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.

Martel732 wrote:
But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?

Definitely epic (for the Eldar), would be more so if you had a titan. Where is your titan...s?

They kill them too. D weapons on infantry is cool like that.

Martel732 wrote:
But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?

You're the one running on the assumption that casually tabling you and then listening to your endless whining is fun for the Eldar player.

Yeah. Speaking as my GW's local cheesemonger (I'm not even bad, by forum standards-my lists are good, but nowhere near overpowering compared to competitive lists from really any codex) it's not fun to just crush someone unless you both went in knowing it'd be a fight to the death.

If I say to someone "Bring your hardest list, and I'll bring mine", they agree, and I still crush them? That's good! That means I did well!

But if I say "Hey, want to play a 2,000 point game?", they agree, and I crush face? That's not good. That usually means my list was too hard and I was being a jerk.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?

You're the one running on the assumption that casually tabling you and then listening to your endless whining is fun for the Eldar player.

Well all I have is harsh language at this point. Since GW turned off my guns and my punching.

Martel, just play people who aren't WAAC. Find people who play more on your level.

I am WAAC, though. You just can't tell. I don't use fluffy BA lists AT ALL.

So you're enough of a WAAC guy to use completely non-fluffy lists, but not enough to just switch armies?

Do us all a favor and make a decision. Either play an army that's more capable of winning in your meta, or stop complaining so much.

I think the problem is that some games are better suited to competitive play and "sport" than others. GW games, for example, are generally not and tend to want to be more laid back, hobby focused affairs, while Warmahordes is more focused on competition and a sport-like atmosphere. The issue is that inevitably people will want to "become competitive" and picking a game that has issues with competitive balance (such as Warhammer of either flavor) runs into conflicts between the two people who want to play.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win, but there's the issue where you only care about your own fun, not your opponent's (WAAC) and on the flipside where you claim you don't care about winning, but also don't want to lose all the time.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're enough of a WAAC guy to use completely non-fluffy lists, but not enough to just switch armies?

Do us all a favor and make a decision. Either play an army that's more capable of winning in your meta, or stop complaining so much.

I shouldn't have to switch armies.

Martel732 wrote:
I am WAAC, though. You just can't tell. I don't use fluffy BA lists AT ALL.

We get it, you play a weak army. You can contribute to the thread without derailing it into a "BA are terrible!" thread.

You have a valid points, but if you don't take about 10% off the top, you'll start sounding like Sisters players.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I am WAAC, though. You just can't tell. I don't use fluffy BA lists AT ALL.

We get it, you play a weak army. You can contribute to the thread without derailing it into a "BA are terrible!" thread.

You have a valid points, but if you don't take about 10% off the top, you'll start sounding like Sisters players.

Well, my original post was about lack of temporal costs fething up balance. No BA mentioned at all.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're enough of a WAAC guy to use completely non-fluffy lists, but not enough to just switch armies?

Do us all a favor and make a decision. Either play an army that's more capable of winning in your meta, or stop complaining so much.

I shouldn't have to switch armies.

Well if you want to win a game, yes you have to switch

I don't think 40k is fun to play competitively. I think it is not well suited for it. I'd much rather play chess instead, which is suited very well for competitive play. Or go. Go is crazy.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're enough of a WAAC guy to use completely non-fluffy lists, but not enough to just switch armies?

Do us all a favor and make a decision. Either play an army that's more capable of winning in your meta, or stop complaining so much.

I shouldn't have to switch armies.

Well if you want to win a game, yes you have to switch

I'm really not willing to put out the $$ for that. And again, I shouldn't have to. GW is competing with Starcraft, wherein I pay 180 bucks and get all the units and they actually update the game in real time.

I have to say I agree with Martel. It'd be ideal (and logical) if armies were far more balanced, but GW is just a miniatures company with a poor set of rules to justify buying more models - so I think the expectation is unlikely that it'll happen any time soon.

Martel732 wrote:
...I'm really not willing to put out the $$ for that. And again, I shouldn't have to...

At the end of the day you have no control over what GW does.

You have total control over what you do.

We've given you the solutions to your problem ((a) stop playing with unpleasant WAAC gamers with strong Codexes, (b) switch to an army with a strong Codex).

If you're going to refuse to take either approach could you please stop whining? We know you have moral objections to actually solving your problem, we don't need you to wander the forums blaming your orneriness on problems inherent in the game.

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say I agree with Martel. It'd be ideal (and logical) if armies were far more balanced, but GW is just a miniatures company with a poor set of rules to justify buying more models - so I think the expectation is unlikely that it'll happen any time soon.

They're not even competent at that, though, when 66% of the models are unplayable crap.

Martel would greatly benefit from some of the new stuff.

Celestine, for sure.

And based on his complaints about Psykers, possibly even Inquisitor Greyfax. Giving an entire unit BS10 against a unit with a Psyker is pretty neat, and she can force Perils on hits with weapons and her grenades. Pretty hard to miss with a BS10 grenade.

I've considered celestine, but the sad reality is that there is no ba unit worth putting a 200 pt tank in front of. Celestines offense is pitiful for a 200 pt model. But she's gangbusters for twc.

Psykers don't bother me as much as undercosted shooting and undercosted durability. Besides, what unit would you put him in with ba?

Wayniac wrote:
I think the problem is that some games are better suited to competitive play and "sport" than others. GW games, for example, are generally not and tend to want to be more laid back, hobby focused affairs, while Warmahordes is more focused on competition and a sport-like atmosphere. The issue is that inevitably people will want to "become competitive" and picking a game that has issues with competitive balance (such as Warhammer of either flavor) runs into conflicts between the two people who want to play.

There are more games that are balanced than Warmahordes. I'll add Infinity and KoW.

Considering how many other games don't suffer from balance issues, one is tempted to ask why GW?
I really think it's inherent in how GW designs games and probably (at least initially) a conscious design decision.
Which makes it even more perplexing as to why so many people insist on making Warhammers competitive.

So, at which point are you playing for fun vs powerplaying during your local gaming stores monthly tournaments.

Example: I play a almost entire PAGK in Rhinos force with 1 dreadknight.

Due to the Ynari player with 15 D weapons or IG player with 6 wyverns + 2 vendettas. I recently made a purchase of 6 Thunderfire Cannons. My goal is if I face them to try and have the game decided one way or the other by the end of turn 2.

It does mean my GK are reduced to pretty much background fluff. As I am pretty sure that game isn't going to be fun.

This then comes down to what to do while playing non WAAC players in the same Tournament?

 DarkBlack wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think the problem is that some games are better suited to competitive play and "sport" than others. GW games, for example, are generally not and tend to want to be more laid back, hobby focused affairs, while Warmahordes is more focused on competition and a sport-like atmosphere. The issue is that inevitably people will want to "become competitive" and picking a game that has issues with competitive balance (such as Warhammer of either flavor) runs into conflicts between the two people who want to play.

There are more games that are balanced than Warmahordes. I'll add Infinity and KoW.

Considering how many other games don't suffer from balance issues, one is tempted to ask why GW?
I really think it's inherent in how GW designs games and probably (at least initially) a conscious design decision.
Which makes it even more perplexing as to why so many people insist on making Warhammers competitive.

I think GW games lack balance for several reasons

1.) Fluff tends to be the driving factor in game design not balance. If something sounds cool, do it who cares if it is awesome/terrible.
2.) GW games tend toward having more options (especially at the unit level), when units have lots of options it is hard to balance them correctly because either all options are equally good, or you balance the unit based on the optimal loadout and anything else ends up being suboptimal, or you need to be very specific in costing the options. Which brings us to
3.) Many options are costed the same across different units, as well as across different armies. For instance a grav-gun on a biker costs the same as it does on a space marine, despite the fact that it is much better on the biker. This often carries over to units with different stats, a BS 3 melta-gun is not worth the same as a BS5 melta gun.
4.) Synergy makes costing options even more difficult, do you cost Grav-guns in a way where they are balanced if they are given prescience? Or cost them fairly without it? Do you cost psykers as if they always have optimal powers? IF you had to pay for powers, the BRB powers effect different armies very differently. Invisibility in an army with a super-deathstar is better than one that is casting it on a squad of tactical marines.

The fix: price units and upgrades assuming optimal usage. Invis should cost 100 pts just for the power for example.

Youn wrote:
So, at which point are you playing for fun vs powerplaying during your local gaming stores monthly tournaments.

Example: I play a almost entire PAGK in Rhinos force with 1 dreadknight.

Due to the Ynari player with 15 D weapons or IG player with 6 wyverns + 2 vendettas. I recently made a purchase of 6 Thunderfire Cannons. My goal is if I face them to try and have the game decided one way or the other by the end of turn 2.

It does mean my GK are reduced to pretty much background fluff. As I am pretty sure that game isn't going to be fun.

This then comes down to what to do while playing non WAAC players in the same Tournament?

So basically, you're running the weakest part of one of the weakest armies, plus one dreadknight, and people who beat you are suddenly WAAC and anti-fun? That's not at all fair.... Unless I'm misreading you, in which case I apologize. Because I play Grey Knights, and I would crap all over a list that was all PAGK in Rhinos.

@Martel: Then you may as well remove options because not taking optimal load outs makes them even worse. Take invisibility, why have it cost 100 points in an army incapable of running a deathstar (the answer I suppose is allies). At that rate any good Psychic power should be near 100 points because in its best usage in game it is amazing. Also by your arguments things like pyrovores should cost 2 points each.

Oh, I agree... my list is weak for using PAGK. I am fixing that simply by not taking but 750 points of GKs. Their allies will be Red Hunters unit with 1 Techmarine with conversion beamer + 6 Thunderfire Cannons + 3 Vindicators.

That solves the issue.

Then that's what they should cost. If don't price for optimal useage, you get 27 ppm scatterbikes. Then yes the best psychic powers should be very expensive. You should pay for power. Eldar, tau and marine battle companies don't pay for their power. And we see the results.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?

You're the one running on the assumption that casually tabling you and then listening to your endless whining is fun for the Eldar player.

Maybe the eldar players there are sadistic masochists.

Martel732 wrote:
Then that's what they should cost. If don't price for optimal useage, you get 27 ppm scatterbikes. Then yes the best psychic powers should be very expensive. You should pay for power. Eldar, tau and marine battle companies don't pay for their power. And we see the results.

Or they could be costed different for each faction, especially if allies rules did not allow casting on allied units. As for Scatter bikes, that is an issue of making scatter lasers for bikes too cheap, and allowing too many. If they went back to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes it would fix that issue. Even then it is super hard to price for optimal usage because it assumes that playtesters will discover the optimal load out for each unit, and optimal list for those units. For things like book powers costing them is even harder because how do you cost for future releases? Further unless GW establishes a balance point (point level for optimal balance where the game is tested) it is even more difficult. Something broken at 2k may not even work at 1500, and something broken at 1500 may not mean as much at 2500. Malifaux for example is balanced around a 50 point game, that is the level that things are playtested for. At lower or higher points the balance starts to break down.