Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Different tastes for different folks. "

What do you find satisfying about Eldar being super over powered? I don't understand this.

For the game as a whole, yes I am. Why I play 40K. If I weren't satisfied, I'd obviously stop playing 40K, no (as I did for most of 3rd to mid-5th Edition)?

No, no. WHY are you satisfied by this? Not ARE you. WHY are you. Pitch me on why the Eldar should be heads and shoulders above most other lists.

That's like asking why I like the flavor orange better than the flavor banana or why I find the color blue more pleasant than the color red.

My answer is *shrug*, just do.

Why would you take that away from me?

Because I don't think you'd miss the overpowered Eldar at all. In fact, if you play narratively or scenarios, wouldn't it be just as good to make all the units balanced and then give one side or the other more points? That way, all customers are happy.

I wouldn't miss the overpowered Eldar.

I would miss the narrative nature of the game, the imbalances that drive away the competitive players. I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever."

Whenever I try that in Warmachine, Field of Glory or Flames of War I invariably hear "Nah, man, I don't want to play narrative games. I'm testing my list for a tournament!" or "There are already rules for that if you're willing to give up <insert essential scenario rule here>." or "That would unbalance the game!" (my favorite, I just want to scream *That's the point!* but I don't).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is still a form of balance over the whole game and therefore cannot be held up as an example of imbalance as a whole being good.

Perfect Imbalance is not a form of balance. If it were, how could the makers of the video differentiate between a game designed for perfect imbalance (e.g. MtG) and one that is not (e.g Chess)?

And again, I never held up balance as being "good". Like "balance"; it is but one neutral variant. One like the other has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is inherently "good" or "bad".

They can differentiate because they examine the way in which the game has gone about achieving balance. Chess does it by being a mirror game and therefore strives for Perfect Balance. MTG does it by striving for Perfect Imbalance wherein carefully constructed imbalances in individual cards create a game which is balanced overall. The player can still experiment with different combos of cards and combining strengths to offset weaknesses etc. but overall the game is still balanced.

Also, if you're going to quote Extra Credits in support of your strive for imbalance then you should probably also post the Power Creep episode as that is more applicable to WH40K and how it evolves. Power Creep does not lead to a good imbalance but rather one which frustrates players by rendering their previous army/miniatures useless and making some armies (Eldar) flat out better in every way than others. Having one army be better in everything than others is not good for maintaining a varied game with invested players. If a new player really likes Dark Eldar Wyches and builds a Wych Cult army but then their local meta plays Tau and Eldar, they are going to lose a lot. That is not good as it will potentially ruin the experience for that player, thereby putting them off the game.

http://youtu.be/Bxszx60ZwGw

" I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever.""

For some reason, whenever I suggest that Eldar players don't play their Eldar, that never seems to happen.

" I'm testing my list for a tournament!"

I get that all the time in 40K anyway. So, for me, it might as well be balanced. You're saying I should go play another game just like Zwei. If you played me in 40K, I'm not going to do any of those things you list anyway, so the imbalance is no longer driving what you want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Different tastes for different folks. "

What do you find satisfying about Eldar being super over powered? I don't understand this.

For the game as a whole, yes I am. Why I play 40K. If I weren't satisfied, I'd obviously stop playing 40K, no (as I did for most of 3rd to mid-5th Edition)?

No, no. WHY are you satisfied by this? Not ARE you. WHY are you. Pitch me on why the Eldar should be heads and shoulders above most other lists.

That's like asking why I like the flavor orange better than the flavor banana or why I find the color blue more pleasant than the color red.

My answer is *shrug*, just do.

Why would you take that away from me?

Because I don't think you'd miss the overpowered Eldar at all. In fact, if you play narratively or scenarios, wouldn't it be just as good to make all the units balanced and then give one side or the other more points? That way, all customers are happy.

I wouldn't miss the overpowered Eldar.

I would miss the narrative nature of the game, the imbalances that drive away the competitive players. I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever."

Whenever I try that in Warmachine, Field of Glory or Flames of War I invariably hear "Nah, man, I don't want to play narrative games. I'm testing my list for a tournament!" or "There are already rules for that if you're willing to give up <insert essential scenario rule here>." or "That would unbalance the game!" (my favorite, I just want to scream *That's the point!* but I don't).

SO essentially what I get from this is that in a world where competitive players exist people don't want to play narative games. Otherwise find the people that do and play with them instead of the competitive guys. That is my issue, right now short of a pretty long drive...I cannot find anyone to play with, no narrative players, no competitive players...nothing. TO me that is worse for the game. This idea that we need to drive away a type of player is bad for the game.

Martel732 wrote:


Because I don't think you'd miss the overpowered Eldar at all. In fact, if you play narratively or scenarios, wouldn't it be just as good to make all the units balanced and then give one side or the other more points? That way, all customers are happy.

Experience with more purportedly balanced games (or better, their player-base) and with 40K in previous editions have shown me that this is not true. People will fiddle endlessly about irrelevancies like point values or weapon ranges, losing sight of the reason we're in the hobby anyhow.

Here is another example from the latest White Dwarf's column.

Phil Kelly in White Dwarf Weekly #11 wrote:
I was watching my younger brother playing a knockabout game with his schoolmates. My brother was busy shooting Chaos scum with his bolter-toting Tactical Marines - the only problem was that the bad guys were well over three feet away, and hence out of range. [...] All those present were thoroughly enjoying themselves, the last thing they needed was some know-it-all butting in.So I kept my lip buttoned as he took his shot, and they all cheered when the Chaos Space Marines bit the dust. I realised that it's far more important that people enjoy themselves than whether or not they play the game by the rules.

Yes, in "theory", in some alternative universe, you can do that in any and all games.

In practice (or my limited experience), only 40K's game designers go out of their way to actively encourage it. Only in 40K is an appreciation of this slowly growing.

I am happy to give it another try again the next time I see people setting up some Infinity or whatever, but I fear I know the kind of response I'll be getting.

Martel732 wrote:
" I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever.""

For some reason, whenever I suggest that Eldar players don't play their Eldar, that never seems to happen.

" I'm testing my list for a tournament!"

I get that all the time in 40K anyway. So, for me, it might as well be balanced. You're saying I should go play another game just like Zwei.

Well, either you need a different game or different community.

If you've sincerely told an Eldar player that you do not like his army, and he has played it anyways, then 2 things are happening: 1) You aren't turning down games, just armies. Feel free to not play him if it makes you that frustrated playing against Eldar and 2) He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you.

And if you get that all the time, it means that some people play in 40k tournaments and believe it to be balanced enough to do so - I would disagree with these people as well.

So, basically, you don't want rules to mean nothing? So why not read a novel then, if all you care about is narrative? Why even bother attaching a game to it, if what happens in the game means nothing?

I STILL don't understand how it is good for me to automatically lose to Eldar. Because the Eldar players are NOT going to let me shoot them when I'm out of range. What am I getting out of this imbalance again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever.""

For some reason, whenever I suggest that Eldar players don't play their Eldar, that never seems to happen.

" I'm testing my list for a tournament!"

I get that all the time in 40K anyway. So, for me, it might as well be balanced. You're saying I should go play another game just like Zwei.

Well, either you need a different game or different community.

If you've sincerely told an Eldar player that you do not like his army, and he has played it anyways, then 2 things are happening: 1) You aren't turning down games, just armies. Feel free to not play him if it makes you that frustrated playing against Eldar and 2) He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you.

And if you get that all the time, it means that some people play in 40k tournaments and believe it to be balanced enough to do so - I would disagree with these people as well.

If I turned down Eldar, I'd lose 1/3 of my opponents.

"He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you"

We don't allow list modification after determination of opponents. List tailoring is the devil.

But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

Martel732 wrote:
So, basically, you don't want rules to mean nothing? So why not read a novel then, if all you care about is narrative? Why even bother attaching a game to it, if what happens in the game means nothing?

So basically, if I enjoy 40K, I should go STFU and leave, so people who don't like 40K can continue to moan about freely? Makes sense.

Why bother with 40K, if you stubbornly refuse to at least acknowledge its design philosophy and find nothing but mockery and scorn for it?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So, basically, you don't want rules to mean nothing? So why not read a novel then, if all you care about is narrative? Why even bother attaching a game to it, if what happens in the game means nothing?

So basically, if I enjoy 40K, I should go STFU and leave, so people who don't like 40K can continue to moan about freely? Makes sense.

Why bother with 40K, if you stubbornly refuse to at least acknowledge its design philosophy and find nothing but mockery and scorn for it?

No. I don't understand why you enjoy it if you are just going to make everything up as you go anyway. Maybe I should have said "write a novel".

I'm STILL not getting why its good for me to lose to Eldar automatically.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you.

So you want the Eldar player to change his narrative army in order to make it more balanced and fun for a player?

Martel732 wrote:So, basically, you don't want rules to mean nothing? So why not read a novel then, if all you care about is narrative? Why even bother attaching a game to it, if what happens in the game means nothing?

I STILL don't understand how it is good for me to automatically lose to Eldar. Because the Eldar players are NOT going to let me shoot them when I'm out of range.

FWIW I do read novels, but I like the game because painting models and playing with toy soldiers is fun - fitting it into the background is even more awesome.

I wouldn't say it's good for you to auto-lose to Eldar, but I wouldn't say it's bad, either. Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose.

Just as an example, I auto-lose every objective game I play because all of my troops choices are tanks. Does this mean it is bad? Am I being a horrible person?

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" I would miss the ability to say "hey ya wanna do this" and the other player being like "yeah, sure, whatever.""

For some reason, whenever I suggest that Eldar players don't play their Eldar, that never seems to happen.

" I'm testing my list for a tournament!"

I get that all the time in 40K anyway. So, for me, it might as well be balanced. You're saying I should go play another game just like Zwei.

Well, either you need a different game or different community.

If you've sincerely told an Eldar player that you do not like his army, and he has played it anyways, then 2 things are happening: 1) You aren't turning down games, just armies. Feel free to not play him if it makes you that frustrated playing against Eldar and 2) He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you.

And if you get that all the time, it means that some people play in 40k tournaments and believe it to be balanced enough to do so - I would disagree with these people as well.

If I turned down Eldar, I'd lose 1/3 of my opponents.

Regrettable, but sometimes necessary. If they are so uncompromising as to make the game a chore rather than fun, there is no reason to play them.

Breng77 wrote:But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

I view the rules as guidelines for how to play a fluffy game. For example, the FOC roughly matches the company organization for a "standard line" Space Marine company, and so they use that. Other types of armies have ways of manipulating the FOC (or have their own), and these all represent unique formations within the faction.

The rules attempt to match the fluff. If you asked me what was the most wrong with 40k's existing rulesset, I would say rules that don't match up with the fluff, rather than rules that are unbalanced.

Breng77 wrote:
But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

The rules work fine, if you don't insist on using everything all the time, and refuse to ever step out of it.

40K is like a spice rack with a thousand different spices. Cook a soup with 10 of them, and it is delicious. Cook a different soup with 10 others, possibly one not in the original spice rack, and it's still delicious. Throw all thousand spices into the same soup, it's no wonder that (a) it'll likely not taste good and (b) you won't be able to taste some of the spices (e.g. Pentinent Engine?)

" Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose. "

I don't find auto-losing fun in the least.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
He is being silly - there's a reasonable way to discuss how to make the army less frustrating for you.

So you want the Eldar player to change his narrative army in order to make it more balanced and fun for a player?

No, not if he doesn't want to. He should be willing to discuss it, and I realize that there may be a time when the narrative the Eldar player has concocted does not mesh with what the opponent wants to play against. In those times, it is acceptable to find a different opponents - some things cannot simply be fixed reasonably for both sides. You can either fight between the two of you about it, or find different opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
" Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose. "

I don't find auto-losing fun in the least.

Then 40k is the wrong game for you I'm afraid. I find the game fun, and the outcome quite incidental.

EDIT:

In fact, I've even shown an example; I auto-lose very nearly every single game of 40k I play. Why is that bad?

Martel732 wrote:
" Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose. "

I don't find auto-losing fun in the least.

Then play with more fun people.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

The rules work fine, if you don't insist on using everything all the time, and refuse to ever step out of it.

40K is like a spice rack with a thousand different spices. Cook a soup with 10 of them, and it is delicious. Cook a different soup with 10 others, possibly one not in the original spice rack, and it's still delicious. Throw all thousand spices into the same soup, it's no wonder that (a) it'll likely not taste good and (b) you won't be able to taste some of the spices (e.g. Pentinent Engine?)

So we are always supposed to know which rules to use and which not to? This is my point...if you make a game where all the rules work together, perhaps with add ons (like apoc) for other game styles. Then people that want to not use all the rules are unaffected, they can do whatever they want anyway. But people that want to use all the rules still get a fun game.

Breng77 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

The rules work fine, if you don't insist on using everything all the time, and refuse to ever step out of it.

40K is like a spice rack with a thousand different spices. Cook a soup with 10 of them, and it is delicious. Cook a different soup with 10 others, possibly one not in the original spice rack, and it's still delicious. Throw all thousand spices into the same soup, it's no wonder that (a) it'll likely not taste good and (b) you won't be able to taste some of the spices (e.g. Pentinent Engine?)

So we are always supposed to know which rules to use and which not to? This is my point...if you make a game where all the rules work together, perhaps with add ons (like apoc) for other game styles. Then people that want to not use all the rules are unaffected, they can do whatever they want anyway. But people that want to use all the rules still get a fun game.

You certainly could make a game like that, and there may even already be one. I'd even give it a try, perhaps.

But I like 40k the way it is.

"In fact, I've even shown an example; I auto-lose very nearly every single game of 40k I play. Why is that bad?"

I didn't say it was bad, I said *I* don't want to do it. And I wouldn't want to play against such an list, either. Predetermined outcomes are not interesting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
He is being silly - Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
" Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose. "

I don't find auto-losing fun in the least.

Then 40k is the wrong game for you I'm afraid. I find the game fun, and the outcome quite incidental.

EDIT:

In fact, I've even shown an example; I auto-lose very nearly every single game of 40k I play. Why is that bad?

It is not because it is a choice you have made in your own army. That is kind of the point, you choose to not have any scoring units. It is not something that was forced upon you It was a choice about your own army. Whereas short of Choosing an opponent and having that army blow him away auto-losing was not Martel's choice. Saying to just find other players is easier said than done in many cases, so turning down games is not something many players do.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

The rules work fine, if you don't insist on using everything all the time, and refuse to ever step out of it.

40K is like a spice rack with a thousand different spices. Cook a soup with 10 of them, and it is delicious. Cook a different soup with 10 others, possibly one not in the original spice rack, and it's still delicious. Throw all thousand spices into the same soup, it's no wonder that (a) it'll likely not taste good and (b) you won't be able to taste some of the spices (e.g. Pentinent Engine?)

So we are always supposed to know which rules to use and which not to? This is my point...if you make a game where all the rules work together, perhaps with add ons (like apoc) for other game styles. Then people that want to not use all the rules are unaffected, they can do whatever they want anyway. But people that want to use all the rules still get a fun game.

You certainly could make a game like that, and there may even already be one. I'd even give it a try, perhaps.

But I like 40k the way it is.

Except if 40K were to be made that way, your experience would not change as you are free to continue playing it how you do now. So why not make it that way? If it involved removing units then that should happen. According to Zwei it wouldn't matter anyway as people who like those units and like to play narrative games could just put them straight back in as a house rule.

Nobody loses.

Somehow I think these are the exact kinds of answers I'd get from the actual design team as well.

Martel732 wrote:"In fact, I've even shown an example; I auto-lose very nearly every single game of 40k I play. Why is that bad?"

I didn't say it was bad, I said *I* don't want to do it. And I wouldn't want to play against such an list, either. Predetermined outcomes are not interesting.

Then perhaps you are in the wrong game - 40k has many predetermined outcomes, from the outcome of some games (such as any objective game that I play) to the outcome of combats - 4 Guardsmen vs 15 Khorne Berzerkers, just as an extreme example.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
He is being silly - Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
" Losing is just a thing - as long as you have fun during the game, who cares if you auto-lose. "

I don't find auto-losing fun in the least.

Then 40k is the wrong game for you I'm afraid. I find the game fun, and the outcome quite incidental.

EDIT:

In fact, I've even shown an example; I auto-lose very nearly every single game of 40k I play. Why is that bad?

It is not because it is a choice you have made in your own army. That is kind of the point, you choose to not have any scoring units. It is not something that was forced upon you It was a choice about your own army. Whereas short of Choosing an opponent and having that army blow him away auto-losing was not Martel's choice. Saying to just find other players is easier said than done in many cases, so turning down games is not something many players do.

If Martel auto-loses some games, then it is a conscious choice he made to bring an army that cannot compete. Just as it was my conscious choice to do so. If competing drives his decisions, then he is playing a game that is not for him.

And I know it's easier said than done to find other players - but if the alternative is eternal frustration and anger, I know which choice is better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
But they don't actively encourage it they wrote rules. I have no problem if a group of people don't want to use them because they enjoy it more when they don't. I want to be able to enjoy myself when I do use them.

I.e. a note in the rules that says here are the working rules...use them or not as you see fit. would be fine, but if you are going to make them make them work.

The rules work fine, if you don't insist on using everything all the time, and refuse to ever step out of it.

40K is like a spice rack with a thousand different spices. Cook a soup with 10 of them, and it is delicious. Cook a different soup with 10 others, possibly one not in the original spice rack, and it's still delicious. Throw all thousand spices into the same soup, it's no wonder that (a) it'll likely not taste good and (b) you won't be able to taste some of the spices (e.g. Pentinent Engine?)

So we are always supposed to know which rules to use and which not to? This is my point...if you make a game where all the rules work together, perhaps with add ons (like apoc) for other game styles. Then people that want to not use all the rules are unaffected, they can do whatever they want anyway. But people that want to use all the rules still get a fun game.

You certainly could make a game like that, and there may even already be one. I'd even give it a try, perhaps.

But I like 40k the way it is.

Except if 40K were to be made that way, your experience would not change as you are free to continue playing it how you do now. So why not make it that way? If it involved removing units then that should happen. According to Zwei it wouldn't matter anyway as people who like those units and like to play narrative games could just put them straight back in as a house rule.

No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules modular addons; I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

He made a choice about what faction to play which should not result in an auto loss. That is my issue, I'd rather see games determined by skill and combinations of units, rather than choice of faction.

"If Martel auto-loses some games, then it is a conscious choice he made to bring an army that cannot compete. Just as it was my conscious choice to do so. If competing drives his decisions, then he is playing a game that is not for him."

Wow. Not sure what to say to that.

No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules, I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

Except again now we are just excluding players. This is what I don't understand. Is the argument at most players want competitive games so when the game is build for them that is what they want to play? If so they game would overall be better built that way. If the argument is that these players exist and now I need to find other opponents that want to play the way I do. Then it is exactly the same as what you have asked of Martel concerning Eldar, except now there are more players, and less broken armies so fewer people need to turn down games.

Breng77 wrote:
He made a choice about what faction to play which should not result in an auto loss. That is my issue, I'd rather see games determined by skill and combinations of units, rather than choice of faction.

I did exactly the same thing. The Army List that I use is incapable of fielding scoring units (aside from allies, which I do admittedly run sometimes depending on the game).

There are games out there that are balanced enough (and bland enough) that choice of faction matters little and everything IS player skill and unit combos.

I fail to see why you would hold 40k to the same standard if there are sufficient alternatives already available.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules modular addons; I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

The current people who play 40K for narrative games wouldn't suddenly disappear. The total playerbase might get larger and have some players who don't want to use houserules but you could still play with the people you play with now.
They will not magically disappear once the game becomes more balanced.

Breng77 wrote:

No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules, I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

Except again now we are just excluding players. This is what I don't understand. Is the argument at most players want competitive games so when the game is build for them that is what they want to play? If so they game would overall be better built that way. If the argument is that these players exist and now I need to find other opponents that want to play the way I do. Then it is exactly the same as what you have asked of Martel concerning Eldar, except now there are more players, and less broken armies so fewer people need to turn down games.

Well, what I really have asked of Martel is that he find a different game entirely.

There are games out there that cater to people who really want to play like the have a pair (wink wink). 40k is not one of them. I would be disappointed to see 40k turn into one of them, because I do not enjoy those games as much.

Your "faction" is AM/IG which is capable of fielding Scoring units. Your choice of units (army list) has no scoring units. Which is a different thing.