designed for their current likes. But all the same, to avoid that helpless, betrayed feeling it'd help to include more than strategy, rely a little less on stats and special rules to do most of the work in-game. In short, they need to look beyond listbuilding and learn to play.

(Now if you'll excuse me I'll go back to prepping minis for a tactical game. )

The hobby is full of manchildren, you have to expect bad attitudes and poor sportsmanship. Especially in random pickup games. In my experience this is the norm. I've seen the same guys laughing, criticizing their opponent, and exhibiting over the
top celebrations when they are winning - and being the total opposite when they are losing. Lets be honest, tabletop games attract people many of us would normally never associate with.
There are exceptions, which is probably the only reason a lot of us still play.

So, here's a pair of syllogisms I've been thinking about.

1.) A strategy game is a game where certain combinations of player actions (including list building, in the case of 40k) are more likely to yield a win than other combination of actions.

2.) Combinations that are more likely to win, we can call "stronger" and those not "weaker".

3.) A strategy game, therefore, is not a balanced game, because you need to have stronger and weaker combinations in order for it to be a strategy game.

So if someone says "terminators are a weaker unit than others, and I included them in my list and I lost", or "I didn't bring any anti-tank weapons in my list, which means I had a weaker list, so I lost", or "I had a certain way of moving my units and certain targets I prioritized and I lost". Well, the only real answer is...

... duh. It's a strategy game. Of course behaving in certain ways with certain units is going to increase your chances of losing compared to other units used in other ways. That's the whole point.

Meanwhile, we have the other one:

1.) There are certain ways to use units that make them stronger than other ways to use them.

(This one's pretty obvious - treating khorne berzerkers as a shooting unit, for example, is going to be a weaker combination of berzerkers and movement than charging them in)

2.) Units that are weaker, generally, can be made stronger by a player's choices on the table, specifically.

3.) Units are less bad when played better.

As such, if someone says that something is very weak, it can be made less weak by a player's choices on the table.

As such, if someone comments that something isn't bad because it can be made better through stronger play, what they are doing is acknowledging the fact that 40k is a strategy game.

People who then dismiss this ("oh, you're just another learn to play type, get lost"), therefore must believe that 40k isn't a strategy game. Or, of course, that they are not a strong enough player to make something work (in which case, L2P attitudes are being accurately applied).

Up to limits defined by the rules (gretchin will never kill a land raider), but those limits are, themselves, neutral. That gretchin can't kill a land raider isn't a latently good or bad thing, it just is how it works.

Which means that people who are getting angry enough to be derisive towards L2P-style comments (outside of specific derision directed towards them), are having an emotional reaction to the fact that either:

- they're not as good of a player as they want to be to make the units they like strong enough.

or

- they don't think 40k is a strategy game, and thus should be able to take whatever they want and play however they want and still win.

If it's the first, then "learn to play" is applicable, because if the person learned how to play better, they'd be able to get what they want more effectively.

If it's the first, then it really should be "learn to play... another game", because if you want something balanced, you don't want a strategy game and vice versa, and 40k will never fit what you're looking for from a game so long as it contains an element of strategy.

Because if it's a strategy game, then doing certain things will make you more likely to win, and if you do less of those things, you'll be more likely to lose. That's just how it is.

 Ailaros wrote:


Bunch of stuff.

Thats a lot to say YOU don't care about how bad the game is .

Alairos your logic is terrible. A bad unit can be made better by a good player. But guess what, a good unit is much better in the hands of a good player too. One unit is still bad, and one is still good. There's no point jn calling a crappy unit anything but, just because it has the potential to be much better in the hands of a great strategist - it just completely ignores a fact of 40k game design that we all know to be true - all units are NOT created equal. If this doesn't bother you at all, more power to you - pretending bad units don't exist because they can be played to greater potential in the hands if a good player, is just really LOW level competitive discussion. Good units have the same potential to see a greater return of investment if played well. By all means, if there is logical reason to reclassify some of these gak units out of the "bad idea to take" column, it should be heard out. The logic that the player dictates how good a unit is however, is nonsense.

The problem here Alairos, is that you are just on the opposite extreme as the people you are addressing. While they are incapable of viewing anything not popularly known as a top tier unit as anything other than unplayable, you are just as bad, being incapable of viewing almost all the trash out there as anything other than a unique unit playable off it's own merits meaning it couldn't POSSIBLY be a bad unit.

You're just as bad as the people you are complaining about, if you refuse to have a sensible strategical outlook and individual analysis of every unit to whether or not it IS worth the points, then neither you not the people you are complaining about (who do this exact same thing from the other extreme of the argument) belong in any sort of strategic discussion.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Alairos your logic is terrible. A bad unit can be made better by a good player. But guess what, a good unit is much better in the hands of a good player too. One unit is still bad, and one is still good. There's no point jn calling a crappy unit anything but, just because it has the potential to be much better in the hands of a great strategist - it just completely ignores a fact of 40k game design that we all know to be true - all units are NOT created equal. If this doesn't bother you at all, more power to you - pretending bad units don't exist because they can be played to greater potential in the hands if a good player, is just really LOW level competitive discussion. Good units have the same potential to see a greater return of investment if played well. By all means, if there is logical reason to reclassify some of these gak units out of the "bad idea to take" column, it should be heard out. The logic that the player dictates how good a unit is however, is nonsense.

The problem here Alairos, is that you are just on the opposite extreme as the people you are addressing. While they are incapable of viewing anything not popularly known as a top tier unit as anything other than unplayable, you are just as bad, being incapable of viewing almost all the trash out there as anything other than a unique unit playable off it's own merits meaning it couldn't POSSIBLY be a bad unit.

You're just as bad as the people you are complaining about, if you refuse to have a sensible strategical outlook and individual analysis of every unit to whether or not it IS worth the points, then neither you not the people you are complaining about (who do this exact same thing from the other extreme of the argument) belong in any sort of strategic discussion.

He also tends to see universally "good" (effective, undercosted or whatever you want to call them) units as bad, I debated with him at length as to how good wyvern's were and his comparison was a leman russ... yeah. In my experience, Objectively, wyverns for their cost are very good. I only tend to take crappier and crappier units as the points level of a game increases but if I'm playing under 2k and realistically more toward 1500pts, you bet I'm taking good units over ones I perceive as bad. Sometimes crappy stuff does well, that still doesn't give it a spot in a list when points are tight.

It's an overall attitude that I'm sure strikes not just me as a wish to be the contrarian rather than a willingness to shed light on any sort of strategic discussion. And it is a type of opinion needed no more so than the L2P posts. I'm sure most people would rather just discuss strategy in an open-minded but realistic manner, without the contribution of posts from either such category. Nor the need to make indignant threads stating the righteousness of the extreme you sit on.

In other words, don't be a single sheep in the flock just mindlessly repeating what the other sheep all say, however don't go to the other extreme of always being so anti-mainstream hipster-esque posts disagreeing with statements mainly because they are a shared view of the mass being your incentive to argue, as opposed to it actually being a false statement. If you fall into either of these categories you need to rethink your reason for posting, as it seems to largely stem from a personal need to either fit in with people or stand out from the pack, manifesting through your statements regarding the activity you enjoy/are passionate about.

Take a step back, sit down, and actually question yourself before you post or involve yourself in a competitive strategy debate - is this actually a formulated opinion, or am I just regurgitating the opinion of the flock/fighting the machine by disagreeing with its ideals at every turn?

Because believe it or not, some of us just want to find out the best strategy for our toy soldiers. Shocking, I know. :(

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because believe it or not, some of us just want to find out the best strategy for our toy soldiers. Shocking, I know. :(

I always knew you were a WAAC TFG lol

SHUPPET wrote: One unit is still bad, and one is still good.

Stronger or weaker, not good or bad.

SHUPPET wrote:A bad unit can be made better by a good player. But guess what, a good unit is much better in the hands of a good player too.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that units can be made non-bad with skill.

Furthermore, I'd note that not all units benefit from player skill equally. Being great in the movement phase doesn't make devastators much stronger becuase you're scarcely ever going to move them, regardless of player skill. Meanwhile, being good with movement will greatly increase the power level of close combat units, because you'll be more likely to get them into close combat and with more left in the squad after getting shot at.

Because of this discrepancy it is possible for a generally weaker unit than another to become a stronger unit than the other, given sufficient player skill. Even not in those cases, the gap is still narrowed. And even otherwise, more skill still makes a weaker unit stronger, regardless of its power level compared to other units.

Crablezworth wrote:In my experience, Objectively

I'll let that sink in for a moment...

SHUPPET wrote:Because believe it or not, some of us just want to find out the best strategy for our toy soldiers. Shocking, I know. :(

Then you would want to know the way to get the most out of them. Or you would want to only pick the strongest units. Both of which are a matter of player skill, which one can learn.

Which is why I'm more than open to ideas from outside the group-think, but still rely on sensible strategy, for example I play Genestealers, but no amount of strategic genius will make the Swarmlord anything but ridiculously overpriced trash.

What you are saying isn't fully wrong Alairos. A lot of overlooked units are capable of seeing returns worthy of their points when played right. However, some units were just far too subject to human error during design to do this at all reliably, even in the hands of Sun Tzu. I will say I do have much more respect for your "can do" attitude than I do for that of the close-minded masses, however refusing these facts is no more illogical from one extreme to the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because believe it or not, some of us just want to find out the best strategy for our toy soldiers. Shocking, I know. :(

I always knew you were a WAAC TFG lol

Unapologetically so! Such a slip of the tongue is no mere accident, I shall make no excuses for it and as such no longer deny my true nature!

SHUPPET wrote:no amount of strategic genius will make the Swarmlord anything but ridiculously overpriced trash.

No amount of skill might make the swarmlord stronger than certain other units. Not stronger than the strongest is not the same thing as "ridiculously overpriced trash". That's a description you're coming up with at a whim.

If you want to run a tyranid list that's the strongest it can be, then sure, don't run it with a swarmlord if you don't want. That still doesn't mean that swarmlords can't be used better with more skill, which makes them, by definition, less "ridiculously overpriced trash" than they were with less skill. You can still make more out of the unit absolutely with more player skill even if we assume that it's not possible to make it moreso relative to other units.

And in any case, if you were complaining about losing games with a swarmlord (for the sake of argument), and I told you that you're making decisions that are increasing the odds that you'd lose, then I'd still be right - whether you increase your chances of winning by playing the swarmlord better, or whether you do it by dumping the swarmlord (more "skill" at list building in this case), then in either way it's a matter of player skill. Rejecting my statement on grounds that it's merely L2P would be rejecting both of the possible solutions to the problem.

Unless, of course, you're just really unlucky with your swarmlord, but that's en entire other matter...

It all boils down to the fact that the "Learn to play, noob" statement is universally made by people using it as a tough-guy act, usually as a placeholder for an inability to describe anything in a well thought, logical, erudite manner. They are just dumbly demanding that they are right and you are wrong.

It's the gaming equivalent of scoffing and saying, "No......you're stupid!"

The hobby is full of manchildren, you have to expect bad attitudes and poor sportsmanship. Especially in random pickup games. In my experience this is the norm. I've seen the same guys laughing, criticizing their opponent, and exhibiting over the
top celebrations when they are winning - and being the total opposite when they are losing. Lets be honest, tabletop games attract people many of us would normally never associate with.
There are exceptions, which is probably the only reason a lot of us still play.

Quoted...For...Truth.....

Are we even talking about the phrase "L2P", the implication that improvement in strategy is needed or saying anything akin to "there must be a flaw in your strategy/improve your strategy"? Because I'm of the opinion that the latter two can be fully justified in support or in place of an argument.

If they're not all valid responses, how are you supposed to debate if, for instance, someone says "Leman Russ Battle Tanks are bad because they die to Krak Grenades too easily" when frankly with 72'' range on the main gun, that shouldn't happen with proper tactical sense.

The phrase "L2P" itself is obnoxious and rude, giving the appearance of arrogance mostly because of its overuse and directness, but If I was to tell such a person that they need to be more careful, a clearly accomplish-able feat, wouldn't that be fair?

I think it's actually the latter with "L2P" being a category for style of post. Aliaros is very anti the concept of saying any unit is bad for any reason (as you can see in this thread), it's kind of his thing. As such he's against the posting off such statements suggesting a player needs to learn which units are good or bad (the L2P type posts) and would prefer strategic discussion instead be about how best to use the less popular units rather than replace them and label them as "bad".

I believe that's it anyway. May have misinterpreted, maybe he'll clear this one up for us when he checks this thread.

My two cents:

I have never been one for giving a unit the blanket statement of being "bad", because that's not as constructive as stating some facet of the unit that I "think" is bad which can then be discussed. Like when Shining Spears were 50 points apiece beginning in 3rd edition. That fact was absolutely a huge dunce-level move on GW's part, and there really is no spinning possible that can refute that, however everything else wasn't really that "bad" about the unit other than it's blatant overblown points value for what it did in-game. The unit didn't suck, their points-cost did, basically.

Constructive criticism of another player in response to a grip of theirs is nowhere near as insulting as the variations of the "maybe you just suck at using them" statements some players like to fire back with, as if somehow they are paragons of tactical knowledge.

Interesting thread - although it sounds like here and there some people might be focusing a bit on some specific encounters with some bad/rude players here and there.

Back to a few of the OP comments;

I

mean, what are people railing against "learn to play" really looking for? Why play 40k in the first place? Why would you even be on dakka, for that matter? If you didn't want to play a game where skill played any part, and thus people saying that having more skill means you can do things you can't with less... well... what's the point?

I think there is a "railing against "learn to play" I think it comes when a person may be dismissal or rude in a reply, or literally when there might be a sincere request for help, and it is responded to in what could be seen as a flippant comment (the "l2play").

Yeah, you have to question the premise of magic skill that somehow fixes all problems (like makes it so 40k isn't a dice game, for example), but if you have a solid understanding of the impact of player skill on the game, then yeah, you should be able to talk about how the way a unit is used can increase it's effectiveness. How maybe something not appearing powerful enough isn't the result of GW's malevolent soul-sucking game imbalance but perhaps... I dont know... you're just not as good at the game as you think you are?

While I don't think there is a "Magic skill" in the game, to me its more of a personality trait - is a person open to the fact that maybe they could be doing something wrong?
I work a lot in process re-engineering and I come across many times the "this is the best way to do it...." when many times, thing are not - and to be honest, while some people might just have a lack of knowledge, others may let their ego stand in the way.

Player skill helps ...a lot, as a skilled player has learned to be adaptable - and by its nature, being adaptable means being willing to give up a premise ("I am going to attack up the middle, etc.) and do different things. Thus this person would be more open to learning things....however, even if you get a person who is open to learning - the phrase "learn to play" is not quality instruction....

I agree that people have long been taking way too much credit for winning in 40k, but this seems a peculiar way to avoid the blame for losing. I really don't understand it.

I think dismissing actual advice (something that is not flippant, has some details, etc.) is avoiding the blame for losing.
Being dismissive of people who are rude and dismissive....it just going down to their level.

On units - clearly some units are not as valuable in a game as others - many exist on a scale - and you could say the ones at the top of this scale are "good" compared to the ones on the lower end of the scale.
Of course, the tactical "value" of a unit is very subjective - it depends on the game, the players, their role in the army, etc. The best units are the ones that can perform multiple roles well, with some ability to continue to do so in a game (so, thats effectiveness and survive ability ).

Now, the rating on this scale depends upon the expectation of the person doing the rating. It also depends on the opportunity cost of the unit - in other words what else could those points buy?

A unit that can be successful in a variety of roles for a good price is a "good unit".
A unit that can be successful but only in a limited role, could still be considered good - but only to a person who is ok with them only performing in that role.
The unit that has limited roles, and has a hard time being successful in them - is usually considered poor, even if cheap.
(note, tarpit units have a role - to tarpit - and if even if they can ONLY do that, its still a role).

anyway, I think the " can units be good or bad" is based upon a variety of perspectives, and of course, impacted by, the expectations and experiences of the player.

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's an overall attitude that I'm sure strikes not just me as a wish to be the contrarian rather than a willingness to shed light on any sort of strategic discussion. And it is a type of opinion needed no more so than the L2P posts. I'm sure most people would rather just discuss strategy in an open-minded but realistic manner, without the contribution of posts from either such category. Nor the need to make indignant threads stating the righteousness of the extreme you sit on.

In other words, don't be a single sheep in the flock just mindlessly repeating what the other sheep all say, however don't go to the other extreme of always being so anti-mainstream hipster-esque posts disagreeing with statements mainly because they are a shared view of the mass being your incentive to argue, as opposed to it actually being a false statement. If you fall into either of these categories you need to rethink your reason for posting, as it seems to largely stem from a personal need to either fit in with people or stand out from the pack, manifesting through your statements regarding the activity you enjoy/are passionate about.

Take a step back, sit down, and actually question yourself before you post or involve yourself in a competitive strategy debate - is this actually a formulated opinion, or am I just regurgitating the opinion of the flock/fighting the machine by disagreeing with its ideals at every turn?

Because believe it or not, some of us just want to find out the best strategy for our toy soldiers. Shocking, I know. :(

Well said, and frankly nobody should tell you otherwise either. We all do things in our own way so why should we conform to certian trends? People should accept that others do it their own way even if it goes against the facts, but it does not give an excuse to whine when those "facts" make themselves felt in whatever fashion

40k is very baffling in this aspect, when you look at it from a different angle. I've been playing warmahordes for the past month or so, and its a game that is far harsher then 40k in many ways, yet the "l2p" card is never played out at all really. Making mistakes is deadly and some units are "under par" but not to the extent of 40k. Player expectations are also the big 40k issue, with warmahrodes both sides expect filthy tricks to try and win, without being a whiny arse if things go pear shaped, however the does get called every now and again "your feat does WHAT!!!" (or the classic error of clearing a charge lane for a caster kill in the wrong sequence... ). But the gulf of what is defined as cheese/WAAC is not there at all.

Even with that some of the whining is hypocritical in the extreme, Riptides and tau get the bad press yet eldar wraithknights are far worse and can waltz over and cause hell but nobody moans that much!? Chuck the imperial knight into the mix and in theory (My lot haven't bothered with them yet and i am thinking of testing the waters...) they will casue even more moans despite the fact they have some glaring weaknesses.

Finally its also the way people think about building an army that causes some of the arguments, local metas have a lot to blame for this. If you face certian armies regularly then your thinking will be skewed to dealing with those threats, not trying to build forces that can have a shot at combatting most threats to a "managable" level. Then when people bump into things they are not used to facing they crumple, in a realistic fashion, whine on here and get lobbed with "L2P" comments that are not helpful in suggesting ways to deal with said threat.

Hence why the Dark Eldar are the troll army of doom for some as they are hardly ever seen, then the venoms get to work and the opposition go "wtf" and its all over

Art_of_war wrote: I've been playing warmahordes for the past month or so, and its a game that is far harsher then 40k in many ways, yet the "l2p" card is never played out at all really.

Yeah, it's kind of interesting.

I mean, let's say for a moment that 40k was chess. Someone goes to a forum and talks about how upset he is because he keeps losing in roughly eight moves. Someone comes by and points out that he's doing certain things (moving his pawns to open up back row pieces, moving things in such a way that makes them vulnerable to being pinned or forked, etc.), and then the first person says "So I just need to change how I play. Pssh, you "learn to play" types. What a bunch of donkey-caves".

The person would just receive one long, blank stare.

SHUPPET wrote: As such he's against the posting off such statements suggesting a player needs to learn which units are good or bad (the L2P type posts) and would prefer strategic discussion instead be about how best to use the less popular units rather than replace them and label them as "bad".

So, it's a bit more nuanced than that. "Learn to play" I would say is not a direct synonym to "learn how to win more easily".

Because who has learned to play better, the player who does well with a 1ksons list, or the latest high-power netlist? Of course the 1ksons player has learned to play better than the other. Learning to play is not merely figuring out the strongest list and how to play it. Anyone can go and download a netlist, and most netlists are low-skill gunlines. Getting to the point where you can take the strongest units and win games with them is the BEGINNING of learning to play, not the end. Going for the easiest course, labelling everything else as garbage and not bothering to learn anything new is a plenty valid target for a "learn to play" critique.

And if you're the kind of person who just wants to win with the least player skill possible by just picking the strongest list and rolling dice, I don't see grounds for getting upset about people developing the skill to use units you couldn't be bothered to.

Calling something bad is nothing more than some abstract base power multiplied by one's current player skill at the point of making that statement. A person who thinks more things are bad is likely a worse player themselves, as more skilled players can still do well with things that are harder to learn how to use.

So, to draw back to the previous example, if some people can make terminators work, and you can't, and you say that terminators are bad, what you really mean is that you haven't figure out how to make them work yet, like others have. Once again, a learn to play criticism is valid.

 Ailaros wrote:

I mean, let's say for a moment that 40k was chess. Someone goes to a forum and talks about how upset he is because he keeps losing in roughly eight moves. Someone comes by and points out that he's doing certain things (moving his pawns to open up back row pieces, moving things in such a way that makes them vulnerable to being pinned or forked, etc.), and then the first person says "So I just need to change how I play. Pssh, you "learn to play" types. What a bunch of donkey-caves".

The person would just receive one long, blank stare.

False equivalence and irrelevant to the discussion.

Chess is not only free of RNG, it is also far more balanced than 40K. The only differences between the two sides is who goes first, that's it.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

I mean, let's say for a moment that 40k was chess. Someone goes to a forum and talks about how upset he is because he keeps losing in roughly eight moves. Someone comes by and points out that he's doing certain things (moving his pawns to open up back row pieces, moving things in such a way that makes them vulnerable to being pinned or forked, etc.), and then the first person says "So I just need to change how I play. Pssh, you "learn to play" types. What a bunch of donkey-caves".

The person would just receive one long, blank stare.

False equivalence and irrelevant to the discussion.

Chess is not only free of RNG, it is also far more balanced than 40K. The only differences between the two sides is who goes first, that's it.

Quoted for importance.

What?

Complaining about people telling you how to use more skill in a strategy game getting you blank stares would get you blank stares, regardless of the strategy game.

Are you entirely certain that because 40k has a different spread of stronger and weaker pieces than chess that the comparison isn't in any way relevant? You know, because they both have strategy?

 Ailaros wrote:
What?

Complaining about people telling you how to use more skill in a strategy game getting you blank stares would get you blank stares, regardless of the strategy game.

Are you entirely certain that because 40k has a different spread of stronger and weaker pieces than chess that the comparison isn't in any way relevant? You know, because they both have strategy?

Most people would give you a blank stare if you tried telling them.

"Do you see this rook? Well I know people think queens are better, but let me tell you how rooks are able to better do a queen and bishops job."

Most people I see who say "Learn to play" usually tell you how to use a unit that has it's niche fulfilled in a far better unit due to it being underpowered.

 Ailaros wrote:
What?

Complaining about people telling you how to use more skill in a strategy game getting you blank stares would get you blank stares, regardless of the strategy game.

Are you entirely certain that because 40k has a different spread of stronger and weaker pieces than chess that the comparison isn't in any way relevant? You know, because they both have strategy?

I think two strategy games can be compared, but not if the subject of comparison is nearly entirely about list building and you pick a game where the table is set evenly during deployment, to compare it with. (Side note: if I ever play chess again I'm calling my side of the board my "deployment zone )

Being that not all chess pieces in 40k are made evenly, and you can pick which ones you bring the table, a more accurate comparison would be comparing it to the guy with his highly optimised build of 9 queens, his double king/triple bishop Deathstar, his mandatory 2 pawns, and 4 knights for cover-ignoring Bishop+Rook hunting, telling the other guy asking for feedback on his 12 pawns / 8 rook list to "L2P".

 AegisGrimm wrote:
My two cents:

I have never been one for giving a unit the blanket statement of being "bad", because that's not as constructive as stating some facet of the unit that I "think" is bad which can then be discussed. Like when Shining Spears were 50 points apiece beginning in 3rd edition. That fact was absolutely a huge dunce-level move on GW's part, and there really is no spinning possible that can refute that, however everything else wasn't really that "bad" about the unit other than it's blatant overblown points value for what it did in-game. The unit didn't suck, their points-cost did, basically.

Constructive criticism of another player in response to a grip of theirs is nowhere near as insulting as the variations of the "maybe you just suck at using them" statements some players like to fire back with, as if somehow they are paragons of tactical knowledge.

Very good point about the points cost - if the Swarmlord was 80 points less, he would see a lot more play as its rules aren't that terrible, just the price you pay for them. The same thing goes for the Tyranid Prime - at 80 points it would be okay. GW raising the price to a buck and a quarter makes it "not good" because then you have to spend 50 more points on upgrades if you want it to do anything worthwhile in game (other than sit around and give off synapse, that is).

Can you get more bang for your buck out of SL and the Prime by playing them smartly? Sure can. Would you have been better off taking a Flyrant? Probably yes in every game.

I, like Ailaros, sometimes like to use "not good" units for the challenge of trying to make them work, and I get my nerdy little pleasure out of beating someone with something that the internet said was "bad." But, that doesn't mean that the unit is good.

I have been using "sub par" units since I first started playing in 2nd edition, simply because I loved the look of a unit and I was going to be damned if I didn't get to use it on the table to show off a proud paintjob or conversion.

Hell, I played Kroot Mercs. That entire army is sub-par unless you are in melee. They have Cavalry Snipers as frigging fast attack, for gods sake!

(Totally made a unit of five because I loved the look of the conversion, lol)