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.

Long story short. I play SW. I make it a principle to create balanced lists and i dont like list tailoring. The meta in my gaming group has turned so bad that im thinking of quitting and selling my army. Why? In 1500 pts games i meet lists like: aertos’rau’kheres (spelling?), or lists with 3 tesseract arks, or guilliman/terminus ultra/knight/techpriest. Any kind of critique of these lists are claimed to be “whining”. This means that normal troops are pointless for anything but holding objectives, and the only way to win is to spend the game trying to score victory points while avoiding enemies to not get annihilated before the game ends. While this can work, it is very boring not kiling anything for entire games.

On a side note, i just dont think this edition is good. Rules are counterintuitive (like piling/consolidating into melee, attacking units from behind a wall if the wall is less than 1” thick, etc). But worst of all is, that the spectrum from horde to giant armylists is too broad, which means that there are fewer balanced games where the game wasnt for a large part determined beforehand.. if you bring rock, you’ll beat scissors but lose to paper.

Or am i just butthurt over being bored by not removing anything but wound-counters for entire games?

You're not the only one who feels this way. I happen to like List Tailoring, but I know a lot of people who see things like you do. Not everyone plays a balanced list, and usually they skew towards Marine killers (which is what you are facing.)

But this is the Proposed Rules section. I didn't read a rule in there.

Proposed rule would be upper limmit to the % of a list that could be comprised of characters, elites, flyes and heavy support etc. Somewhat similar to fantasy.

Or anything that could narrow the extremities of 40k armies so that lists in general would be more balanced... to ensure that battles to a higher degree are won on the battlefield, and less by buying the newest, biggest model released times four.

So if an army has good troops, it just wins?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So if an army has good troops, it just wins?

Read it again.

But if you truly had a balanced list then removing those models wouldn't be an issue. Balance means 40% anti troops/infantry 40% anti armor, like the tesseracts or gmans, and 20% for objective grabbing. 2 squads of longfangs should be able to deal with those things. If you know what the opponent is bringing then why wont you adapt? And dont tell me its not in the fluff. Improvise, adapt, and overcome.

Just run 3 bane blades, and you will be going toe to toe with them also, they can't be running atios raue karess because he is 1500 points by himself.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Just run 3 bane blades, and you will be going toe to toe with them also, they can't be running atios raue karess because he is 1500 points by himself.

Why not? There's a detachment with one Lord of War choice and nothing else, which means Aetaos'rau'keres all by his lonesome is totally Battle-Forged.

Personally I recommend 30k LoW restrictions (no more than 25% of your points spent on any single model). It doesn't stop Guilliman but it does mean no Knights, Baneblades, Daemon Lords, or other very large things at 1,500pts.

Northern85Star wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So if an army has good troops, it just wins?

Read it again.

I did. There are no restrictions on troops. In other words, if your Elites or Heavy Supports are good, you get screwed over, but if your troops are good, spam away.

Northern85Star wrote:
attacking units from behind a wall if the wall is less than 1” thick, etc).

This isn't a rule.

Dwro1234 wrote:
But if you truly had a balanced list then removing those models wouldn't be an issue. Balance means 40% anti troops/infantry 40% anti armor, like the tesseracts or gmans, and 20% for objective grabbing. 2 squads of longfangs should be able to deal with those things. If you know what the opponent is bringing then why wont you adapt? And dont tell me its not in the fluff. Improvise, adapt, and overcome.

I did have 2 units of long fangs, albeit with missile launchers. Did 11 wounds to the terminus ultra first turn, but the terminus killed one unit of long fangs per turn (re-rolling to hit and to wound due to GMan). The part of my army that is anti infantry could effectively be put into the 20% for objective grabbing, because that is all that these are good for in such games - and of course trying to survive until the end, in order to win the game on victory points. Win or lose, these games are boring as hell!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Personally I recommend 30k LoW restrictions (no more than 25% of your points spent on any single model). It doesn't stop Guilliman but it does mean no Knights, Baneblades, Daemon Lords, or other very large things at 1,500pts.

That is a great solution!

 JNAProductions wrote:
I did. There are no restrictions on troops. In other words, if your Elites or Heavy Supports are good, you get screwed over, but if your troops are good, spam away.

I can win these games, by grabbing objectives and avoiding combat all game (to survive until the end). Win or lose, these lists create very boring games.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
attacking units from behind a wall if the wall is less than 1” thick, etc).

This isn't a rule.

Not specifically, but the rules does not prevent this. You don't need LoS to charge, and the criteria for a succesful charge is only to be within 1" of the target. If the target is standing behind a wall that is less than 1" thick, you simply charge in on the opposite side of the wall and you can attack through it. Or did we miss something? I obviously thought this was ridiculous, be we couldn't find anything preventing it.

I think you just have wrong expectations of the game. 40k IS about collecting and listbuilding. If for some reason you want to emphasise some other less important part of the hobby like gameplay, you need to limit listbuilding or invent a more tactical ruleset where infantry can be useful at taking down titans.

 koooaei wrote:
I think you just have wrong expectations of the game. 40k IS about collecting and listbuilding. If for some reason you want to emphasise some other less important part of the hobby like gameplay, you need to limit listbuilding or invent a more tactical ruleset where infantry can be useful at taking down titans.

I enjoy collecting and listbuilding very much, but you are right. I expected a game with high strategical value in complex list building, but this isnt the case, because you cant create a list that has a chance against the different extremities of armies you (i) will face. A balanced list is going to lose against all the extremities, making w40k “extremehammer” in my eyes. With that said, i see alot of balanced lists in the army list section, so the problem must lie with my gaming group. I could paint up 30 long fangs and beat the armies i am currently facing, and then they are going to buy a new extreme army, forcing me to buy a new army etc etc. Compare this to my time in fantasy, where we would tweak armies by a single unit to counter certain other units... instead of completely tailor an army to counter extremities. This is what i mean by that the spectrum is too large in w40k, giving room for many different types of extreme lists that demand almost specific counter-lists to beat.

Depends on what you mean by balanced. It can be balanced unit-wise - like take infantry, take tanks, take flyers, etc. or it can be balanced effect-wise - like take dark reapers with support and bauble wrap and kill everything equally effective.

OP, the problem is you, not your group. They're all happy playing a particular way, and you are the lone person who wants to make massive changes and force them to change their lists to accommodate you. If you can't find a different group to play with then you probably should just sell your stuff and move on.

 Peregrine wrote:
OP, the problem is you, not your group. They're all happy playing a particular way, and you are the lone person who wants to make massive changes and force them to change their lists to accommodate you. If you can't find a different group to play with then you probably should just sell your stuff and move on.

You are right!

If you're winning games because you're playing to objectives then how about seeing if anyone is interested in a campaign?

Strong killy lists that don't actually win anything aren't much use in a campaign, so it may persuade your opponents to think about how they build their lists in order to actually win games.

If I read correctly, you're upset that you can win games, Just not the way you want to? You want to kill their stuff, with a balanced list, and don't care about winning games?

Quite frankly, if you're winning games then you have the better list / skill. Why would you need to restrict your opponents list choices?

If you are looking for a game that rewards more balanced (variety) of units, you should check out Warmachine/ Hordes. Everything is killable. There are "Colossals" that are equivalent to Knights, but they are well within the realm of killable.

For perspective, a full size game is 75 points, but actually has about 120 points of models. A colossal is usually about 35 points. A bit over 25% of your force, but it is RARE to face more than one in a game. 10 man Infantry units are typically 10 to 25 points. So a chaff unit in WMH is about 1/3 of the cost of the largest models in the game. Nearly all models can meaningfully interact on the table. "Steamroller" games actively encourage a mixture of units (infantry mostly) warnouns (dreadnought and monstrous creatures) and solos (independent characters).

I prefer it these days, though my old gaming group has no interest in it, so I had to start going to stores to play.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If I read correctly, you're upset that you can win games, Just not the way you want to? You want to kill their stuff, with a balanced list, and don't care about winning games?

Quite frankly, if you're winning games then you have the better list / skill. Why would you need to restrict your opponents list choices?

If you are looking for a game that rewards more balanced (variety) of units, you should check out Warmachine/ Hordes. Everything is killable. There are "Colossals" that are equivalent to Knights, but they are well within the realm of killable.

For perspective, a full size game is 75 points, but actually has about 120 points of models. A colossal is usually about 35 points. A bit over 25% of your force, but it is RARE to face more than one in a game. 10 man Infantry units are typically 10 to 25 points. So a chaff unit in WMH is about 1/3 of the cost of the largest models in the game. Nearly all models can meaningfully interact on the table. "Steamroller" games actively encourage a mixture of units (infantry mostly) warnouns (dreadnought and monstrous creatures) and solos (independent characters).

I prefer it these days, though my old gaming group has no interest in it, so I had to start going to stores to play.

Warmahordes is a good game; its just the competitive scene in that game is way more WAAC than 40k ever was in my experience. I've heard MK3 changed a lot of rules to make it a little less, but it left a bad taste in my mouth even though I love the way the game plays (the lore on the other hand...)

@OP: If your winning, you win. People bring large and crazy models/lists because they want to win that way. If you want to win that way, like another poster said, take three baneblades and call it a day; you can blow crap up all day long. 40k should be about objectives and controlling the field, much like a true battle. Honestly, while some rules I'd love to change (terrain, some list building), overall its not bad at all. I love tactical objectives as they make the games interesting, and I like that you ALWAYS have 6 objectives instead of random numbers. Its slowly getting better, too.

If your winning with SW then you should be proud honestly; they're one of the worst armies currently and in dire need of a codex.

It sounds like you need to find a more casual group to play with. Min-maxing is primarily something I find in competitive groups.

The groups I play with like to win, but not at the expense of using fun units that make the game enjoyable.

If I were in your situation I would seek out a less competitive group to play with....should fix your problem.....either that or beat them by playing the objectives enough to make them realize that the lists they're bringing aren't effective. They'll either quit playing with you or adapt their tactics.