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.

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's my new Eldar list:

Supreme Command Detachment: Robute Guilliman (Avatar of Khaine) 380, Warlord for +2CP total
Battalion Detachment:
HQ: Librarian in Phobos Armor 100 (Warptime power, Terrify Power But Also With -1 To hit)
HQ: Primaris Librarian 95 (Mind War UM Power, Might of Heroes to buff the Avatar)

(2 farseers, gets me access to more psychic powers than my Eldar get)

Troops: Assault Intercessor Squad 95 (Storm Guardians)
Troops: incursor Squad 105 (Striking Scorpions)
Troops: Intercessor Squad 100, Sergeant with Power Sword 5, Assault Boltguns (Dire Avenger squad with Dire Sword exarch)

Elites: 3x Bladeguard Veterans 105 (Warlock Conclave)
Elites: Redemptor Dreadnought with Storm Bolters, Heavy Flamer, Onslaught Gatling (Wraithlord)
Elites: 9x Reivers with Knives (Howling Banshees)

Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)
Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)

Fast: 5x Bolt Inceptors (Swooping Hawks)
Fast: 3x Outriders (Shining Spears)
Fast: 3x Suppressors (Dark Reapers)

This list will "feel like" eldar more than any list I can make out of Codex: Eldar. I get to fall back and shoot with everything, if I stay in Tactical doctrine as long as possible I get a better version of Battle Focus, the Avatar still has an open hand and a sword weapon, does a better job of representing "inspiring my eldar to incredible feats of combat prowess" and still gets back up when he dies (but without spending CP to do it!). I get 2CP more than any opponent representing my Eldar strategic prowess/foresight, and I no longer have to wonder why a hyperadvanced race that had space travel while mankind was discovering fire decided to make their armor as gakky as imperial conscripts and their guns shittier versions of the old obsolete space marines' guns.

if anyone asks "hey why are your weenie elves so tough" I'll just say that they have super-advanced ultra space armor that makes Iron Man's suit look like medieval knight armor, and that's represented by their 3+ armor save and 2 T4 wounds.

I... I actually like this approach.

While there may be a touch too much salt ITT it is important to recognize that from all angles the way in which GW skews their design system in favour of space marines is unhealthy for 40k. It just is. If GW wants to drive sales of their most popular toy soldiers, than just release new models of the same units. People would still buy them just as much and the design team wouldn't constantly find itself trapped into corners their rules create.

 Eldarsif wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's my new Eldar list:

Supreme Command Detachment: Robute Guilliman (Avatar of Khaine) 380, Warlord for +2CP total
Battalion Detachment:
HQ: Librarian in Phobos Armor 100 (Warptime power, Terrify Power But Also With -1 To hit)
HQ: Primaris Librarian 95 (Mind War UM Power, Might of Heroes to buff the Avatar)

(2 farseers, gets me access to more psychic powers than my Eldar get)

Troops: Assault Intercessor Squad 95 (Storm Guardians)
Troops: incursor Squad 105 (Striking Scorpions)
Troops: Intercessor Squad 100, Sergeant with Power Sword 5, Assault Boltguns (Dire Avenger squad with Dire Sword exarch)

Elites: 3x Bladeguard Veterans 105 (Warlock Conclave)
Elites: Redemptor Dreadnought with Storm Bolters, Heavy Flamer, Onslaught Gatling (Wraithlord)
Elites: 9x Reivers with Knives (Howling Banshees)

Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)
Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)

Fast: 5x Bolt Inceptors (Swooping Hawks)
Fast: 3x Outriders (Shining Spears)
Fast: 3x Suppressors (Dark Reapers)

This list will "feel like" eldar more than any list I can make out of Codex: Eldar. I get to fall back and shoot with everything, if I stay in Tactical doctrine as long as possible I get a better version of Battle Focus, the Avatar still has an open hand and a sword weapon, does a better job of representing "inspiring my eldar to incredible feats of combat prowess" and still gets back up when he dies (but without spending CP to do it!). I get 2CP more than any opponent representing my Eldar strategic prowess/foresight, and I no longer have to wonder why a hyperadvanced race that had space travel while mankind was discovering fire decided to make their armor as gakky as imperial conscripts and their guns shittier versions of the old obsolete space marines' guns.

if anyone asks "hey why are your weenie elves so tough" I'll just say that they have super-advanced ultra space armor that makes Iron Man's suit look like medieval knight armor, and that's represented by their 3+ armor save and 2 T4 wounds.

I... I actually like this approach.

yeah this isn't just a salty joke, this is how I'm playing my eldar now. It is actually ridiculous how FEW models I actually have to give up fielding to run my army like this. Like, I might ditch the Bladeguard "Warlocks" in favor of some Aggressor "warp spiders" but as space marine lists go it's pretty un-optimized...so what are they going to do? Refuse to play against it because only THEY get to use their OP rules? Nah feth that it's perfectly clear what everything is, I've even painted each and every unit a different color scheme so you know what's what. The psykers are psykers. The dudes with melta are dudes with melta. The dudes with chainswords are dudes with chainswords. The dudes on bikes are dudes on bikes.

If I owned a few more more Dire Avengers I'd probably skip the guardians entirely and run the whole kit and kaboodle as an aspect host army, with all the aspects represented with rules that actually work the way they're supposed to fight. You could swap out a farseer for a jump pack slash captain with Teeth of Terra as an Autarch with Wings and glaive

Dire Avengers actually work as a close range hybrid shooting/assault unit.
Striking Scorpions actually work as infiltrators.
Swooping hawks actually work as deep striking anti-infantry.
Fire Dragons actually work as tough, heavily armored melta troopers.
Shining Spears actually work as daring chargers.
Howling Banshees actually work as terrifying assault units.

only problems are Warp Spiders not teleporting anymore and instead being dedicated anti-chaff, and Howling Banshees not being particularly anti-elite with Reiver knives.but that's fine.

Ooh, for extra fun you could do an actual functional Wraith Host army using all the various types of WG as Gravis armor. Cannons = Erads, Scythes = Aggressors, Blades = Bladeguard, Spiritseer = BG Ancient

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's my new Eldar list:

Supreme Command Detachment: Robute Guilliman (Avatar of Khaine) 380, Warlord for +2CP total
Battalion Detachment:
HQ: Librarian in Phobos Armor 100 (Warptime power, Terrify Power But Also With -1 To hit)
HQ: Primaris Librarian 95 (Mind War UM Power, Might of Heroes to buff the Avatar)

(2 farseers, gets me access to more psychic powers than my Eldar get)

Troops: Assault Intercessor Squad 95 (Storm Guardians)
Troops: incursor Squad 105 (Striking Scorpions)
Troops: Intercessor Squad 100, Sergeant with Power Sword 5, Assault Boltguns (Dire Avenger squad with Dire Sword exarch)

Elites: 3x Bladeguard Veterans 105 (Warlock Conclave)
Elites: Redemptor Dreadnought with Storm Bolters, Heavy Flamer, Onslaught Gatling (Wraithlord)
Elites: 9x Reivers with Knives (Howling Banshees)

Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)
Heavy: 3x Eradicators (Fire Dragons)

Fast: 5x Bolt Inceptors (Swooping Hawks)
Fast: 3x Outriders (Shining Spears)
Fast: 3x Suppressors (Dark Reapers)

This list will "feel like" eldar more than any list I can make out of Codex: Eldar. I get to fall back and shoot with everything, if I stay in Tactical doctrine as long as possible I get a better version of Battle Focus, the Avatar still has an open hand and a sword weapon, does a better job of representing "inspiring my eldar to incredible feats of combat prowess" and still gets back up when he dies (but without spending CP to do it!). I get 2CP more than any opponent representing my Eldar strategic prowess/foresight, and I no longer have to wonder why a hyperadvanced race that had space travel while mankind was discovering fire decided to make their armor as gakky as imperial conscripts and their guns shittier versions of the old obsolete space marines' guns.

if anyone asks "hey why are your weenie elves so tough" I'll just say that they have super-advanced ultra space armor that makes Iron Man's suit look like medieval knight armor, and that's represented by their 3+ armor save and 2 T4 wounds.

i actually had a thought of doing the same thing when eradicators came out, basically the last drop in marines stealing eldar's themes

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:

Finally, to me, and i think the majority of warhammer hobbyists out there, gak doesnt need to be perfectly balanced because its never been a "competitive" game for us. We dont try and min/max lists, or find all the most efficient combination of rules and stratagems to create deathballs. We dont try and be little gakkers by going out of our way to find tiny inconsistencies in the wording of rules to find an advantage. Warhammer has always been about meeting up with some like minded friends, building an awesome army, and having some beers and a laugh. Nerding out over each others latest additions to their armies or paint job, appreciating the hard work and how fething badass they all look on the table.

I feel sorry for those who never had this with this hobby or dont want that. Life is to short for all this pent up toxic moaning. Beerhammer for life yo.

Feel free to beerhammer some striking scorpions or howling banshees at a unit of... well, anything really. You'll be here posting abuse with the rest of us before the end of turn 3

I love fluffy, casual games and don't want to care about balance. Unfortunately my fluffy units/lists tend to underperform and get completely annihilated by my opponents; not (just) due to poor generalship, but due to quite significant differences in what you get for the points. Or worse, they massively overperform because GW accidentally boosted them, turning me into a cheesemongering neckbeard in the eye of my opponent. I've come to care a great deal about balance, because I just want to field a fluffy list without knowing I'll get stomped (or stomp) before the first die lands.

Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with infantry not being able to do much to tanks and the like, I don't "want to play chess". It's comparing stuff like intercessors versus storm guardians that grinds my gears (off the top of my hat, I'm sure there are better examples).

If your playing fluffy vs fluffy then you shouldnt have a problem. Ive never had the problem in 20 years. Or play narrative scenarios, use house rules etc. Me and my friends have been using home brewed terrain rules for donkeys years. Back in the day, this was what the game was designed to be, just how the hobbying aspect was desinged to be. It gave you the backbone of whats what, and then let you customise how you felt. Hence why 90% of all marine chapters are not named and so on.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:

Finally, to me, and i think the majority of warhammer hobbyists out there, gak doesnt need to be perfectly balanced because its never been a "competitive" game for us. We dont try and min/max lists, or find all the most efficient combination of rules and stratagems to create deathballs. We dont try and be little gakkers by going out of our way to find tiny inconsistencies in the wording of rules to find an advantage. Warhammer has always been about meeting up with some like minded friends, building an awesome army, and having some beers and a laugh. Nerding out over each others latest additions to their armies or paint job, appreciating the hard work and how fething badass they all look on the table.

I feel sorry for those who never had this with this hobby or dont want that. Life is to short for all this pent up toxic moaning. Beerhammer for life yo.

Feel free to beerhammer some striking scorpions or howling banshees at a unit of... well, anything really. You'll be here posting abuse with the rest of us before the end of turn 3

I love fluffy, casual games and don't want to care about balance. Unfortunately my fluffy units/lists tend to underperform and get completely annihilated by my opponents; not (just) due to poor generalship, but due to quite significant differences in what you get for the points. Or worse, they massively overperform because GW accidentally boosted them, turning me into a cheesemongering neckbeard in the eye of my opponent. I've come to care a great deal about balance, because I just want to field a fluffy list without knowing I'll get stomped (or stomp) before the first die lands.

Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with infantry not being able to do much to tanks and the like, I don't "want to play chess". It's comparing stuff like intercessors versus storm guardians that grinds my gears (off the top of my hat, I'm sure there are better examples).

If your playing fluffy vs fluffy then you shouldnt have a problem. Ive never had the problem in 20 years. Or play narrative scenarios, use house rules etc. Me and my friends have been using home brewed terrain rules for donkeys years. Back in the day, this was what the game was designed to be, just how the hobbying aspect was desinged to be. It gave you the backbone of whats what, and then let you customise how you felt. Hence why 90% of all marine chapters are not named and so on.

I mean you do, though. It doesn't matter how "fluffy" you make your lists, eldar aspects feel like absolute garbage next to SM equivalents. They just aren't comparable. Ultramarines rules do a better job representing the Eldar style of war than do Eldar rules.

You can make the game balanced by, say, giving the eldar army 2500 points or something, but then you wind up with Eldar playing like a wonky suicide horde of conscripts getting mowed down en masse by the space marines. I don't have an eldar army for them to play like Tyranids, hurling 20 howling banshees across the table into 5-man squads of space marines in the hopes of dragging them down by weight of numbers.

They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

They do. It's called Crusade Mode vs Matched Play.

But it doesn't matter if we use narrative Power Level with Crusade Mode or matched Points with missions from the tournament pack. If I want to play an eldar army and my opponent wants to use his new marines from the starter box, we are going to run into this problem of the fact that my opponent's 5 assault intercessors with astartes chainswords can fight 5 howling banshees who cost the exact same power level and nearly the same points without even breaking a sweat. they mow them right the feth down, and the Banshees are supposed to be a hyper-specialized unit designed to fight marines in melee.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up if Unit A is going to throw 4 WS3+ S4 AP-1 D1 attacks on the charge, and unit B is going to throw 2 WS3+ S3 AP-3 D1 attacks. And Unit A is T4 W2 sv3+ while unit B is T3 W1 Sv 4+ with -1 to hit.

You can use whatever custom terrain rules you want, whatever custom mission you want, Unit A will kill nearly twice their number of unit B in melee while losing half as many models.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

The idea that competitive 40K is toxic, is bs, as is the insinuation that better balance between factions is only needed for competive play.

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

The idea that competitive 40K is toxic, is bs, as is the insinuation that better balance between factions is only needed for competive play.

Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

They do. It's called Crusade Mode vs Matched Play.

But it doesn't matter if we use narrative Power Level with Crusade Mode or matched Points with missions from the tournament pack. If I want to play an eldar army and my opponent wants to use his new marines from the starter box, we are going to run into this problem of the fact that my opponent's 5 assault intercessors with astartes chainswords can fight 5 howling banshees who cost the exact same power level and nearly the same points without even breaking a sweat. they mow them right the feth down, and the Banshees are supposed to be a hyper-specialized unit designed to fight marines in melee.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up if Unit A is going to throw 4 WS3+ S4 AP-1 D1 attacks on the charge, and unit B is going to throw 2 WS3+ S3 AP-3 D1 attacks. And Unit A is T4 W2 sv3+ while unit B is T3 W1 Sv 4+ with -1 to hit.

You can use whatever custom terrain rules you want, whatever custom mission you want, Unit A will kill nearly twice their number of unit B in melee while losing half as many models.

Well when all the factions have had their revamps over the next couple years or so we shall see if thats still the case.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

The idea that competitive 40K is toxic, is bs, as is the insinuation that better balance between factions is only needed for competive play.

Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
They should just separate the competitive and the casual into two different rule sets. Send the toxicity away from the majority player base.

Then increase complexity in the games rules. feth streamlining it, that just makes things swing harder in either direction, less wiggle room.

They do. It's called Crusade Mode vs Matched Play.

But it doesn't matter if we use narrative Power Level with Crusade Mode or matched Points with missions from the tournament pack. If I want to play an eldar army and my opponent wants to use his new marines from the starter box, we are going to run into this problem of the fact that my opponent's 5 assault intercessors with astartes chainswords can fight 5 howling banshees who cost the exact same power level and nearly the same points without even breaking a sweat. they mow them right the feth down, and the Banshees are supposed to be a hyper-specialized unit designed to fight marines in melee.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up if Unit A is going to throw 4 WS3+ S4 AP-1 D1 attacks on the charge, and unit B is going to throw 2 WS3+ S3 AP-3 D1 attacks. And Unit A is T4 W2 sv3+ while unit B is T3 W1 Sv 4+ with -1 to hit.

You can use whatever custom terrain rules you want, whatever custom mission you want, Unit A will kill nearly twice their number of unit B in melee while losing half as many models.

Well when all the factions have had their revamps over the next couple years or so we shall see if thats still the case.

What happened to "if you just play fluffy this is not a problem."

What is your proposed fluffy solution to make Eldar play like they should in the fluff? I presume that you'd have some kind of problem with my solution (i.e. treating Eldar units as Ultramarines and using those rules for them because the current Ultramarines rules do a better job of representing Eldar than the current Eldar rules) because otherwise you would not have made this statement about how easy it is to just house-rule some kind of solution.

Assuming I want to play a game tomorrow, a friendly fluffy narrative game, who wants his new starter box of space marines to play like Space Marines and I want my Eldar to play like Eldar with their brand new plastic Howling Banshees, how should we accomplish that using easy house-rules?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Do you mean you never encountered the casual people that aggresively insist that 40k is fine with its flaws? Because theres quite a few posters on here that believe that.

Casual or Competitive doesn't make someone toxic or not, thats a character flaw that is unrelated to the game. People have to stop trying to label one side or the other as "toxic"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Do you mean you never encountered the casual people that aggresively insist that 40k is fine with its flaws? Because theres quite a few posters on here that believe that.

Casual or Competitive doesn't make someone toxic or not, thats a character flaw that is unrelated to the game. People have to stop trying to label one side or the other as "toxic"

In my experience it's the casual players who are the least of the opinion that the game is fine, and who are most likely to do things like, say, not using SM doctrines against non-SM armies that are in a bad spot, or who are willing to waive the stupid and arbitrary distinctions like SM vehicles getting chapter tactics while CSM vehicles do not.

It's competitive players who expect everyone to all suddenly adopt smaller board sizes, stop playing the missions they enjoy in favor of the new not-ITC missions, and stop using models and rules that they bought and paid for extremely recently because GW wants to planned obsolete them.

They don't usually do it in a particularly dickish way, but competitive players in my experience are far, far more likely to try and force you to change the way you play than casual players are, as well as the least likely to change the way they play to allow for you to have more of a chance to win.

I have never, ever encountered a more casual player who insists that 40k is perfectly fine, if they thought that they wouldn't be seeking out less competitive games.

Maybe if some people didn't constantly act as if the sky was falling all the frigging time from some little changes there wouldn't be "casual people aggressively insisting that 40k is fine with its flaws".

Just throwing that out there.

And it absolutely is more common with the competitive crowd.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Maybe if some people didn't constantly act as if the sky was falling all the frigging time from some little changes there wouldn't be "casual people aggressively insisting that 40k is fine with its flaws".

Just throwing that out there.

And it absolutely is more common with the competitive crowd.

oh i agree with that, i was pointing out that what you said

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

was untrue because we see it plenty on here.

Also, i point out the flaws and things i dislike in 40k and i'm 100% a casual player

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...we should all be playing 30k? I have no problems with this.

I do, 30k is still using 7th and 7th was broken on a fundamental level that is utterly irreparable. Even marine v marine still ends up not being able to use vehicles because they're made out of nitroglycerine and explode when they touch bushes and any ap higher than 3 being completely pointless.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Do you mean you never encountered the casual people that aggresively insist that 40k is fine with its flaws? Because theres quite a few posters on here that believe that.

Casual or Competitive doesn't make someone toxic or not, thats a character flaw that is unrelated to the game. People have to stop trying to label one side or the other as "toxic"

This is correct but the issue is being competitive by definition attracts more people with those character flaws - inflated sense of ego, lack of consideration for others experiences, need to be correct or the best, dislike of anything that isn't optimised and general disregard for anything flavourful over what is more efficient. Those aren't applied to everyone who is competitive but they're all very negative thought patterns and all applicable to playing a game competitively, just as some of those can be picked up by someone playing casually it's less common because they naturally move towards the competitive end of the spectrum over time.

Do agree with kan that if every time a marine model came out there wasn't a "OMG MY ARMY IS TRASH GW HATES ME AND POOPED IN MY CEREAL" thread it might stop a lot of petty back and forth.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Almost all of the toxicity I've encountered has been from the casual crowd.

See, what harlokin left out is the OTHER half of what people say; people in the casual side say 'the game is perfectly fine even with all it's flaws except for competitive players who ruin muh immersion!!

Casual players constantly, constantly cry and moan and whine about competitive players 'ruining' the game when competitive players are just playing the game as it exists. Casual players have this ingrained, almost 'sacred' idea of what they THINK the game is what they THINK you should be allowed to do and if you present them anything that falls outside of that little bubble they've built for themselves, they freak out.

It doesn't even have to be 'WAAC' stuff, it can just be something they don't like. Remember the 'lasguns killing landraiders' thing at the start of 8th? No competitive player cared about that, they knew that that would never be an effective way to kill a tank and understood from a gameplay perspective why having weapons that literally can't hurt something can be problematic design wise. But the casual crowd had a full shrieking meltdown about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Do you mean you never encountered the casual people that aggresively insist that 40k is fine with its flaws? Because theres quite a few posters on here that believe that.

Casual or Competitive doesn't make someone toxic or not, thats a character flaw that is unrelated to the game. People have to stop trying to label one side or the other as "toxic"

This is correct but the issue is being competitive by definition attracts more people with those character flaws - inflated sense of ego, lack of consideration for others experiences, need to be correct or the best, dislike of anything that isn't optimised and general disregard for anything flavourful over what is more efficient. Those aren't applied to everyone who is competitive but they're all very negative thought patterns and all applicable to playing a game competitively, just as some of those can be picked up by someone playing casually it's less common because they naturally move towards the competitive end of the spectrum over time.

Do agree with kan that if every time a marine model came out there wasn't a "OMG MY ARMY IS TRASH GW HATES ME AND POOPED IN MY CEREAL" thread it might stop a lot of petty back and forth.

I don't even agree that those threads come from competitive players.

In fact, competitive players are more likely to give a resigned sigh and go back to the drawing board to figure out how to deal with the new OP thing.

Ya'll like to act like the casual crowd doesn't care about how good their army is at all but that's some BS. EVERYONE cares about how good their army is. It's just casual and fluffy players that take it personally.

And all of those character flaws are things that are drawn to this hobby as a whole and don't apply to just competitive play. Inflated ego,lack of consideration for others, and need to be correct are still VERY prevelant in casual/fluff circles, it's just expressed in different ways.

"I'd never play against someone who had an unpainted army, they're just lazy WAAC losers because they don't have a lot of free time and their army came out a month ago."

"I can't believe you play space wolves and dark angels in the same army. Here's my 27 page essay on why your army is an abomination unto god and you should be cast into the pits of hell!'

"If you don't like X part of the 40k hobby that isn't gaming, you should just stop playing 40k. Go play chess because obviously there's no other reason to like 40k other than the way I like it!"

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games (direct quote from the_scotsman btw).

Add in your "It's literally only the competitive players that are toxic and exlusionary. Listen to me heavily imply that if we used some sort of negative behavior to stop them from playing they wouldn't be ruining MY GAME THAT I GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS!!!!"

I've heard variations of these things literally every day on dakka. Don't pretend that because you say you're not actually invested in winning you're somehow morally superior.

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Almost all of the toxicity I've encountered has been from the casual crowd.

See, what harlokin left out is the OTHER half of what people say; people in the casual side say 'the game is perfectly fine even with all it's flaws except for competitive players who ruin muh immersion!!

Casual players constantly, constantly cry and moan and whine about competitive players 'ruining' the game when competitive players are just playing the game as it exists. Casual players have this ingrained, almost 'sacred' idea of what they THINK the game is what they THINK you should be allowed to do and if you present them anything that falls outside of that little bubble they've built for themselves, they freak out.

It doesn't even have to be 'WAAC' stuff, it can just be something they don't like. Remember the 'lasguns killing landraiders' thing at the start of 8th? No competitive player cared about that, they knew that that would never be an effective way to kill a tank and understood from a gameplay perspective why having weapons that literally can't hurt something can be problematic design wise. But the casual crowd had a full shrieking meltdown about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 FEARtheMoose wrote:


Sorry i should of clarified what i meant. All the toxicity of the hobby is in the competitive side of it. NOT that all competitive PLAYERS are toxic.

I think there is toxicity on the casual side too. You get people who blithely insist that any and all flaws in the game are perfectly fine (cos it's just about the beer and pretzels), even though we are expected to pay top dollar for apparently professionally written rules and books.

People always act like this is a real thing, but I've legitimately never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered toxicity from the more 'competitive' side of things. And over the dumbest damn things too.

Do you mean you never encountered the casual people that aggresively insist that 40k is fine with its flaws? Because theres quite a few posters on here that believe that.

Casual or Competitive doesn't make someone toxic or not, thats a character flaw that is unrelated to the game. People have to stop trying to label one side or the other as "toxic"

This is correct but the issue is being competitive by definition attracts more people with those character flaws - inflated sense of ego, lack of consideration for others experiences, need to be correct or the best, dislike of anything that isn't optimised and general disregard for anything flavourful over what is more efficient. Those aren't applied to everyone who is competitive but they're all very negative thought patterns and all applicable to playing a game competitively, just as some of those can be picked up by someone playing casually it's less common because they naturally move towards the competitive end of the spectrum over time.

Do agree with kan that if every time a marine model came out there wasn't a "OMG MY ARMY IS TRASH GW HATES ME AND POOPED IN MY CEREAL" thread it might stop a lot of petty back and forth.

I don't even agree that those threads come from competitive players.

In fact, competitive players are more likely to give a resigned sigh and go back to the drawing board to figure out how to deal with the new OP thing.

A lot of them whine about codex creep and how GW changes rules too often as well.

Ya'll like to act like the casual crowd doesn't care about how good their army is at all but that's some BS. EVERYONE cares about how good their army is. It's just casual and fluffy players that take it personally.

Of course people want their stuff to work well, the difference is a casual player doesn't care if it's 5% less optimal than option 2 as long as they have a chance of playing a good game.

And all of those character flaws are things that are drawn to this hobby as a whole and don't apply to just competitive play. Inflated ego,lack of consideration for others, and need to be correct are still VERY prevelant in casual/fluff circles, it's just expressed in different ways.

Agreed

"I'd never play against someone who had an unpainted army, they're just lazy WAAC losers because they don't have a lot of free time and their army came out a month ago."

Hobby snobbery is definitely a thing, but if someone buys the new weblist with which to get easiest wins - competitive.

"I can't believe you play space wolves and dark angels in the same army. Here's my 27 page essay on why your army is an abomination unto god and you should be cast into the pits of hell!'

You're confusing narrative with casual here, some hardcore narrative types are nutty.

"If you don't like X part of the 40k hobby that isn't gaming, you should just stop playing 40k. Go play chess because obviously there's no other reason to like 40k other than the way I like it!"

This happens on both sides of the fence, same way the competitive scene in the US wouldn't use CA approved missions because the like ITC and it's their way or the high way. Likewise some casual players will get narked at knight armies etc as they're skewy to play against.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games (direct quote from the_scotsman btw).

Wanting to win more via being OP = competitive

Add in your "It's literally only the competitive players that are toxic and exlusionary. Listen to me heavily imply that if we used some sort of negative behavior to stop them from playing they wouldn't be ruining MY GAME THAT I GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS!!!!"

Again, this happens both sides, not like we have competitive rules lawyers on these boards dictating people should play to the letter of dumbass wordings sometimes.

I've heard variations of these things literally every day on dakka. Don't pretend that because you say you're not actually invested in winning you're somehow morally superior.

I'm not on a moral high group my number 1 reason for a game is to hang out with someone, second to that I play to win but will do daft stuff for lulz sometimes, I'm no so hung up on winning that it's what gives me the most joy.

Those are oddly specific, so specific that they're maybe your experiences? You're also blurring playing casually with a die hard narrative crowd.

Erjak wrote:It doesn't even have to be 'WAAC' stuff, it can just be something they don't like. Remember the 'lasguns killing landraiders' thing at the start of 8th? No competitive player cared about that, they knew that that would never be an effective way to kill a tank and understood from a gameplay perspective why having weapons that literally can't hurt something can be problematic design wise. But the casual crowd had a full shrieking meltdown about it.

This is the funny thing...because yeah, it was the supposedly "competitive players" who kept harping on and on and on about this.

They pointed to this as an example of why the whole game was doomed from the start, just like when AoS dropped the legendary 'All Nagash/Archaon" list was the bugbear they kept bringing out.

All I know is I now have a new signature. Where did I put that 27 page essay...

Jackal90 wrote:
30k is in an even worse situation for non marine armies.
Militia get shredded by sheer volume of fire.
Custodes are just too much of a small elite army so get shot to pieces.

Mechanicum though, they drew the short straw.
Worse saves than marines, despite being robots in suits of armour.
Massive fear of instant death weaponry as EW is impossibly rare for them.
Low numbers.
Add that together and they are at a loss against just about every 30k army.




The idea of streamlining by default profiles is a thing that many games used to do though as it works.
But I feel it would drain a lot out of the game.


Kind of funny though since previously, IG, Tau, Eldar and even orks (nob bikers) have dominated the meta.

As a 30k player who plays basically every army except marines, I have to disagree.

- My militia do indeed get shredded by volume of fire - but that's okay, because they can also summon Daemons, have the best artillery in the game, and very heavy tanks that I'll put toe-to-toe with any other tank in the game at the same points cost. Militia are supposed to be shredded by firepower. It's why one of their core troops choices has the Disposable special rule.

- Custodes are one of the ones I do not play, but a local player has had success with Talons of the Emperor (the real name of the army) employing a large number (31) of Sisters of Silence alongside his Custodes to fill out numbers (as well as make the enemy target priority difficult since they infiltrate forwards and get into melee quickly, and unlike modern 40k, a shooting unit in melee is in big trouble. They use Kharon transports to infiltrate forwards and blenderize the baddies.

- Mechanicum saves aren't the sum total of their toughness, typically it's Toughness and Wounds. A Thallax is only a 4+ save, but has 3 wounds at T5 (compared to 1 at T4 for a Marine), and is Stubborn at LD 8 so the usual way of defeating marines (beat and sweep them in combat) doesn't work reliably. Fear of instant death weapons is true but largely irrelevant, as outside of Talons of the Emperor they basically don't exist. Furthermore, Mechanicum have the tools to address every problem - if your problem is durability, bring big blobs of FNP Adsecularis in Carapace or lots of armored vehicles. The most durable Lord of War in the game (that can actually be played at 3k games in regular detachments) is the Ordinatus Sagittar. If you need firepower, then utilize the Myrmidon Destructors for example.

If you need help building a 30k list for non-marines, feel free to ask! I'd love to.

EDIT:
I forgot about Daemons of the Ruinstorm but I won't go into them since you didn't mention them even though I play them. Suffice to say that the 30k Daemons rules are super rad and way cooler and better in the meta than 40k daemons.

I think everyone agrees the whines about space marines are tiresome. As someone guilty of it myself...believe me, I would like nothing better than not to have any reason to whine about space marines.

But when GW keeps Gee-dubbing it up with more and more new, usually overpowered Space Marine releases that continue to give Space Marines every single thing that used to be unique to other factions but better, what do you expect is going to happen? If you don't like Space Marine whines you should be mad at GW, not at the people reacting in a predictable way to GW's treatment of its game.

On a fundamental level, everyone but the most deluded of posters here agrees Space Marines get too much attention and are too powerful. So complaining about the complainers is really missing the point.

ERJAK wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...we should all be playing 30k? I have no problems with this.

I do, 30k is still using 7th and 7th was broken on a fundamental level that is utterly irreparable. Even marine v marine still ends up not being able to use vehicles because they're made out of nitroglycerine and explode when they touch bushes and any ap higher than 3 being completely pointless.

Just gonna bolt my reply to this on the thread as well: what about 7th was broken that the Age of Darkness didn't change? Details please, your assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Vehicles are easier to kill in 8th edition and 9th edition 40k than in 30k. Way easier. The lethality of modern 40k is dramatically higher than in 30k. Could you give some examples of how vehicles explode quickly and which ones do so? As for the touching bushes comment, that's called "bogging down", and in reality can cause a crew to abandon the tank; in 30k I think it's quite sensible that a badly damaged (one hull-point) tank is abandoned by its crew when it bogs down in difficult terrain. Want to not bog? There's tools for that in the army lists! But they cost points, so you have to make a choice. You know, like a real wargame where the best choice isn't blindingly obvious from the word go. (Also they don't 'explode when they touch a bush', they bog down in area terrain. But go ahead and do hyperbole, it's a good look).

As for an AP higher than 3, my friend with his custodes army would love to play someone with that attitude, and my Militia would too. Good luck destroying my Demolisher tanks without any low-pen guns. I actually go out of my way to slot AP1 or AP2 (in emergencies, 1 is definitely preferred) wherever I can, because of how annoying vehicles are to finish off once you've engaged them with low AP weapons.

Fire lascannon at tank. Need to hit, lets say 5-6 for penetration, and then on a 6 your vehicle is destroyed.

I'm sure you can do some statistics to show that a vehicle with say 12-16 wounds and a 5++ is easier to destroy in today's game with lascannons than that - but anyone who's watched their shiny new model they've sunk 20 hours painting into leave the table with the first shot fired in anger knows it doesn't always work out that way.

Tyel wrote:
Fire lascannon at tank. Need to hit, lets say 5-6 for penetration, and then on a 6 your vehicle is destroyed.

I'm sure you can do some statistics to show that a vehicle with say 12-16 wounds and a 5++ is easier to destroy in today's game with lascannons than that - but anyone who's watched their shiny new model they've sunk 20 hours painting into leave the table with the first shot fired in anger knows it doesn't always work out that way.

Yeah, not like now, where you need a 3 to pen instead of a 5 and if you roll that 6 you lose 60% of your HP and, lets be honest, probably died because you let a second shot get through since you're wounding on 3s.

Just because you remember the times a big thing exploded because something rolled a 4+ then a 5+ then a 6, doesnt' mean it happens that way on average.

Tyel wrote:
Fire lascannon at tank. Need to hit, lets say 5-6 for penetration, and then on a 6 your vehicle is destroyed.

I'm sure you can do some statistics to show that a vehicle with say 12-16 wounds and a 5++ is easier to destroy in today's game with lascannons than that - but anyone who's watched their shiny new model they've sunk 20 hours painting into leave the table with the first shot fired in anger knows it doesn't always work out that way.

In practice, it's never one lascannon firing on its own be it HH or 40K, it's 4 (or more) at once; and at that point the averages tend to make it significantly more likely to lose the tank (or have it crippled into irrelevance) in 8th/9th. I've removed plenty of newly-painted models T1 at the hands of massed anti-tank fire in 8th.

HH also has the advantage here of still using armor facings, which makes early-game frontal shots significantly less likely to destroy a vehicle, without making them universally more difficult to kill.

Yeah. In an army vs army context, HH's vehicles are much, much tougher than 8th or 9th 40k.

#1 reason is the difficulty of harming them due to armor. A good portion of the enemy army simply has a zero percent effectiveness against a tank.

#2 reason is rules surrounding the firing of anti-tank weapons; they tend to be heavy and therefore are the hardest to effectively employ. This is why melta was great except...

#3 reason is wargear. HH tanks have multiple survivability improvements that were never available (or rarely so) in 40k ever, including Armored Ceramite and Blessed Autosimulacra, to name a few. Flare shields is a big one, which goes a long way to closing the gap between the sheer mass and power of a superheavy and the smaller tanks. Armor 14 with a flare shield is harder to kill than a Baneblade, depending on the weapons present, but is easier to cripple or disable due to other damage as a general rule. (for example, a Malcador from the front against missile launchers is more durable (infinitely so) than a Baneblade, but from the side is far far more vulnerable than said Baneblade, which can largely ignore them. This dichotomy is due to the power of the flare shield).

#4 reason is close combat (arguably #1, lol). Tanks don't give a feth about CC in 30k unless the unit CCing them can penetrate their armor, in which case they only care because their armor is being penetrated, not because it's close combat. Meanwhile, in 8th edition 40k, tanks cared a LOT even if the unit couldn't hurt them much, and in 9th edition they care only a smidge less.