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.

That's if you decide to spam them. If you don't it's a different story.

The Nids have such a selection now that they can make a pretty varied list out of big bugs. No spamming necessary.

I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

You also get to kill them easily with missile launchers.

As if I'd ever bring one of those.

I do sometimes.

Then I've taken Plasma Cannons....

pm, stop feeding Martel.

Martel, we get it, Blood Angels suck.



Another not as to on topic: I wonder, do people actually enjoy blatantly one sided games? or what?

Not trying to troll, just having a discussion.

I've met many people who enjoy it. Not as many, though, as my meta indicates. It's just that anti-tailoring measures set up many curb stomps.

Also, not just BA suck. Any "reasonable" marine list is quite poor, as well.

 Brennonjw wrote:
pm, stop feeding Martel.

Martel, we get it, Blood Angels suck.



Another not as to on topic: I wonder, do people actually enjoy blatantly one sided games? or what?

In an arranged scenario as the result of a campaign? Sure.

As a challebfe with an objective other than annihilate or capturebthe objective? Probably.

2 WK and Scatterspam vs 50 IG and some tanks? I'll pass thx.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I meant spamming MC's in a general sense rather than a specific MC. Some people do like smaller things.

That's a more even matchup, because then flamers and such begin to matter.

You also get to kill them easily with missile launchers.

This. I love playing against my tyrranid opponent because the weapons that I take actually get to do stuff. I take plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers and sternguard. And assault squads in rhinos with flamers.

Against non-flyrant tyrranids, those things actually work.

Not to mention the rhino wall that I put up in the middle of the board.

Granted, my opponent doesn't have much of a sense of target priority (somehow, his dakka flyrant doesn't often seem to notice my devastator squads).

But non-flyrant tyrranids is actually a tactically interesting thing to face up against. If you keep your eye on the prize and know what to focus down, you get rewarded. If you play badly, you get seriously punished.

I like that. [In this respect, it's like playing Dark Souls!]

Conversely, the reason I hate flyrants. If you pay the money and points for the model, you don't have to use tactics. You can just fly around and shoot whatever you want with impunity. You don't have to make good decisions, use cover, etc. It's almost completely point and click.

 Traditio wrote:


But non-flyrant tyrranids is actually a tactically interesting thing to face up against. If you keep your eye on the prize and know what to focus down, you get rewarded. If you play badly, you get seriously punished.

I like that. [In this respect, it's like playing Dark Souls!]

Conversely, the reason I hate flyrants. If you pay the money and points for the model, you don't have to use tactics. You can just fly around and shoot whatever you want with impunity. You don't have to make good decisions, use cover, etc. It's almost completely point and click.

I love playing my Tyranids in casual settings/PUGs. There is a huge range of kind of bad but fun to play builds in the codex. One of my favorite things is taking as many warriors+ shrikes as I can and trying to out MSU the marine players.

I have to disagree with you about flyrants being point and click. In causal games sure, they are pretty strait forward. Against top tier builds (i.e., trying to win a tournement), target priority and movement decisions can be very difficult, particularly in maelstrom style missions where you have to choose between landing to claim objectives and keeping flyers safe.

 Traditio wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
The power imbalance is rough, even for casual games.

I started a 'Nid army for an escalation league last year. After the first two games, it was clear I wasn't going to win against ANYONE, so for me the battle became not about winning, but both keeping from being tabled and making the experience enjoyable.

Afterwards, I just went back to my Tau force; the effort of keeping the smile on my face with Tyranids was not worth how it was crushing my soul inside.

My son seems to have had the same experience in our casual games with his CSM force, and now prefers playing with the necron force he build for the escalation league.

We've found we can play the CSM vs. Nids and have a close game, or TAu vs. Necrons, but if we mix the match-up around we know who is going to win before the first model hits the board now.

This goes back to my point. You weren't getting stomped because of codex creep or bad rules. You were getting stomped either because 1. you aren't good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction), 2. your opponents were very good at the game (and by that, I don't mean list construction) or 3. your opponents weren't playing the casual game that you thought was being played.

I've had very close games with my casual space marines list against a relatively casual tyrranids list. Last game I played, I beat him 11 to 10 in Maelstrom.

I didn't use grav, librarians, bikes, drop pods or formations, and he only used one dakka flyrant.

If people want "good games," then it's actually very easy to do.

STOP NETLISTING!

Oh, so blame the players and not the game? Fiiiiiiine. Guess we won't see any more Tau or Eldar threads from you, huh?

I love the player blaming argument for obvious game design flaws.

In a club environment or with friends, sure, totally reasonable to eventually work towards some semblance of balance by the weaker player upping their list as much as possible and the stronger player toning down theirs similarily. Doesn't change the fact that the poor game design has potentially forced two players to alter their lists potentially against their desires and army fluff, which is not ideal.

In pick-up and tournament or league play, some players are punished for simply liking faction 'X' that happens to be garbage.

But yeah, all those bottom tier army players just need to 'git gud'. Totally.

Stormonu wrote:Oh, so blame the players and not the game? Fiiiiiiine. Guess we won't see any more Tau or Eldar threads from you, huh?

I'll use my favorite video game example:

No, there shouldn't be a glitch there. The fact that there is a glitch there reflects poorly on the game designer. They should fix the glitch.

However, the fact that there is a glitch doesn't force you to exploit it. If you keep moving to that part of the screen and hit a precise sequence of buttons specifically to crash the game, that's on you, not the game designer.

And if I'm playing with you, I am going to be annoyed with you, not the game designer, when you crash the game.

I'm coming around to the common opinion that formations have proven to a bad idea and should not be a part of the game. I also am coming around to the idea that bikes and vehicles shouldn't be troops choices. Ever.

However, given the fact that all of these things are part of the game, we aren't forced to use them. Last game I played against the tyrranid player, I used a CAD. I didn't run a gladius. I didn't even drastically alter my army list. I just removed a captain, a chaplain and a couple of melta bombs and called it a CAD. Nothing else changed.

Except that a bug/glitch is an unintended literal broken aspect of the game, while the imbalances we have are, as far we know, totally intentional.

But I mean, sure, its probably easier to make blanket statements and ignore every instance where a player can have a totally not broken, very strong and fluffy army they enjoy building, painting, and playing. Hell, they might even enjoy winning too!

Hey, I'll happily lose a game with my Orks or Death Guard. They can keep it pretty close - and that's all I care about.

 Blacksails wrote:
Except that a bug/glitch is an unintended literal broken aspect of the game, while the imbalances we have are, as far we know, totally intentional.

Irrelevant to my point. Yes, the bug/glitch is unintentional, whereas the broken gak that GW has spewed out is intentional.

But so what?

Just like you aren't forced to walk to that part of the screen and hit a precise sequence of buttons, nobody is forcing you to run an unbound dakka flyrant list.

If you do, that's on you, not GW.

That's the only point that I'm making.

Saying: "BUT THAT'S AN OPTION THAT THEY'VE ALLOWED ME" isn't really much of a defense. It just makes you (this "you" not referring to you in particular, but "you in general") look like a donkey cave (in my opinion) and makes me want to refuse to play with you (again, a general "you").

 Traditio wrote:
I'll use my favorite video game example:

Which is still just as wrong as it was every previous time you used it. The more accurate example would be an FPS video game where the AK-47 is considered the best gun and most people think it has too much DPS. You can argue that the game is more fun if people don't use the AK-47, but the people who do are clearly playing the game as the designer intended. No matter how many times you say that it should do 30 damage per shot instead of 50 the fact remains that the people who made the game said it's 50.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'll use my favorite video game example:

Which is still just as wrong as it was every previous time you used it. The more accurate example would be an FPS video game where the AK-47 is considered the best gun and most people think it has too much DPS. You can argue that the game is more fun if people don't use the AK-47, but the people who do are clearly playing the game as the designer intended. No matter how many times you say that it should do 30 damage per shot instead of 50 the fact remains that the people who made the game said it's 50.

This doesn't change my point in the least. The same point obtains:

Nobody is forcing you to use the AK-47. You could easily use another gun. if you use an AK-47, that's on you, not the game designer.

Especially if we are playing split-screen and I've said: "Hey. No AK-47s. Use a different gun, eh?"

 Traditio wrote:
But so what?

So what? Do you honestly not see a difference between exploiting a glitch that was not supposed to exist (and probably would have been fixed if the creator knew about it) and playing according to the clearly-intended rules of the game in a way that you, Traditio, personally do not approve of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
This doesn't change my point in the least. The same point obtains:

Nobody is forcing you to use the AK-47. You could easily use another gun. if you use an AK-47, that's on you, not the game designer.

No, it's entirely on the game designer for creating a game that isn't the game you want to play. You don't get to blame the players who do enjoy that game for not voluntarily changing how they play to accommodate your preferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Especially if we are playing split-screen and I've said: "Hey. No AK-47s. Use a different gun, eh?"

And the response to that is why? Why should I use a different gun? Why shouldn't you be the one who gets to change your strategy and pick up an AK-47 of your own?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
But so what?

So what? Do you honestly not see a difference between exploiting a glitch that was not supposed to exist (and probably would have been fixed if the creator knew about it) and playing according to the clearly-intended rules of the game in a way that you, Traditio, personally do not approve of?

No. Intentional vs. unintentional is irrelevant to the point that I'm making.

My point is simply this:

In all of these cases: 1. GW codex options, 2. the glitch (though unintentional with respect to the designer) and 3. the AK-47 (intentional with respect to the designer), the construction of the game only provides the material cause of your choice.

A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

Nobody's forcing me to do anything, which you seem to be missing. No one is bound by your particular standard of an acceptable army, so you might as well come to terms with the fact people are going to play what they enjoy playing for any variety of reasons, and that having an elitist attitude about the right or proper way to build an army is going to do you no favours when finding gaming partners.

And frankly, if you had that kind of attitude if you saw my list, I'd be the first one to turn you down. I'm significantly more concerned with the person across from me than their list when it comes to my enjoyment of the game. Having an elitist attitude like yourself only makes you look like the donkey-cave.

Poeple play what they want, and they're perfectly entitled to it, just as you're entitled to say no. Being an ass about it helps no one.

Peregrine wrote:No, it's entirely on the game designer for creating a game that isn't the game you want to play. You don't get to blame the players who do enjoy that game for not voluntarily changing how they play to accommodate your preferences.

The game designer has created a game that can be either the game you want to play or not. If the game designer has given us both AK-47s and shotguns, and I like shot-guns, then I have been given the option to play a game that I want to play. I've also been given the option to play a game that I don't want to play.

Which game I play is up to me.

And the response to that is why? Why should I use a different gun?

Because if you don't, then I'll find someone else to play with, or else, a different game to play, or else, find a better way to spend my time.

It's that simple.

Why shouldn't you be the one who gets to change your strategy and pick up an AK-47 of your own?

See OP. The context of my comments is that the OP is saying: "I keep beating my opponent with my necrons. It's so unfair. I keep beating them and they don't even have a chance."

My answer? "That's your fault. Change your list."

 Traditio wrote:
No. Intentional vs. unintentional is irrelevant to the point that I'm making.

Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

(Of course we know the reason, you know that people hate glitch exploiters and you want to bring that sense of moral superiority into the discussion instead of talking about balance issues.)

A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

That's another terrible analogy. A lump of bronze doesn't come with instructions on its use. A game does.

 Blacksails wrote:
Nobody's forcing me to do anything, which you seem to be missing. No one is bound by your particular standard of an acceptable army, so you might as well come to terms with the fact people are going to play what they enjoy playing for any variety of reasons, and that having an elitist attitude about the right or proper way to build an army is going to do you no favours when finding gaming partners.

And frankly, if you had that kind of attitude if you saw my list, I'd be the first one to turn you down. I'm significantly more concerned with the person across from me than their list when it comes to my enjoyment of the game. Having an elitist attitude like yourself only makes you look like the donkey-cave.

Poeple play what they want, and they're perfectly entitled to it, just as you're entitled to say no. Being an ass about it helps no one.

Again, my comments must be understood in the context of the thread. Read the OP. Then read my comments.

Already did, and already did, but this is more of you dodging points.

Your comments are perfectly understood. If mine were too complicated for you, I can re-explain them to you.

If you don't want to discuss it, just say so.

Peregrine wrote:Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

The specifics of the analogy are irrelevant. The distinction is between material vs. efficient causality and the primacy of the efficient cause over the material cause.

Nobody is forcing the OP to play an army that stomps his opponents. He very easily could play a different Necron army. He could even play the same Necron army, but say: "Hey, just so you know, this isn't a decurion. This is a CAD."

If he chooses to run a decurion, that's on him.

That's another terrible analogy. A lump of bronze doesn't come with instructions on its use. A game does.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in the Space Marine codex where it says that my list must contain at least one librarius conclave. What page is that on?

 Traditio wrote:
Because if you don't, then I'll find someone else to play with, or else, a different game to play, or else, find a better way to spend my time.

It's that simple.

Ok, fine. Go play a different game. But stop acting like you're morally superior to the "glitch exploiter" who plays in a way that you don't enjoy.

See OP. The context of my comments is that the OP is saying: "I keep beating my opponent with my necrons. It's so unfair. I keep beating them and they don't even have a chance."

My answer? "That's your fault. Change your list."

Alternative answer: help them change their list. Why should the winning player have the entire obligation to do something different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
The specifics of the analogy are irrelevant.

Then why do you insist on talking about the glitch analogy instead of a more accurate one?

(Of course we know the reason, you know that people hate glitch exploiters and you want to bring that sense of moral superiority into the discussion instead of talking about balance issues.)

 Traditio wrote:
A sculptor can use bronze to sculpt either a naked man or a clothed one. You can't blame the bronze for the sculptor's decision to sculpt a nude.

And nobody is blaming the paper for the bad rules written on it, we're blaming the company responsible for writing them.