Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think this 100% depends on your gaming group at your FLGS or at home at the table. If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

If you have this group, then it is easy enough to ask for a competitive game, and then you see rock, paper, scissors start to show up.

IMO... 40k has some obvious rules issues, and that falls on GW not wanting to take responsibility. But the rest comes down to the players.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun. My FLGS group stresses TAC lists, and fun. Our group has grown substantially over the past year despite the changes and power creeps of the new codecs. yeah there are times we want to try and destroy our opponents, and if we want that style game COMMUNICATION.

Show up to the store with multiple lists ready. Ask "hey who wants to play a fun game..1500, 1850, 2000?", "Anyone want to take on my latest WAAC Tau? Eldar?", "Anyone for some 2v2 or 3v3 today?"

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun.

But you're assuming that they're spamming them purely because they're powerful, when they could just as easily be using a lot of powerful units because those units are fluffy, or because they consider them fun. So, what you're really asking is for one player to take units out of his army to make it less flavourful and less fun, just so others are on even footing. I'm still not seeing why this is fine.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun.

But you're assuming that they're spamming them purely because they're powerful, when they could just as easily be using a lot of powerful units because those units are fluffy, or because they consider them fun. So, what you're really asking is for one player to take units out of his army to make it less flavourful and less fun, just so others are on even footing. I'm still not seeing why this is fine.

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies. No one needs to sacrifice units they want to play, and no, I am not making any assumptions, as I am aware of the my own local meta.

If I had to break down the ~50 players we have in our group

10% Eldar
30% SM (this covers chapters and wolves, BA)
5% Necrons
10% Tau
5% GKs
10% Chaos
10% Demons
10% Nids
10% IG

I would say about half the group flops between all these categories, but generally I can show up expecting to play any one of these lists on a given Weekend.

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies

But that kind of a means that someone who has an eldar army would have to buy a non eldar one.It doesn't realy matter what an eldar player takes, if he plays vs IG. It doesn't have to be jetbikes and WKs, aany combination will work. Specialy if the IG player goes for a for "fun" list too.

Makumba wrote:

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies

But that kind of a means that someone who has an eldar army would have to buy a non eldar one.It doesn't realy matter what an eldar player takes, if he plays vs IG. It doesn't have to be jetbikes and WKs, aany combination will work. Specialy if the IG player goes for a for "fun" list too.

In competitive play in our group we see specific codec's with higher win percentages. At our last 1500 tourney, we had Necrons win over all, beating out both Eldar and Tau. I actually fought the winner in the final match with my Farsight Enclaves list.

In non-competitive play regardless of the power levels of the codecs, we have about a 50% win rate that varies more on player experience then power level of the codex. I am not arguing that some codecs are more powerful or not.

Given the following scenarios these will be the outcomes:

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun. My FLGS group stresses TAC lists, and fun. Our group has grown substantially over the past year despite the changes and power creeps of the new codecs. yeah there are times we want to try and destroy our opponents, and if we want that style game COMMUNICATION.

Show up to the store with multiple lists ready. Ask "hey who wants to play a fun game..1500, 1850, 2000?", "Anyone want to take on my latest WAAC Tau? Eldar?", "Anyone for some 2v2 or 3v3 today?"

Cheers!

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I agree with you, but keep in mind people often disagree with power levels of units or dexes.

For example, right now there is a thread that is several pages long detailing why mutilators are actually good, despite numerous claims and discussions pointing out why they are not.
The people who are claiming they are good are unable to provide much reasoning on why they feel the mutilators are good, but that doesn't stop them from insulting others and believing they are right.

There is another thread where someone believes that ork warbikes/space marine bikes are equal or better than scatlaser bikes. This is, again, despite numerous reasons being listed why that isn't the case, although at least that person has some arguments, faulty though they may be in many ways.

I've had people claim that other loadouts in cents are comparable in power to the grav cents, that the ghost ark is easy to destroy, and many other such claims that, to me and several other posters, seem to be very...bewildering.


If people can agree on the power level of every unit and dex, then you can work things out. In my experience, even in better balanced games (or better communities than 40k has) this is very difficult to do. Even the tier lists in 3.5 DnD caused huge upsets, with people constantly complaining that their favorite class should be moved up or down a tier despite a very well reasoned argument for their placement. In WMH, a much better balanced game than 40k, there is still issues of upset balance (though this is currently based around tier lists mainly, which are similar to formations oddly enough. Seems no one can get them right) and people who don't want to play against them or want them included in tournaments.

In my own group, we have one person who feels that his army is very weak no matter what he plays.
In mordenheim/fantasy, he plays skaven.
In 40k, he plays necrons.
In DnD 3.5, he played a Cleric.
In WMH, he plays cryx.

How do you debate something like that? Most of these choices are, if not the best, easily one of the best choices available in their games.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

And what we're saying is that, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Players shouldn't be expected to have to try balance the rules because the writers cant be bothered. Let alone in a game that charges stupidly high prices for said rules.

Furthermore, this mitigation you're proposing is almost always going to be vastly harder to agree on than you're making out. Amazing as this might sound, most 40k groups do not possess a single hive-mind that always agrees with itself about everything. In fact - as these forums demonstrate - people disagree about a good deal of things with regard both what they consider 'fun' and what they consider over-/under-powered (and to what degree). Assuming that every player in every group will always agree to any and all proposed changes to the army they want to play would seem to show considerable ignorance of both the problem and of players in general. As, for that matter, would your continued shouting of 'COMMUNICATION'. As if no one in any group other than yours has a functional mouth.

But, I guess COMMUNICATION just solves every disagreement ever. hence why every political debate ever ends with both sides agreeing completely on what the solution should be.

Of course IMO as always.

GW PAST:

Excellent Fluff. Which, made people want to buy models and play the game. Even if it was a twisted and blended version of great Sci-Fi books.

Great rule sets. Which, also helped keep the game alive and build it into the titan it is today. could go anywhere in the world and play the same game with strangers.

FAQ that was quick to answer and clear up confusion

Models; great for the time, some still great today. Many may look outdated but still look great on the table.

Customer knowledge, they knew their customer base.

Customer service was awesome, hell you could call in get rules clarifications and be certain it was correct no matter who you got on the line.

Range of games and support was excellent

GW Now

Fluff has become clunky, much of it has errors that doesn't mesh with other codices it referenced. Some Codices have gone in a completely different direction for fluff and it is opinion to which was better. (example: Necrons)

Rules set. Power creep and Power nerfing gone wild. The power gamer (aka TFG) loves the new stuff. The guy who bought forgeworld (units or super heavies) and never got to play them in a normal 40k game because he did know how to organize APOC games, loves it. Most people who prefer to play games where codices are all on equal footing (or as close as possible for a complex game) are frustrated and confused. Game is now designed to be played with your close friends in mind. i.e. house rules and builds etc. YMMV if you go to a new venue, they might be like minded they may all be WAAC types.

FAQ...what FAQ for the longest time there was none and now it what is there is of very little use.

Models many of the plastics are now industry standards some of the other are WTF, debacles like SMAUG are all too common, many improvements but equally as many failures.

No customer research. knowledge of, is leaps of faith or guess work, player tend to be hobbyists and collectors at the same time and I'm betting players are still the majority, but unless research is done they will never know.

Customer service is still awesome, credit where credit is due.

Ranges, loss of some of the best games in the industry. Many are supposed to make a return, but I'm not holding my breath.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

Me too. Every time. Going back possibly to 2006. I think last year or thereabouts I had the awesome, awesome idea to do an all Termie army, based around the then-new Strike Force Ultra box. I had fluff and everything, even allowing for future expansion of a Tempestus force and a Knight (elite forces backing them up). Then I saw how bad an all-Termie army would do, and shelved the idea because it would have been total garbage on the table, despite being awesomely fluffy.

That's bullgak.

Grizzyzz wrote:IMO... 40k has some obvious rules issues, and that falls on GW not wanting to take responsibility. But the rest comes down to the players.

vipoid wrote:And what we're saying is that, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Players shouldn't be expected to have to try balance the rules because the writers cant be bothered. Let alone in a game that charges stupidly high prices for said rules.

Furthermore, this mitigation you're proposing is almost always going to be vastly harder to agree on than you're making out. Amazing as this might sound, most 40k groups do not possess a single hive-mind that always agrees with itself about everything. In fact - as these forums demonstrate - people disagree about a good deal of things with regard both what they consider 'fun' and what they consider over-/under-powered (and to what degree). Assuming that every player in every group will always agree to any and all proposed changes to the army they want to play would seem to show considerable ignorance of both the problem and of players in general. As, for that matter, would your continued shouting of 'COMMUNICATION'. As if no one in any group other than yours has a functional mouth.

But, I guess COMMUNICATION just solves every disagreement ever. hence why every political debate ever ends with both sides agreeing completely on what the solution should be.

I think you misunderstand me. As I stated in my first post ^ 40k has obvious rules issues which I pegged to GW. No where did I say that players assume the responsibility of writing there own rules and making lists of what they are allowed to take. I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time. When I say the "rest falls on the players" it comes to more than communication, but sportsmanship and veterancy. If you have a player who is an ass when winning or losing, no one has fun. If you play someone who is winning but is being an excellent sport, and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun. The players no matter how good or bad a set of rules or a game is have to make the best of what is available.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.

So this is a thing for a lot of people I am sure, and that is sad to hear.. especially because I started 40k just after moving back from Tampa (where I will probably end up again in a few years) =D .. maybe when that happens we can play some fun games sometime.

But yeah I see where you are coming from. Without a group that you know and know who plays what generally it would be very difficult to show up and find a manageable game. That said.. not sure even a balanced rule set would fix this though. As someone just mentioned even in WMH they find some tier lists just more powerful even though in general the game seems to be more balanced. Plus a bad player is going to be a bad player regardless of what rules he has.

Cheers!

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

And what happens if the IG player is not a veteran?How relaxed can he be. I also doubt communication is going to give him.

and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun.

Because getting told you should buy another army and that you wasted your money on buying your army, is like totaly enhance the fun. It will just skyrocket, compering to someone who will just beat you and look for another opponent.

Makumba wrote:

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

And what happens if the IG player is not a veteran?How relaxed can he be. I also doubt communication is going to give him.

No explanation needed, you can reverse the statements and see the results.

Makumba wrote:

and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun.

Because getting told you should buy another army and that you wasted your money on buying your army, is like totaly enhance the fun. It will just skyrocket, compering to someone who will just beat you and look for another opponent.

Then that is not following what I said about sportsmanship.

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time.

Possibly then you've misunderstood my point, too.

Let me put it another way - there often isn't a clear or meaningful distinction between a fluffy list and a WAAC list. Especially with stuff like the Decurion and other super-formations - which let people field armies that are both fluffy and very powerful. In many cases, WAAC is more likely to just determine the 'trimmings' (for example, whether a list buys some stuff for its characters or leaves them bare to squeeze in one more unit). Hence, communicating that you don't want to play WAAC lists isn't very helpful. e.g. a fluffy DE list is still going to be vastly weaker than a fluffy Eldar list. Hell, even a WAAC DE list will probably struggle to beat most fluffy Eldar lists. And, then you have stuff like IK lists and whether armies that consist of 4-5 super heavies can be considered 'fun'.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

Me too. Every time. Going back possibly to 2006. I think last year or thereabouts I had the awesome, awesome idea to do an all Termie army, based around the then-new Strike Force Ultra box. I had fluff and everything, even allowing for future expansion of a Tempestus force and a Knight (elite forces backing them up). Then I saw how bad an all-Termie army would do, and shelved the idea because it would have been total garbage on the table, despite being awesomely fluffy.

That's bullgak.

So if there isn't a local group, then make one! Make a Facebook group, Google hangout, or Meetup page (my American club uses all three) and call it Wayne's Warhammer or the <City> Area Wargames Club or whatever. Get phone numbers, email addresses, and names. Sometimes having a community means someone went through the effort of making a community.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time.

Possibly then you've misunderstood my point, too.

Let me put it another way - there often isn't a clear or meaningful distinction between a fluffy list and a WAAC list. Especially with stuff like the Decurion and other super-formations - which let people field armies that are both fluffy and very powerful. In many cases, WAAC is more likely to just determine the 'trimmings' (for example, whether a list buys some stuff for its characters or leaves them bare to squeeze in one more unit). Hence, communicating that you don't want to play WAAC lists isn't very helpful. e.g. a fluffy DE list is still going to be vastly weaker than a fluffy Eldar list. Hell, even a WAAC DE list will probably struggle to beat most fluffy Eldar lists. And, then you have stuff like IK lists and whether armies that consist of 4-5 super heavies can be considered 'fun'.

Fair point, I was viewing fluff and WAAC as both list and player. Once you separate the distinction yes you are correct.

*EDIT* I suppose I am a bit spoiled in how I can find games covering a spectrum of fun -> competitive with a variety of player experiences. =D I also have 2 GW stores and 2 FLGS in my area, which I have been told is uncommon.

 Psienesis wrote:

I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, and the evidence suggests that your opinion is incorrect.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Because there's a great IP buried under the tons of crap GW has foisted on it.

This isn't really a good argument. If a company other than GW didn't support the customers and/or listen to feedback then people would simply stop going to that business. No one is sticking around spending thousands of dollars and countless hours just cause the IP is so strong. If people don't care for the game or the way its going its a solid time and reason to bail out. But for every person on here who CONSTANTLY complains about the company you should be aware it doesn't seem like they are changing their tune any time soon. I agree the game isn't very "balanced" but of course I have never seen a game other than say chess where every side is perfectly balanced. I find when I sit down to play a game with my friends we enjoy it immensely. We understand what the others are playing and enjoy the experience none the less.

 Icelord wrote:
If a company other than GW didn't support the customers and/or listen to feedback then people would simply stop going to that business. No one is sticking around spending thousands of dollars and countless hours just cause the IP is so strong. If people don't care for the game or the way its going its a solid time and reason to bail out.

Are you at all familiar with the 'sunk cost fallacy'?

If not, it might surprise you to hear that many people aren't willing to just drop something that they've already invested a great deal of time and/or money into - precisely because they've already invested so much time, money and/or effort into it. Instead, many people will actually continue investing money - in the hope that it will eventually get better and be worth it in the end. You could view it as an attempt to salvage the time and money they've already invested into the hobby.

It's similar to how many people, having bought a cinema ticket, will feel obliged to watch a film to the end - even if they're not enjoying it, since they've already spent the money.

The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

But you're assuming that people always think logically and never emotionally, which is itself fallacious. We're not Vulkans, after all.

Also, I'm not sure what you're even saying. Yes, it's wrong - but most people think that way regardless. That's the whole point. Yes, if you stop enjoying 40k it would be most logical to just cut your losses and leave the hobby. But, a lot of people don't think like that - because they don't want to have wasted all the time and money they already put into the hobby.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

It is not. I am observing the exact thing happen here. 40k is all but dead. Our Tyranid player admit everything's ruined for him, but he is still looking to continue to some degree simply because he's already spent such large amounts of money on his army.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

It is not. I am observing the exact thing happen here. 40k is all but dead. Our Tyranid player admit everything's ruined for him, but he is still looking to continue to some degree simply because he's already spent such large amounts of money on his army.

vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

But you're assuming that people always think logically and never emotionally, which is itself fallacious. We're not Vulkans, after all.

Also, I'm not sure what you're even saying. Yes, it's wrong - but most people think that way regardless. That's the whole point. Yes, if you stop enjoying 40k it would be most logical to just cut your losses and leave the hobby. But, a lot of people don't think like that - because they don't want to have wasted all the time and money they already put into the hobby.

Humans being irrational does not excuse irrational behavior. It neither makes it 'right' nor 'sensible', merely understandable.

And yes, I understand the sunk cost fallacy and its effect on people. I suffered from it myself all through 5th edition when they broke Armoured Company. But people should be willing to recognize that it is a fallacy, that they're hurting themselves, and lashing out on the internet because they can't overcome their fallacious irrationality is not acceptable.

We're salty because we care.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Humans being irrational does not excuse irrational behavior. It neither makes it 'right' nor 'sensible', merely understandable.

And yes, I understand the sunk cost fallacy and its effect on people. I suffered from it myself all through 5th edition when they broke Armoured Company. But people should be willing to recognize that it is a fallacy, that they're hurting themselves, and lashing out on the internet because they can't overcome their fallacious irrationality is not acceptable.

What I don't understand is why you seem to be aiming this at me.

It wasn't as if I said "Wow, this 'sunk cost fallacy' sounds amazing! Everyone should live their lives by it." or anything of the sort.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

I would drop w40k, If I could sell my IG army. I can't, no one wants to buy IG.

Then that is not following what I said about sportsmanship.

But it is. What can an eldar player tell an IG player? Sorry I bought a good army and you bought a bad one.Even in your example the only time a IG player maybe has a so-so chance at a game, is when he is a very good general with a tournament IG list and the opposing one is a bad eldar player. And even then a good eldar list can carry him through.

File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.