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.

Deadnight wrote:

Here's the thing - you spar with someone, not against them. And wargames are the same. Just because you're on the opposite side of the table in a wargame doesn't mean you can't create a narrative, and have a great game with someone, as opposed to playing against them. One lets you build something collaboratively into more than 'just a game', the other will never amount to anything beyond 'a game', because as sad as it sounds, people working together go further than when they constantly fighting each other..

See, the issue I have with this analogy is that sparring isn't boxing, it is practicing boxing.

So, yes, if you're a couple of friends, hanging out, having a laugh with each other and playing a game then your comparison holds water. Where things start to break down is where they constantly do so in this discussion, is when you start to consider the needs of players outside of a circle of friends, which nearly everyone agrees 40K is already at least adequate for.

When you start to consider tournaments, or, allowing for the (I feel somewhat erroneous) argument that 40K isn't supposed to be played in a competitive way, simply a pick up game in a store somewhere, you immediately eliminate, or at least diminish, the social component, and direct a lot more emphasis on to the objective (ie pitting yourself and your army against another in order to achieve a winner)

Then things are less "sparring" and more "match." If you go into a boxing match with a "collaborative attitude" then you're going to get hurt!

 azreal13 wrote:

See, the issue I have with this analogy is that sparring isn't boxing, it is practicing boxing.

So, yes, if you're a couple of friends, hanging out, having a laugh with each other and playing a game then your comparison holds water. Where things start to break down is where they constantly do so in this discussion, is when you start to consider the needs of players outside of a circle of friends, which nearly everyone agrees 40K is already at least adequate for.

When you start to consider tournaments, or, allowing for the (I feel somewhat erroneous) argument that 40K isn't supposed to be played in a competitive way, simply a pick up game in a store somewhere, you immediately eliminate, or at least diminish, the social component, and direct a lot more emphasis on to the objective (ie pitting yourself and your army against another in order to achieve a winner)

Then things are less "sparring" and more "match." If you go into a boxing match with a "collaborative attitude" then you're going to get hurt!

p

Correct on the sparring. You spar with, you fight against. Sparring is a step short of going into the ring for twelve rounds.

And correct on the 'you're going to get hurt' point. I've said as much - with folks going into the game wanting different things (the casual v powergamer is the typical example), there is going to be a clash of ideology. The differences ultimately collide, are irreconcilable in a lot of ways, and at least one person will have a rubbish game.

Thing is, whilst I agree with you azrael, as usual, I may add, is 40k a game that is ultimately suitable for, and designed to accommodate either tournaments, or pick up and play? You talk about diminishing the social component as a necessity, and focus on the objective (and look, I'm not necessarily disagreeing! Sometimes it's just nice to have a game...) but trying to do this with 40k, I feel, in a lot of ways can end up being a case of of 'square peg, round hole'. Other games allow it - warmachine, infinity etc are designed to accommodate it. 40k? I dont think as much. To me, playing it with friends, and tweaking it is making the best of a bad situation, as it were, because gw is uninterested in fixing the problems. It's me dealing with the reality, working around the issues, and not pining for an ideal that will never come.

Deadnight wrote:
[

And again, seeing things *only* from the perspective of playing tournaments is whats limiting you. Why do “tournaments” define what is good, or not?defining an armies worth, judged solely by tournaments, only limits your options, especially with a game like 40k that isn't designed for tournaments.

No good armies are good and bad armies are bad , both cost more or less the same money . People don't want to spend money on bad stuff. So we end up with armies which may as well be tournament ones .That doesn't mean everyone plays tournaments . Just that there is no difference between a tournament and non tournament game.

Or they find like-minded individuals, instead of power gamers, and tweak the game to suit their needs. Your situation, whilst regrettable, only holds true when two people who want different things out of the game end up clashing. If people who play for fluff and ignore powerbuilds, and play against others who play for fluff, and ignore powerbuilds, then where is the problem? 40k is what you make of it. getting stuck into a “only take the best stuff” mentality is as draining as anything else.

Ok I don't get this , everything which can be legaly taken out of a codex is automaticly fluffy . I also don't see how paying for a bad army and losing all the time is not draining on someones will to play the game

Pffft. Why will it “work like this”? have you ever tried “playing this game another way”? Just because you have a ball doesn’t mean you must play soccer. Right here is the problem – even now, you’re treating the game as a “versus” mode – as a winner/loser proposition, and one where “you must play against your opponent”, with the “win” as the defining aim of the game. Thinking like this, you’ll never see beyond a very narrow vision of what wargaming can be. And to be fair, its fine to play competitively- I do. But its not the only way, or the “right” way.

Yes , I seen people that come from UK or germany , who played there try to use FW or people that bought armies that work at 1250-1000pts , they were always told no . And I did go today and ask if it would be ok for me to use medusas . The anwser was , not in the codex , means not legal .

Using things that are not in codices could be grey. But fair enough. You want to use a medusa? Ok, fine. It’s a siege breaker, right? So it would make sense using it in a siege breaking scenario. Im sure I could come up with a scenario in which you get you use your piece, in a thematic, and enjoyable way. Now a company of ultramarines wandering through the wilderness and they happen to encounter a “wild medusa” that is part of a “wild” imperial guard power build? Yeah, that’s silly. But as part of a themed scenario? Completely different proposition.

No one is going to let me use units that are not codex , specialy if the scenario would make it better. If jetbikes suddenly became illegal , I wouldn't let an eldar play them in some sort of break out scenario .

Because if there are no rules that can enforce me using an option , no one is going to be ok with something that could let me win easier.

Same with breaching drills. Again, if it suits the scenario, then why not?

well beside FW not being legal in normal games and me not wanting to use them , because they suck ? No one is going to buy models to play in one game . People here have 1500pts , somtimes 1999 .Unless they have 2 armies they will not have more points . I for example can't play 1999 , because I don't have a 1999pts army. Or rather I didn't have before stuff went up in points.

Next week, try something completely different. Give each person a chance to be an umpire, and run a game in which other people play. Let everyone come up with a cool scenario that they can present to the group.

no one is going to want to do stuff and not play. judges here have to be paid , else no one would want to do it . But I will ask around , I can imagine the scenarios some people will want.

Heh, you'd be surprised. Last year, I met two guys through wargaming at a local club, their first time there and I was demoing infinity. Both were hooked and got into infinity in a big way after. So they asked me how armies were built and I said it was a typical points based system. They were surprised, their experience of wargames was previously through historicals, and points based systems were something they really had no experience with. So yeah, it's easy to ignore points.

Playing more points then allowed is higher on the no list , then FW or recast models .

Use your head, mate. You read me wrong. You’re assuming I mean “chuck everything you own on the table”. Eh, no. Use some common sense. If we know the points system GW uses is bad in a lot of places (how many things are hopelessly under, or over costed? 1500pts of taudar is not the same as 1500pts of tyranid) then whats the point in using it in the first place? If it is essentially 'wrong', why should you use it as a measure to define the game? If his tanks are OP and they cost the same as your infantry, take more infantry. In a hold the line against overwhelming odds type scenario, surely it makes sense to have respawning waves of bad guys? Points be damned! Bring the world to life in other ways.

Am not a mate that is one thing . the other one is that points are part of the rules , can't break rules otherwise people would be playing what ever they want. Someone who has more bases would always win , because his army would just be plain better.



Talked to a friend about different scenarios . His idea was to play a generator destroying mission , with one side defending and the other one attacking . Each surviving generator gives 2VP , each blown up gives 1 VP +VP kill points and d3+1 normal objectives . The problem is he plays a SW drop pod army .

Le sigh. Someone doesn’t get me. What I mean to say is “look at the mechanics” and pilfer what it interesting. We took the random activation mechanic used in Bolt Action, and added it to our games of flames of war. And it was an absolute blast. Starship troopers had a “each squad gets two actions per turn” system, with actions being moves, shoots, assaults, or special abilities. As opposed to move/shoot/assault. Infinity has a fantastic resolution mechanic – roll your saves against the power of what hit you, rather than roll to hit/wound/armour save.

But who would say what is legal and what is not , if you don't have rules for it .

Mak. Please, from now on, assume that your meta is NOT NORMAL. You have been told multiple times that your meta is not at all representative of regular 40k, or regular WM/H. Don't present points based on your meta as if they are accurate to the larger community, please. Your area has so many crazy rules.

At this point, I think its fair to assume he does it deliberately.

I don't think so. With a meta like his, I'd assume it's just beaten into him. That's why I keep reminding him that it isn't at all, in any way, representative of the larger 40k/WM/H world.

I don't think I'd even bother playing with a meta like that.
"Have fun? How dare you. Fun is not written in your codex!"

Wow, your group actually cares if someone has recast models, Mak? That's... that's really harsh. Unless it's a Games Workshop.

 motyak wrote:
I don't think so. With a meta like his, I'd assume it's just beaten into him. That's why I keep reminding him that it isn't at all, in any way, representative of the larger 40k/WM/H world.

Okay, then. How about a situation as simple as mine: lists are preconstructed, and then opponents randomized. Even for a permissive meta, this set prevents list tailoring and narrative forging, because there is no negotiation over list composition. Are you gonna tell me that random opponents is crazy now?

Nono, but Mak is a conistently 'my meta does something far worse' user. I have no idea what to do in a meta like that, thank god I just play with mates ha

I understand his situation is bizarre. But when something as simple as not allowing list tailoring explodes most GW apologists' excuses, that's not a good sign.

Lol good point. I'm not an apologist by far though.

 motyak wrote:
Lol good point. I'm not an apologist by far though.

I didn't mean to say that. I was just pointing out the weakness of the pro-GW position. Our group just wants the games to simulate genuine matchups with the element of surprise. Lists are submitted ahead of time, to disallow switching units out after matchups are determined. We feel that this is the best test of list building. However, some armies are getting crushed in this format.

Martel732 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Lol good point. I'm not an apologist by far though.

I didn't mean to say that. I was just pointing out the weakness of the pro-GW position. Our group just wants the games to simulate genuine matchups with the element of surprise. Lists are submitted ahead of time, to disallow switching units out after matchups are determined. We feel that this is the best test of list building. However, some armies are getting crushed in this format.

Sounds a lot like a tournament setup (randomized pairings, premade lists, ect).

We find that list tailoring seriously warps the concept of what units are good in a general sense.

Makumba wrote:

No good armies are good and bad armies are bad , both cost more or less the same money . People don't want to spend money on bad stuff. So we end up with armies which may as well be tournament ones .That doesn't mean everyone plays tournaments . Just that there is no difference between a tournament and non tournament game.

define "good" and "bad". theres "good" for a tournament, and theres "good" for casual play. theres "good" because i like how it looks, and i like the fluff. defining the game around "tournaments" is very myopic.

Makumba wrote:


Ok I don't get this , everything which can be legaly taken out of a codex is automaticly fluffy . I also don't see how paying for a bad army and losing all the time is not draining on someones will to play the game

true. to an extent. riptides are fluffy, but not every tau army has 3 riptides and a dozen allied wave serpents.

Also, "paying" for a bad army and "always losing" is simply not the case. it would be going up against you and your "its always a tournament" crowd, but against my mates, who are chilled out, very laid back and very casual about things, and not into the latest cheese - yeah, its perfectly fine.

get out of your shallow way of thinking mak.

Makumba wrote:

Yes , I seen people that come from UK or germany , who played there try to use FW or people that bought armies that work at 1250-1000pts , they were always told no . And I did go today and ask if it would be ok for me to use medusas . The anwser was , not in the codex , means not legal .

I'd play them. its a shame you didnt get to use your medusas, but it seems the crowd you game with is very hostile, and unimaginative when it comes to playing the game other ways. other groups would be much more accomodating. my mates would.

Makumba wrote:

No one is going to let me use units that are not codex , specialy if the scenario would make it better. If jetbikes suddenly became illegal , I wouldn't let an eldar play them in some sort of break out scenario .

So you've met every 40k gamer, hmm? I'd be OK with it, provided you had the rules. i've played against out of print lists from older editions in the past, my only caveat was they used the older codex... in fact, i can see a potential idea for a scenario, assuming jetbikes are no longer in the codex, it would stand to reason they've been pulled from frontline service in the fluff. so under what terrible circumstances have the eldar been forced to pull out gear that is essentially obselete and mothballed? there is a good hook there for a story.

Makumba wrote:

Because if there are no rules that can enforce me using an option , no one is going to be ok with something that could let me win easier.

you're missing the point.
again, this isnt "out of the book" gaming. this is friends coming to an understanding, and collaborating to create a game. you dont need rules written down by some guy in nottingham to enforce things. try a wee chat with your mates. secondly, winning and losing should be secondary to playing the game. like i said, with me and my friends, if it fits the scenario thematically, we're ok with it.

Makumba wrote:

Same with breaching drills. Again, if it suits the scenario, then why not?

well beside FW not being legal in normal games and me not wanting to use them , because they suck ? No one is going to buy models to play in one game . People here have 1500pts , somtimes 1999 .Unless they have 2 armies they will not have more points . I for example can't play 1999 , because I don't have a 1999pts army. Or rather I didn't have before stuff went up in points.

who cares?

that situation is changing mak. firstly, you assume what you're doing is "normal" gaming. considering GW say in their very own rulebook to add house rules and tweaks if you want, what i am proposing is not that preposterous. this kind of gaming is pretty "normal" too - in fact, one could argue the hardcore "its always a tournament" crowd are the minority. plenty folks game at friends houses at the weekend, and house rule, and run once off games, or campaigns that have little resemblance to the game you insist 40k is. and yet, we/they have fun, and what we'they do is as much playing in the spirit of the game, and playing 40k, as what you do.

why would they only be used in one game? im not so unimaginative that i couldnt come up with multiple uses for them. fine,you wouldnt use them in *every* game, but thats hardly an issue, if you ask me.

Makumba wrote:

Next week, try something completely different. Give each person a chance to be an umpire, and run a game in which other people play. Let everyone come up with a cool scenario that they can present to the group.

no one is going to want to do stuff and not play. judges here have to be paid , else no one would want to do it . But I will ask around , I can imagine the scenarios some people will want.

you know everyone then, do you? its normal practice for our group to have one person stand out and umpire a game. just because they're not rolling dice doesnt mean they're not taking part, or able to enjoy the game. and you dont need to be paid - plenty of us do it for the job of bringing our armies to life on the table top. you only get out what you're willing to put in.

Makumba wrote:

Heh, you'd be surprised. Last year, I met two guys through wargaming at a local club, their first time there and I was demoing infinity. Both were hooked and got into infinity in a big way after. So they asked me how armies were built and I said it was a typical points based system. They were surprised, their experience of wargames was previously through historicals, and points based systems were something they really had no experience with. So yeah, it's easy to ignore points.

Playing more points then allowed is higher on the no list , then FW or recast models .

Its not about points though. often, We ignore points entirely. if it looks fun, if it fits or if it can add to the game, we consider putting it on. the idea of "more points than allowed" is irrelevant.

Like i said, points dont have to define the framework of a game.

Makumba wrote:

Use your head, mate. You read me wrong. You’re assuming I mean “chuck everything you own on the table”. Eh, no. Use some common sense. If we know the points system GW uses is bad in a lot of places (how many things are hopelessly under, or over costed? 1500pts of taudar is not the same as 1500pts of tyranid) then whats the point in using it in the first place? If it is essentially 'wrong', why should you use it as a measure to define the game? If his tanks are OP and they cost the same as your infantry, take more infantry. In a hold the line against overwhelming odds type scenario, surely it makes sense to have respawning waves of bad guys? Points be damned! Bring the world to life in other ways.

Am not a mate that is one thing . the other one is that points are part of the rules , can't break rules otherwise people would be playing what ever they want. Someone who has more bases would always win , because his army would just be plain better.

you do realise "mate" is often just a term used in casual conversation? no need to be jumpy. would you rather "antagonistic internet stranger"?

points are given,but points change. and like i said, my two friends came from a background where they never played points based systems.

and again, the melodrama. just because you dont necesaarily revolve your game around points doesnt mean people will play whatever they want, or lolstomp everyone for the lulz. or didnt you read/choose to ignore the part where i said you should try approaching your game as a co-operative collaboration? you can make a fun, balanced and enjoyable scenario without points.

Makumba wrote:

Talked to a friend about different scenarios . His idea was to play a generator destroying mission , with one side defending and the other one attacking . Each surviving generator gives 2VP , each blown up gives 1 VP +VP kill points and d3+1 normal objectives . The problem is he plays a SW drop pod army .

considering those generators are probably kilometers below the surface, that drop pod army ain't the ones that'll be going in.

He can still do it. Carchadorans sent their squads underground during the siege of badab prime to wreck the power generators - they just didnt get to use any tanks or drop pods to do it.

In any case, assuming you both work out how drop podding marines makes sense and have a go, then surely there are ways of making it interesting for the defender. how about giving the defender repair teams that than undo the damage? How about needing to hold the generators for d3 turns to set the explosives? put all of this against a backdrop of an enemy that is mobilising to defend the generators, and rushing to the scene. so you'll start with a defending force, and every couple of turns, you could get a fresh wave of reinforcements. it gives the attacker a lot of things to worry about.

things dont just have to be a win/lose "game". think bigger. use your brains.

Makumba wrote:

Le sigh. Someone doesn’t get me. What I mean to say is “look at the mechanics” and pilfer what it interesting. We took the random activation mechanic used in Bolt Action, and added it to our games of flames of war. And it was an absolute blast. Starship troopers had a “each squad gets two actions per turn” system, with actions being moves, shoots, assaults, or special abilities. As opposed to move/shoot/assault. Infinity has a fantastic resolution mechanic – roll your saves against the power of what hit you, rather than roll to hit/wound/armour save.

But who would say what is legal and what is not , if you don't have rules for it .

you, and your friends.

remember, this is not about being told how to play out of a book. there is no "official" guide, or rules. its a collabaration. Its a co-operative design. You talk about it. you describe the scenario. you discuss what could be used, what would fit etc. its not hard.

40k is the only game I can think of where reading the rulebook and expecting other players to follow the rules when playing the game makes you an donkey-cave.

Deadnight wrote:
true. to an extent. riptides are fluffy, but not every tau army has 3 riptides and a dozen allied wave serpents.

Why not? There's nothing in the fluff that I can see that says an average Tau army doesn't have three riptides. You're just making an assumption. For all we know the riptide is in full production after the battle for Agrellan and they're becoming as common as crisis suits now.

This is why I don't like "fluff gamers", they end up being the most boring and restrictive of any other gamer, and not surprisingly their views on how the game is "supposed" to be played are often wrong, based on fluff they've misinterpreted or things they're injecting into it themselves. I once saw someone say that mech Tau was "unfluffy" when, if anything, that mobile style of warfare is perfectly fitting for the Tau, just because Fish of Fury was a thing and it was annoying to play against. I guess you were only "supposed" to take devilfish for your pathfinder squads since it used to be a mandatory purchase...oh wait, now markerlights are broken, so pathfinders aren't "fluffy" anymore and you can't take them, either. lol...

I'd say if the rules allow you to take up to three of them then you're allowed to take up to three of them, and it's perfectly "fluffy" to do so. If it weren't fluffy then why would it be possible? Are you going to try and argue that they're just appeasing tournament gamers, after establishing that 40k isn't a tournament game? Are you going to argue that they left that option open in case riptide spam was appropriate for your one-off narrative campaign game, even though we've established that the core rules themselves encourage you to make gak up and take whatever the hell you want if it suits you, and thus we would never need to be given "permission" to field up to three of anything (or up to twelve if we really wanted to) ever?

I've played in four states over four years in different geographic regions.

I have seen more of Mak's style stores of "No FW, only upon opponent approval" pretty much everywhere. Even at GW stores. So why all the hate?

And the concept of good unit/bad unit goes out the window when a fluffy army could be a powerhouse destroyer versus that of another fluffy army. A Samm Hain Eldar army is all jetbikes, wave serpents, fire prisms. That wouldn't be fun to play against an all khorne, only khorne army unless chasing bumpers and getting shot to pieces is fun...

 Sidstyler wrote:
40k is the only game I can think of where reading the rulebook and expecting other players to follow the rules when playing the game makes you an donkey-cave.

Deadnight wrote:
true. to an extent. riptides are fluffy, but not every tau army has 3 riptides and a dozen allied wave serpents.

Why not? There's nothing in the fluff that I can see that says an average Tau army doesn't have three riptides. You're just making an assumption. For all we know the riptide is in full production after the battle for Agrellan and they're becoming as common as crisis suits now.

This is why I don't like "fluff gamers", they end up being the most boring and restrictive of any other gamer, and not surprisingly their views on how the game is "supposed" to be played are often wrong, based on fluff they've misinterpreted or things they're injecting into it themselves. I once saw someone say that mech Tau was "unfluffy" when, if anything, that mobile style of warfare is perfectly fitting for the Tau, just because Fish of Fury was a thing and it was annoying to play against. I guess you were only "supposed" to take devilfish for your pathfinder squads since it used to be a mandatory purchase...oh wait, now markerlights are broken, so pathfinders aren't "fluffy" anymore and you can't take them, either. lol...

I'd say if the rules allow you to take up to three of them then you're allowed to take up to three of them, and it's perfectly "fluffy" to do so. If it weren't fluffy then why would it be possible? Are you going to try and argue that they're just appeasing tournament gamers, after establishing that 40k isn't a tournament game? Are you going to argue that they left that option open in case riptide spam was appropriate for your one-off narrative campaign game, even though we've established that the core rules themselves encourage you to make gak up and take whatever the hell you want if it suits you, and thus we would never need to be given "permission" to field up to three of anything (or up to twelve if we really wanted to) ever?

The Riptide should have been fairly priced, and then the fluff wouldn't matter, because they would be no more common than crisis suits, statistically speaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
I've played in four states over four years in different geographic regions.

I have seen more of Mak's style stores of "No FW, only upon opponent approval" pretty much everywhere. Even at GW stores. So why all the hate?

And the concept of good unit/bad unit goes out the window when a fluffy army could be a powerhouse destroyer versus that of another fluffy army. A Samm Hain Eldar army is all jetbikes, wave serpents, fire prisms. That wouldn't be fun to play against an all khorne, only khorne army unless chasing bumpers and getting shot to pieces is fun...

"

The Eldar need to be costlier and Khrone needs more tools to handle vehicles. That's what this tells me. Game design is NOT that hard.

 TheKbob wrote:
And the concept of good unit/bad unit goes out the window when a fluffy army could be a powerhouse destroyer versus that of another fluffy army. A Samm Hain Eldar army is all jetbikes, wave serpents, fire prisms. That wouldn't be fun to play against an all khorne, only khorne army unless chasing bumpers and getting shot to pieces is fun...

Exactly, using fluff to attack "power builds" doesn't work. What do you do against the aforementioned Eldar army? "Uh, uh, you can't play that army! Because, because...um...OH, it's not fluff-no...hrmm...you just can't. Sorry, rules are rules."

Martel732 wrote:

The Eldar need to be costlier and Khrone needs more tools to handle vehicles. That's what this tells me. Game design is NOT that hard.

So you're saying GW needs to balance and actively maintain the game? This I'd agree with.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Exactly, using fluff to attack "power builds" doesn't work. What do you do against the aforementioned Eldar army? "Uh, uh, you can't play that army! Because, because...um...OH, it's not fluff-no...hrmm...you just can't. Sorry, rules are rules."

The Jetseer Council, minus the Baron, is actually pretty fluffy. The Commanding Farseer and his trusted inner circle ride into battle at the most grim point to turn the tides.

The Draigowing is pretty fluffy. A last stand of the last elite forces of the Grey Knights, in their darkest hour, were reunited with their lost Grand Master. Spurred by his reappearance, the fighting spirit of the elite few rose to nigh unstoppable parallels, requiring force that would level entire tank regiments before succumbing.

FMC spam is fluffy in Tyranids as they have no doctrine other than adapt and overpower. Your army can't handle 5 FMC, 9 MCs in total? Looks like the Hive Mind adapted to blow you behind off the table.

You can go on and on. There's fluff supporting a lot of the dirtier tricks in the game.

I understand that blizzard has an unfair advantage in data gathering, but if a Starcraft unit get spammed too much, it gets looked at for a nerf. Likewise, if something is NEVER built, it get looked at for a buff. Waiting this long for the fix for the Vendetta has kept my Stormravens grounded for at least 18 months. GW could send two dudes around to tournaments and see what needs fixed. They just don't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

The Eldar need to be costlier and Khrone needs more tools to handle vehicles. That's what this tells me. Game design is NOT that hard.

So you're saying GW needs to balance and actively maintain the game? This I'd agree with.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Exactly, using fluff to attack "power builds" doesn't work. What do you do against the aforementioned Eldar army? "Uh, uh, you can't play that army! Because, because...um...OH, it's not fluff-no...hrmm...you just can't. Sorry, rules are rules."

The Jetseer Council, minus the Baron, is actually pretty fluffy. The Commanding Farseer and his trusted inner circle ride into battle at the most grim point to turn the tides.

The Draigowing is pretty fluffy. A last stand of the last elite forces of the Grey Knights, in their darkest hour, were reunited with their lost Grand Master. Spurred by his reappearance, the fighting spirit of the elite few rose to nigh unstoppable parallels, requiring force that would level entire tank regiments before succumbing.

FMC spam is fluffy in Tyranids as they have no doctrine other than adapt and overpower. Your army can't handle 5 FMC, 9 MCs in total? Looks like the Hive Mind adapted to blow you behind off the table.

You can go on and on. There's fluff supporting a lot of the dirtier tricks in the game.

Tiggy with centurions seems pretty fluffy to me. Maybe not adding smash$$%^er to the unit, but that's not unreasonable, either.

Martel732 wrote:
I understand that blizzard has an unfair advantage in data gathering, but if a Starcraft unit get spammed too much, it gets looked at for a nerf. Likewise, if something is NEVER built, it get looked at for a buff. Waiting this long for the fix for the Vendetta has kept my Stormravens grounded for at least 18 months. GW could send two dudes around to tournaments and see what needs fixed. They just don't care.

*nods* If GW supported tournaments, they could have created a data entry site to put in lists, kind of like the Magic DCI system or whatever. So the TO/FLGS guy can enter in all the lists to fact check them for errors and manage that scene for battle points, win/loss, etc. So while players get tournaments that you could win silly stuff like badges, books, or paints at little cost to GW, they could be using it to get a TON of game data for little effort on their part.

They could then see trends globally and determine which are regional issues and which are game issues and begin issuing errata to course correct. GW, feel free to take notes and steal this idea.

I'm sure the Starcraft haters will descend soon, but it's a helluva lot better game than 40K. It doesn't have the hobby component, but the actual game is much, much better. NO die rolling! My marines ALWAYS hit and ALWAYS do their 6+(weapon ugrade)-armor damage. And they always cost 50 minerals and build in 20 some odd seconds. That's attractive for someone paying 16 pts for the exact model that costs other lists 14 pts.

The problem with seer jetbike council, triptide, or whatever is that it is too cheap for its combat strength, not that it isn't fluffy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem with seer jetbike council, triptide, or whatever is that it is too cheap for its combat strength, not that it isn't fluffy.

Every single problem related to this argument comes from inappropriately costed models. Period. If the models were appropriately costed, OR EVEN CLOSE, the fluff people wouldn't hear a peep from the rest of us.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem with seer jetbike council, triptide, or whatever is that it is too cheap for its combat strength, not that it isn't fluffy.

GW has one of two solutions: Make overpowered units more costly in points. This would sell less models. Thus you get the opposite, underpowered models get cheaper. Thus unit count inflation and driving up the price of the game.

I'd much rather see the game roll back in time when 30 space marines was a ton. When the thought of 60 gants was a nightmare.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
true. to an extent. riptides are fluffy, but not every tau army has 3 riptides and a dozen allied wave serpents.

Why not? There's nothing in the fluff that I can see that says an average Tau army doesn't have three riptides. You're just making an assumption. For all we know the riptide is in full production after the battle for Agrellan and they're becoming as common as crisis suits now.

This is why I don't like "fluff gamers", they end up being the most boring and restrictive of any other gamer, and not surprisingly their views on how the game is "supposed" to be played are often wrong, based on fluff they've misinterpreted or things they're injecting into it themselves. I once saw someone say that mech Tau was "unfluffy" when, if anything, that mobile style of warfare is perfectly fitting for the Tau, just because Fish of Fury was a thing and it was annoying to play against. I guess you were only "supposed" to take devilfish for your pathfinder squads since it used to be a mandatory purchase...oh wait, now markerlights are broken, so pathfinders aren't "fluffy" anymore and you can't take them, either. lol...

I'd say if the rules allow you to take up to three of them then you're allowed to take up to three of them, and it's perfectly "fluffy" to do so. If it weren't fluffy then why would it be possible? Are you going to try and argue that they're just appeasing tournament gamers, after establishing that 40k isn't a tournament game? Are you going to argue that they left that option open in case riptide spam was appropriate for your one-off narrative campaign game, even though we've established that the core rules themselves encourage you to make gak up and take whatever the hell you want if it suits you, and thus we would never need to be given "permission" to field up to three of anything (or up to twelve if we really wanted to) ever?

so every tau army has 3 riptides, and more allied wave serpents than fire warriors, eh SID?

i remember you back in the old days on tauonline - i was one of the first to run the old "mechtau" lists as well, and to be fair, its staple as a fluffy build could be backed up by numerous references in the fluff*. riptide and wave serpent spam? yeah, not so much. Dont get me wrong - three riptides is well and good, but in all lists, and all the time? come off it mate, you're reaching a bit there...

Now i'll agree with you - sometimes, fluffy lists and power lists are one and the same - the imperial guard airborne of fifth edition is one perfect example. mechtau was another- it was solid for the first half of fourth, and then aged terribly. however, with respect, my points with regard to makumba were more in the line of there is a place for everything in the game to appear on the tabletop - not just the powerbuilds. there is more "good" stuff than just riptides. there is more to 40k than just "1500pt game? scenario x. dice off".

*although ironically, someone playing tau is sixth would figure tau are a gunline army with very limited mobility. someone from third would have seen the same thing-back then, tau were a gunline army. the mechtau thing came about because of fourth editions "skimmers moving fast", and some unbelievably good tau vehicle upgrades. the fact that it was backed up by the fluff was a bonus, but lets be honest, if skimmers were terrible in fourth, you'd have seen gunline tau as the "fluffy" thing then.

by the way, dont confuse "fluffy gamers" with "sore losers using the fluff as an excuse". playing to a theme in the fluff is fine, assuming there is one way to do the fluff - not so much.

Deadnight wrote:
so every tau army has 3 riptides, and more allied wave serpents than fire warriors, eh SID?

See, this is another of those misconceptions that just won't go away. It's tied into the whole 'I don't think Marneus Calgar should be fighting in every single little skirmish that the Ultramarines go along to...' with the obvious response being 'He's not... the games that include Marneus Calgar are just representing those battles that he did show up for... or battles that he might have been involved in.'

Certainly every Tau army, fluffwise, won't include 3 riptides and a bunch of wave serpents. But that doesn't make it un-fluffy for any given player's army to include those things, because that player's army has no connection whatsoever to any other army that any other player is using. Our games aren't linked through some world-spanning network. They're unconnected games played by different people. The fact that I have Marneus Calger on the table right now has no impact on whether or not another playing can be using him at the same time... and likewise the composition of my Taudar army is no more or less invalid just because some other players are using a similar army.

The number of people using a given combination of units has no impact on whether or not that combination of units is 'fluffy'.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem with seer jetbike council, triptide, or whatever is that it is too cheap for its combat strength, not that it isn't fluffy.

GW has one of two solutions: Make overpowered units more costly in points. This would sell less models. Thus you get the opposite, underpowered models get cheaper. Thus unit count inflation and driving up the price of the game.

I'd much rather see the game roll back in time when 30 space marines was a ton. When the thought of 60 gants was a nightmare.

Then everyone plays 4k games so they can keep using all their toys.