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.

I've seen this complaint around the interwebs lately:

you have to play a specific pre build GW designed lists or you may as well not play at all.

What exactly does this reference?

Because GW is focused on tournament play now ala 10th ed, if you don't bring the optimized list of the best units/loadouts you might as well not play since your just going to lose.

In previous times where the win conditions were different and armies each had different strengths and weakness even within the same factions, you were more able to bring the models you liked vs ones that you had to bring. You still had a decent chance of winning. that doesn't mean certain units were not seen as "weak" i almost never saw a tau player using vespid for example. even back then tournament lists were still a thing. the difference was that the tournament scene was not the main driving force/focus for game play.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I've seen this complaint around the interwebs lately:

you have to play a specific pre build GW designed lists or you may as well not play at all.

What exactly does this reference?

It feels like a weird complaint, because GW seems to be actively discouraging cookie-cutter lists with all the tweaks they keep making.

So, there hits a point in every game where things get kind of figured out and developers are patching things, but then people figure out the game after the patch and some people get it in their head that this is by design. They crave this theoretical perfect balance with infinite options and see failings to that regard as the developers intentionally limiting the game for whatever reason.

To be honest, I've gotten increasingly less charitable about these kinds of attitudes as I've realized just how often they come from people that aren't actually trying to do anything other than chase the meta and play the best or often not even play at all and just comment from the sidelines.

I play a LOT of different games and most of the time stuff like this comes from people that haven't played in months, sometimes years. It's just a toxic attitude that permeates social media and a big part of why I've tried to cut WAY back on it in general.

 aphyon wrote:
Because GW is focused on tournament play now ala 10th ed

I think I just had a stroke reading this because this has been the same line parroted since I got into 40k. Every new edition only ever focuses on tournament play, except for the last edition, which didn't except when it did.

"GW designed lists" - what is that? Is this referring to netlists? Netlists are never designed by GW

 Gert wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Because GW is focused on tournament play now ala 10th ed

I think I just had a stroke reading this because this has been the same line parroted since I got into 40k. Every new edition only ever focuses on tournament play, except for the last edition, which didn't except when it did.

I am sorry Gert but you need to just accept it.- 3-6 month balance pass, based on tournament win/loss ratio to make the game "equal/balanced", mirrored table setups etc...

Long gone are the majority days of playing with friends in your basement/garage, kitbashing, making the army "your dudes", or having a small set of built in rules based on the lore for each army faction making them unique in their own way.

The game has never been more bland tournament focused than it has at any time in the past. i understand it is good for the GW business model (and for tourney players) but it is terrible for game design for anybody not interested in that scene. back when i started in 3rd. RTs and GTs were rare and new. most run locally not supported or promoted by GW.

That's changed over time as GW started supporting the RT/GT events more and more with each new edition.

Casual play was much more how the game lived in the past. look around now especially here on the forums. most players play rarely either in tournaments or testing out lists for tournaments. i think the average in the last poll was once or twice a month on average by comparison our casual group plays 3 or 4 games of 5th edition lore friendly lists every single weekend.

It is nothing to be shocked at, infinity went the same route. N2 was the best edition of the game. N4 has dumbed down the rules, shrank the table size (it used to be played on a 6X4) and compressed the gameplay from 6 to 3 turns with the focus now on tourney play.

The the point Lathe was talking about- tourney play is the focus now, as such those optimized lists are the only way to play the game. non optimal units might as well not exist unless the next balance pass changes the rules.

The only time I felt 40K had pre-built GW designed lists was during the formations system in 7th edition. It allowed only for certain units, there were obvious must-takes, there were also a lot of things that looked cool but didn't really do much and if your formations-update came late in the edition you lost every game up until then (hello, Chaos! I'd say hello Orks, too, but they got their formation update quite early - but it was totally useless).
Since 8th I feel there's a place for most units in the game and you can actually bring what what you want without feeling bad. But then GW started to arbitrarily remove models because of their stupid NMNR...

Kind of ninajed by the above.

Just don't agree about this being an issue in 10th.

There are some rules that are clearly designed with tournament play in mind - or at least two players "playing to win the game" rather than just charging towards each other and seeing what happens.

But frankly we are much closer to "bring the units you like, it will probably be okay" than we've ever been. The idea that the gap between the haves and have nots is lower in say 5th edition is mindblowing to me. I guess if you both heavily curate your choices and avoid the overpowered stuff its fine. But arguably it was fine in 7th. You could make a weak list with the better factions. Its just that most people didn't.

Today most units are at least vaguely capable at their function - at least in one detachment (sometimes many/all). That's not remotely the case in the past.

Agree with Cortez and Tyel here. I don't think it's fair to say that we're anywhere close to where we were in, say, 7th where you ended up with lots of cookie cutter armies with minimal differences.

That said, there is some feeling of certain options being designed with certain other options in mind to make them function. If I'm not mistaken, it's generally agreed that penitent units are priced around the assumption that they're being fielded in a penitent host. And if you *are* playing a detachment that specifically rewards some units but not others, you're encouraged to field the units that benefit to the exclusion of units that don't.

Similarly, I'm probably not fielding krootox unless I'm also spamming enough other kroot units for their ability to reliably kick in. If I'm fielding tzaangor, it's *usually* as a blob with a shaman and the uppy downy crystal enhancement because min squads of tzaangor running around on their own just aren't very good and compete with cultists who are cheaper.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but I do sometimes find myself thinking, "Well, if I want to take unit A, that means I need to take units B and C to make unit A work properly."

If we're talking 'GW-designed lists', my issue wouldn't be with the tournament aspect but rather with the extremely narrow restrictions.

Player - 'I think I'll try a Haemonculus with these Succubi-'

GW "NEIN! Ze Haemonculus cannot join ze Succubi.'

Player - 'Alright, well I guess he can go with the Grotesques-'

GW - 'NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! Ze Haemonculus can only join ze designated unit and Grotesques are not ze designated unit!'

Player - 'But why? They're a creation of Haemonculi. Why can't Haemonculi join them? Or Kabalites? Or Succubi for that matter? They could join them in prior editions?'

GW - 'They cannot join those units because it is against ze rules!'

Player - 'But you wrote the rules . . . ?'

And this is without getting into the pungent swamp that is wargear choices.

A haddock flopping about on a keyboard would produce more thematic rules than 10th.

Oof. Good points, vipoid. A big part of the "unit A needs Units B and C" thing is that we used to be able to take units D, E, or F instead of B and C. And wargear formerly being able to redefine a unit's role was kind of part of that.

In 8th, I could build a succubus as a blender, but I could *also* build her as a cheap little tarpit for tying enemy units up with a shardnet. A farseer could be a blaster tossing out executioners and mind wars and smites, but he could also be a buffing support unit.

So basically, limiting the different ways a unit can be used and the combinations in which units can be used means that if you're taking unit A, you kind of know what his job is without having to look at his gear, and you kind of know that he's going to be hanging out with unit B and riding in unit C because that's the combination of units that let unit A do the single job unit A is capable of doing.

 aphyon wrote:
Long gone are the majority days of playing with friends in your basement/garage, kitbashing, making the army "your dudes", or having a small set of built in rules based on the lore for each army faction making them unique in their own way.

Yeaaaaaah, that's just untrue. Nobody I know goes to tournaments at all, and all they do is either play at home, rent a table at an FLGS for the day or are part of a local club with regular meetups in a rented space. I myself haven't been to a tournament since Age of Sigmar 1st edition was released.
In the big poll GW does, the vast majority of respondents play at home, in local clubs, or at FLGS.
GW regularly features kitbashing articles on WarCom, in White Dwarf, and in YT videos, and has regular guest spots at the WHW exhibition.
There is literally an entire system dedicated to crafting personal narratives with Crusade.

That's changed over time as GW started supporting the RT/GT events more and more with each new edition.

The company supports local and international events that help grow the player base and sell the product, this in turn leads to more local and international events that grow the player base and sell the product.
Hey, do you remember when GW actively fought the wider community, and the people running the company tried to be as cut off and distant as possible?

Casual play was much more how the game lived in the past. look around now especially here on the forums. most players play rarely either in tournaments or testing out lists for tournaments. i think the average in the last poll was once or twice a month on average by comparison our casual group plays 3 or 4 games of 5th edition lore friendly lists every single weekend.

This has been discussed to death over the years. There's nought to discuss with a "casual" or "narrative" list because there isn't nearly as much discussion to be had beyond "cool army/concept chief". Tournament lists generate discussion because people ask for input and there are a lot more talking points to have.
It's a false equivalence to suggest the two are in any way equal.

I'm with Gert here, because I'm a Crusader.

That said: the simplification/ gutting of load-out options DID take a lot away from the game, and a fair number of armies DO suffer from restrictions on leader attachments.

And Vipoid is right because DE got hit harder with both load-out stripping AND leader restrictions than any other army in the game (though some faction might tie, none could be worse). But I don't think ALL factions got hit that badly.

I find that ALL of the customization in the game in 10th comes from Crusading. If Crusade rules didn't exist, I'd have zero interest in this edition.

Are we sure this isnt in reference to combat patrol/spearhead?

10th edition pretty much killed any interest I had in 40k, I still lurk around because I have spent the last 25 years playing this game and I am not about to unload 8+ 5000 point armies.

I get the itch once in awhile to play, so I load up my army builder of choice and start tinkering.

Almost immediately I lose all interest in the game and it is because it does feel like I have little to no options. GW presents you with these detachments that basically build your list for you. I mean, I could take a bunch of units that don't benefit from a detachment but why am I playing that detachment then? Some armies have it better and some have it worse but that is just the first problem I encounter. The next is that I have pretty much no agency what so ever to customize units anymore; most of your options end up being weapon choices that mathematically end up being just about the same. I can not think of many units in the armies that I play where you get a choice of weapons that radically changes anything about how the unit works against different targets. So then I look at characters, maybe I am just an old grognard but a HUGE draw of this game was always the amount of customization you could have with characters and 10th came along and just butchered your choices. We live in a time now where Space Marine captains come with pre-written load outs when for the rest of the games history they had a huge list of options to customize them the way you wanted. Finally, as was stated above, my HQ units can now only be added to very specific and sometimes arbitrary units. I still struggle to understand why the Tyranid Prime has wings - why the hell would I put a melee based unit into a swarm of gargoyles?

It just feels like every time I want to experiment with builds and work on armies I constantly hit rules walls designed to make sure that I play the list the way GW wants me to play it. Rules reflect what comes in the box when it comes to builds, but then the units you can attach characters to are listed and they just don't fit. I have to build the models by GW's design, then I have to build the list based on their designs and even the board is a preordained set up. I struggle to find where I have player agency when building my list.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Are we sure this isnt in reference to combat patrol/spearhead?

It's not. That's why I was confused on the reference.

Maybe we should all hearken back to my day, when you couldn't win a tournament without a really good or perfect Painting Score, Sportsmanship Score, and, at some hardcore tournaments, even a Composition Score where if you brought more Specials, Fast Attack, and Heavies than you did Troops, you got dinged.

You know, back when this was actually a hobby, and stuff like that mattered. Now you slap 3 colors on your $1000 army minis to make them "Battle-Ready," bring the most broken garbage you can possibly think of, and giggle like a schoolgirl as your opponent gets tabled. Look! You won!

Those of you saying the game has become tournament-focused are seriously understating the severity of the problem.

But, as I've mentioned before, GW has never been in any business except selling overpriced pieces of metal and plastic. They've never written a coherent, fair, balanced, or often even comprehensible set of rules in their existence, and I've been doing this since RT was a thing. The goal is to change the rules every few years, re-write them so the pendulum swings on units and armies, and get you to buy more minis to keep up with the meta they haphazardly create like drunken chimps with pistols.

FOR 40 YEARS NOW. Or damn close to it. At least back then you could blame it on a lack of playtesting and a bunch of drunken Brits writing down rules that went by "the rule of cool." Today? There's no excuse.

It's on you if you pursue this hobby. Buy second-hand minis and play with your friends in the garage with beer? Welcome to the hobby. Chase the meta and try to win tournaments? Welcome to the GW Business Model.

Neither one is wrong, just realize what you're getting into.

I have to disagree with you on one aspect. I think that Adeptus Titanicus is damned near perfect. It's like a fun streamlined version of BattleTech.

If I gave up the rest of the GW lines, I would play AT... it's my favorite miniatures game.

I think Arbiter nailed the whole thing i was pointing out about not being able to make them "your dudes" anymore.

Totally agree Kagetora. there was a time when Andy and the gang focused more on the rule of cool which then led to the old argument about rules as written VS rules as intended. i seem to remember the UK crowd tended to go with the more polite "intended" track and we cut throat Americans found every loophole in the "rules as written" direction.

@Lathe my perfect game from GW is still BFG especially after the final 2010 update added all the themed fleet options.

Even when you could make them your dudes competitive warhammer was still mostly about cookie cutter lists though. There were lots of ways to "your dudesify" your lists that were just straight up never used if you were trting to win games.

I agree that this is much more the fault of NMNR than anything to do with cookie-cutter tournament lists. Back in 4e Nidzilla and Mechdar were more notorious than anything that exists today, but there were tons of options in the codices even if most were considered sub-optimal. Now those have been purged because they didn't correspond to a specific arm on a sprue.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Even when you could make them your dudes competitive warhammer was still mostly about cookie cutter lists though. There were lots of ways to "your dudesify" your lists that were just straight up never used if you were trting to win games.

Okay, big deal - why should I not have the option to play the army the way I want to because it is considered sub-optimal? This deductive line of reasoning is exactly how we ended up in this place. I don't care that there were, still are actually, best ways to run an army except when it meant that some armies just dominated the meta entirely. I had a blast playing my Gorgon Tyranids even though the were far from what was consider the best way to play Tyranids. The only thing that really bothered me was when things like the Wraithtknight first came into being. That was not an Eldar problem, you could still play all kinds of Eldar list that worked just fine but it you wanted to win you just ran Wraithknights and an invisible warlock death star. That doesn't mean that you couldn't possibly win playing a aspect host type list.

Ok... but thats not the conversation we are having.

The conversation is about what causes the meta to "play a specific pre build GW designed lists or you may as well not play at all". Someone said "lack of customizability", and the counterargument is that even when there was customizability, the msta still called for you to "play a specific pre build GW designed lists or you may as well not play at all".

I think the objection is that it's no longer just concern for the meta that's constraining builds, it's increasingly that unpopular options are being removed from the game entirely. So the complaint isn't just "if I make a weird army I'll win fewer games", it's now "if I make a weird army it's going to be made illegal in the next codex".

Or at least that's what I'd consider the relevant objection. There will also always be people complaining that they can't possibly win unless they play the exact list that won the last GT, but those people can't be satisfied by any amount of balance. The divide between the strongest and weakest armies is smaller now than it was in 5e.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
I think the objection is that it's no longer just concern for the meta that's constraining builds, it's increasingly that unpopular options are being removed from the game entirely. So the complaint isn't just "if I make a weird army I'll win fewer games", it's now "if I make a weird army it's going to be made illegal in the next codex".

Or at least that's what I'd consider the relevant objection. There will also always be people complaining that they can't possibly win unless they play the exact list that won the last GT, but those people can't be satisfied by any amount of balance. The divide between the strongest and weakest armies is smaller now than it was in 5e.

You're not wrong, but, again, remember a couple of things.

1, GW exists to sell wildly overpriced plastic (and, in the past, metal). They are going to Squat/Slann something every edition if they can, to make you "keep up with the Jones's" and sell you more minis.
2, Unless you're playing in GW-sponsored competitive events, or you really care about having the new shiny thing, no one is keeping you from proxying your older models in a new edition, or simply playing an older edition entirely.

For example, I will never play AoS. If I want to play 40k, I'll do it with 40k minis, not my fantasy ones. Those, on their square bases and movement trays, will be played with 7th edition WFB rules. Because 8th edition was garbage where the pendulum swung to the side of "Bring a Level 4 mage and try to get the unit-wrecking spells off with unstoppable dice rolls, or lose."

GW writes rules to sell minis. No other reason. Long ago, in the past, it was because they were trying to create a fun game, wrote unplaytested, unbalanced rules edition after edition, and didn't care. Now, they DO care, about making more and more money (they cracked the top 100 UK companies, didn't they?), so they purposely short-change editions and re-write rules and units to keep you buying whatever the new hotness is. If you do it, that's on you.

Your best bet is to pick a faction you like, have a few thousand points of it, and when the next new edition comes out, pick and choose from your minis to build a competitive list with what you have based on whatever BS rules they'd cooked up that time around. Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar/Aeldari, Tyranids, and Orks will always be in style. Play the other factions at your own risk, and prepare to crack open the wallet to remain competitive.

 Kagetora wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
I think the objection is that it's no longer just concern for the meta that's constraining builds, it's increasingly that unpopular options are being removed from the game entirely. So the complaint isn't just "if I make a weird army I'll win fewer games", it's now "if I make a weird army it's going to be made illegal in the next codex".

Or at least that's what I'd consider the relevant objection. There will also always be people complaining that they can't possibly win unless they play the exact list that won the last GT, but those people can't be satisfied by any amount of balance. The divide between the strongest and weakest armies is smaller now than it was in 5e.

You're not wrong, but, again, remember a couple of things.

1, GW exists to sell wildly overpriced plastic (and, in the past, metal). They are going to Squat/Slann something every edition if they can, to make you "keep up with the Jones's" and sell you more minis.
2, Unless you're playing in GW-sponsored competitive events, or you really care about having the new shiny thing, no one is keeping you from proxying your older models in a new edition, or simply playing an older edition entirely.

For example, I will never play AoS. If I want to play 40k, I'll do it with 40k minis, not my fantasy ones. Those, on their square bases and movement trays, will be played with 7th edition WFB rules. Because 8th edition was garbage where the pendulum swung to the side of "Bring a Level 4 mage and try to get the unit-wrecking spells off with unstoppable dice rolls, or lose."

GW writes rules to sell minis. No other reason. Long ago, in the past, it was because they were trying to create a fun game, wrote unplaytested, unbalanced rules edition after edition, and didn't care. Now, they DO care, about making more and more money (they cracked the top 100 UK companies, didn't they?), so they purposely short-change editions and re-write rules and units to keep you buying whatever the new hotness is. If you do it, that's on you.

Your best bet is to pick a faction you like, have a few thousand points of it, and when the next new edition comes out, pick and choose from your minis to build a competitive list with what you have based on whatever BS rules they'd cooked up that time around. Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar/Aeldari, Tyranids, and Orks will always be in style. Play the other factions at your own risk, and prepare to crack open the wallet to remain competitive.

Seconded, of course they squat as many old model as they can because some players already have a few thousand points worth of minis, they can't make any new money that way.


Not that i would punish myself by ever playing any core rule set post 5th ed....but even if i wanted to, out of 8K worth of salamanders, 3K worth of admech, about the same in guard and dark angels with a smattering of inquisition allies.....i could probably count the number of legal models/units i could still use on 2 hands.

Just going to say it's nonsense to say GW is cutting options that were unpopular outside of tournament play. It is completely arbitrary which options get erased and probably is only decided by either the Designer or what fits the sprue.
Or does anyone think of all options a havoc Champion had the flamer was the only popular one? (hint: he didn't even have an option for a flamer before the new kit...)

It is absolutely almost 100% driven by a desire to allow people to have all of their options from buying a single kit and not needing to buy separate kits for parts (or probably more specifically, not buy parts off recast/STL sites )

That said, its also important to remember that its primarily about being new player friendly. I don't think its terrible that GW retires stuff they don't sell anymore. No one wants to jump into a game that to play effectively they should have been playing 5 years ago when they could buy the stuff they need.

For the old hats, we just need to PLAY OUR MODELS. Legends rules are rules. It's fine to play them. Most things proxy just fine even then, its fine to play them. If you want to play old stuff, play it. If you don't want to because you've got 2000 points of cool new stuff, by all means play your new shinies. If you want to play old stuff, be the guy who tells stories about past battles they were in and show people why its cool.

This might be why I enjoy my army of three separate model kits that come with all the options....


Except for those blasted resin models which cost a little too much.