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.

Yeah, something like that would be great.
They'd only have to rewrite how AP works and how cover works.
Or just keep cover as it is now and you'll have this scenario:
"A Marine is being shot at by a Plasma-rifle. The rifle is so strong that his armour is almost ignored (only 6+) but he can try to hide behind a strong wall (on a 4+)."
A terminator in that scenario would have his armour reduced to only 5+, almost doubling his chance of survival compared to a Marine!


Anyway:
MtG is different because it has so many cards to pick from.
And another difference is that highly competitive decks are more expensive compared to 'weaker' decks.
I have cards that are as expensive as some of my other decks.

Let's compare this to Flayed Ones who are 36 Euro for 65 points? For the same price I can take around 125 points of Wraiths who are a dozen times as good!
So as you see, in MtG groups will always have decks that are roughly equal in price and therefore equal in strength.
The 'problem' with WH40k is that my 250 euro-list can kick the ass of your 500 euro list.

About the 'bad and fluffy':
I started Blood Angels because I liked the Sanguinary Guard.
It's not just that I want to play them for the fluff, but they are the reason I started this army!
And now people on Dakkadakka are telling me that I should feel bad for fielding them?
I'd rather lose and play the models that bring me fun than win with models that I dislike.

That way of playing the game is fine as long as your playgroup plays at the same powerlevel.
I can't bring my Sanguinary guards to Helldrake, Riptide, Wraith or Vendetta-spam.
But I have the luck that my friends do not do this, because they don't like those units.
And maybe they do like those units, but most people in the group don't like that level of powergaming.

The game is what you make it. Pick the people you game with. If you play douchebags the game will suck, if you game with a group of cool people then you will have more fun. When in doubt add beer.

I always liked to prefer 40k as the silly "Heavy Metal in space fantasy" you saw in the 90's.

I know the guy that plays the most morbid serious angsty Legion of them all is saying this but hey.

There are many, many people that do not take this hobby too seriously, or argue about semantics and bemoan the current state of warhammer.

These people are just out playing the game, painting models, or otherwise having pleasant fulfilling lives instead of complaining on the Dakkadakka forums.

Kangodo wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've tried, but few people are interested.
40k has terrible balance in pretty much every regard, and going first in this game is an enormous advantage. Thats not opinion, thats fact.

I don't think "going first" is the real problem.
It's mostly about the spamming of AP-weapons that make the first turn so terrible.
If I spend 40 points on a model with a 2+ save, I want a guarantee that the unit will survive the first turn!

Its not just 2+ that suffer, I ran battlewagons with a KFF the other day and two died in the first volley. Ouch.

Let's just let the irony soak in that the OP is complaining about people taking things too seriously, and part of the thread has devolved into bickering about broken rules and what's overpowered.

:golfclap:

Yeah, some people take this game very serious. Not everyone does though, i really enjoy watching how the game unfolds even if i loose.

don't ever take forums as being the 'norm' for the 40k community. or podcast opinions either.

vocal minorities always consider themselves authoritative - and wiser heads realize it's self defeating to engage with it

just step back and not take anyone too seriously.

40k forums are geared for competitive play. A forum about playing for fun and fielding the units you like would consist of a single page with a picture of 9 Pyrovores and Old One Eye, saying "play whatever you want".

I prefer 40k to be more of a vehicle for exploring the lore and telling stories. Sadly most players use it as a competitive strategy game. I don't believe it's adequately suited for that. 40k is too imbalanced for honest competitive play. I would rather play a board game with a really tight crunch for that.

If 40k didn't have this amazing background, fluff, and characters I would not play it. This is why people who value the crunch over the role playing aspect always puzzle me. If they want a tight, strategic war game there are much more balanced ones out there in both board and miniature forms.

Whatever the game whether it be 40K, DnD, fighting games, hell even Pokemon, my theory has been to ignore the tier lists and min-maxing up front and just play the army/character that I like best. Then with that army or character I'll try to make them as effective and competitive as I can without losing what made me like them in the first plce. In 40K I play Orks almost exclusively and my army would probably never make it in any competitive circuit. The army itself is built a lot more around the lore I've created for them as freebooters than the usual competitive builds. My goal was to keep the spirit of how I wanted them to be in my headcanon and then leverage that to make them as effective as possible without losing that feel. My Tau army also is not what most would consider for any tournament. My sole HQ is a Cadre Fireblade because of the story I had in mind for them. In almost all games I start with the story and character concept first then use the game's systems to build around that core idea and make it work. The people I know that play are pretty much of the same mindset so our games are always incredibly fun. Even when the game goes downhill fast and it's a one-sided shutout we have fun crafting over the top descriptions of what's going on, which has led to some dynamic / hilarious unintended characters being created. My group is comprised of people who also play things like DnD so roleplay is in our blood which makes the game interesting and fun even when you lose. My group always looks at each game as a continuation of an ongoing story we all sort of have going on in our heads. I have no problem with powergamers and I'd welcome the chance to play against them to broaden my game experience and better learn how to continue refining my strategies, but I'd never take the game so seriously as to sacrifice what makes me love my army just to have a slightly higher win percentage. To me, once you start taking it as seriously as someone takes their job it just becomes lifeless. I'd rather lose and have a blast than win and feel like I was just going through the motions. That's just me, though. To each his own.

I know it can feel like "40k is srs bsns!" sometimes, especially reading forums, where there seems to be a bias towards competitive play. The hobby has many aspects, though, and plenty of people find fun in fluff, modeling, special events like Apoc (if you're minmaxing for apoc you're doing it wrong), etc.

Teigue, I'm curious, what do you run in your Freebootas list?

Good god... it can't be Flash Gits can it?

OP I have a feeling that you've never played an Apocalypse game in your life. Go, go now, and bring your beers with you, you'll want to share them.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
OP I have a feeling that you've never played an Apocalypse game in your life. Go, go now, and bring your beers with you, you'll want to share them.

...Do you know how much beer I'd have to not drink in order to play Apocalypse as Sisters of Battle? D:

ComTrav wrote:
I know it can feel like "40k is srs bsns!" sometimes, especially reading forums, where there seems to be a bias towards competitive play. The hobby has many aspects, though, and plenty of people find fun in fluff, modeling, special events like Apoc (if you're minmaxing for apoc you're doing it wrong), etc.

Well considering how much the armies cost , it seems natural , that people act like that. Would you buy a bad video game that costs around 600-800$ has one patch update every 5-10 years and you can be sure that if the patch comes out you will have to spend another 300-400$ on it again ?

40k is what you make it, and Orks are very funny!
But on a personal note, the hate for my Kitty marines drives me to new atrocities!

Makumba wrote:

ComTrav wrote:
I know it can feel like "40k is srs bsns!" sometimes, especially reading forums, where there seems to be a bias towards competitive play. The hobby has many aspects, though, and plenty of people find fun in fluff, modeling, special events like Apoc (if you're minmaxing for apoc you're doing it wrong), etc.

Well considering how much the armies cost , it seems natural , that people act like that. Would you buy a bad video game that costs around 600-800$ has one patch update every 5-10 years and you can be sure that if the patch comes out you will have to spend another 300-400$ on it again ?

I think my hangup is I see 40k as a hobby and an awesome storytelling device before it's a game. It's too unbalanced and luck-based to be the COMPETITIVE SKILL MACHINE people make it out to be. There are much better things to spend your money on if all you want to do is just roll dice to win. :s

Eissel wrote:
I think my hangup is I see 40k as a hobby and an awesome storytelling device before it's a game.

But what do modeling/painting and storytelling have to do with taking competitive play seriously? You can do those things whether you play a weak list or an optimized tournament-dominating list. So why not play a good list and enjoy all aspects of the game instead of just the hobby and storytelling?

 Peregrine wrote:

Eissel wrote:
I think my hangup is I see 40k as a hobby and an awesome storytelling device before it's a game.

But what do modeling/painting and storytelling have to do with taking competitive play seriously? You can do those things whether you play a weak list or an optimized tournament-dominating list. So why not play a good list and enjoy all aspects of the game instead of just the hobby and storytelling?

Because being supercompetitive automatically shoehorns what a lot of your list is going to be?

Pretty much every single CSM list I've ever seen, for example, the very first thing people say is "Take another heldrake" because it's just so good. What if you don't like Heldrakes? What if your legion has a focus on say, Raptors? I mean, it's conceivable that some legions might be an entire legion of chaos-worshipping Hiccups who rely on dragons for everything, but what if it doesn't? To the competitive player, you're "gimping yourself oh my god how could you" because you're not auto-including 3 Heldrakes (Or Riptides, or...whatever else.) To the fluffy/hobby player, he's similarly gimping HIS enjoyment if he DOES take Heldrakes to keep up with the Jones, because those wonderfully painted raptors that he loved aren't "good enough."

Like, I love the Penitent Engine model, and I like the fluff behind them. I'd love to field like six of them! But if I'm taking them, I'm not taking exorcists, which means I'm not being competitive.

There ARE small places where optimized tournament lists and fluff/storytelling lists can overlap, but it's a very small window.

I have a theory...
The more care and deliberation the game developer takes in crafting the game play , the more relaxed and easy going the players of the game are.
As the majority of players are in tune with what the intended game play is...

The least amount of effort or focus on game play causes a division in the player base.
Some make up for the lacking game play by filling the gaps with fluff.
Others simply use mathematical optimization to focus on the competition aspect.

 Peregrine wrote:
Congratulations, you've discovered gaming on the internet. Any game that gets enough popularity to have any meaningful discussion will inevitably be optimized and people will quickly figure out the best lists and strategies. And discussion will inevitably focus on how to win because it's the only thing you CAN discuss. If you say "x is good at winning" we can look at the results, judge whether it is or not, and come to a conclusion. If you say "I have fun with x" there's nothing more to say. I can't dispute the fact that you have fun with x, and you can't dispute the fact that I'd rather have fun with y. All we can do is just list what we consider fun and then move on to something else.

I still just don't understand that mindset. If someone asks "what's the best way to use X", there are answers other than "don't", which is the only one you tend to get if you ask for advice on using units the List-o-matic crowd have branded "sub-optimal". It's entirely possible for someone to understand that a unit is not the absolute best-possible mathhammered choice, even for their whole army to be composed of "not the best" units, yet still wish to discuss how to make the most of it on the tabletop.

EDIT:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k forums are geared for competitive play. A forum about playing for fun and fielding the units you like would consist of a single page with a picture of 9 Pyrovores and Old One Eye, saying "play whatever you want".

Case in point...

Lanrak wrote:
The more care and deliberation the game developer takes in crafting the game play , the more relaxed and easy going the players of the game are.

I disagree with this. MTG, for example, is the result of vast amounts of care and deliberation by the developers but it still has a large number of extremely serious and competitive players.

Eissel wrote:
What if you don't like Heldrakes? What if your legion has a focus on say, Raptors?

Why are you starting from fluff and trying to build a list around it instead of starting from a list and building fluff around it? Obviously you have the right to do so, but it seems like your problems with having fluff/hobby and competitive play at the same time are caused by your own personal ideas about how fluff should work, not the game itself.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I still just don't understand that mindset. If someone asks "what's the best way to use X", there are answers other than "don't", which is the only one you tend to get if you ask for advice on using units the List-o-matic crowd have branded "sub-optimal". It's entirely possible for someone to understand that a unit is not the absolute best-possible mathhammered choice, even for their whole army to be composed of "not the best" units, yet still wish to discuss how to make the most of it on the tabletop.

That's because most people who ask for advice don't understand that it's sub-optimal and the best advice for them is "don't use it". If you only consider cases where the person asking for advice clearly says "I know this is sub-optimal, I want to discuss the best way to use it because it's going in my list no matter what" you don't see this happen nearly as often.

Makumba wrote:
Well considering how much the armies cost , it seems natural , that people act like that. Would you buy a bad video game that costs around 600-800$ has one patch update every 5-10 years and you can be sure that if the patch comes out you will have to spend another 300-400$ on it again ?

No, it's not natural and your analogy is bad.
A bad video game is a game that doesn't bring you any fun or entertainment.

People acting like that is a result from people who want to be competitive in a game that isn't really made to be competitive.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k forums are geared for competitive play. A forum about playing for fun and fielding the units you like would consist of a single page with a picture of 9 Pyrovores and Old One Eye, saying "play whatever you want".

So I am not allowed to discuss my BA since they are not competitive?
I am also not allowed to discuss my AV13-list for my Necrons?

Some people need to understand that you can still try to build a good list without taking the best units.
If I am going to build a Sanguinary list, I want advice on how to make that list as good-working as possible. Isn't that what this forum is for?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I still just don't understand that mindset. If someone asks "what's the best way to use X", there are answers other than "don't", which is the only one you tend to get if you ask for advice on using units the List-o-matic crowd have branded "sub-optimal". It's entirely possible for someone to understand that a unit is not the absolute best-possible mathhammered choice, even for their whole army to be composed of "not the best" units, yet still wish to discuss how to make the most of it on the tabletop.

That's because most people who ask for advice don't understand that it's sub-optimal and the best advice for them is "don't use it". If you only consider cases where the person asking for advice clearly says "I know this is sub-optimal, I want to discuss the best way to use it because it's going in my list no matter what" you don't see this happen nearly as often.

100% agree. I had personal experience where I asked in the tactics forum for ways to make ogryns viable. I did not have a single "don't" response.

 Happyjew wrote:
Why is 40K serious? Because not everybody plays Orks.

That alongside the fact that we have no space dwarfs

40k can be very serious. But people have a way of making things mostly intended for fun, non-competitive use, into very serious affairs. This isn't a bad thing, it's great that one hobby can appeal to various different people who want various different things out of it.

But at the end of the day, 40k is only a serious as you make it. Unless you're unlucky and are in a gaming group with only tournament players, you can normally get a fun or non-competitive game with like-minded players, whilst the competitive players play each other.

Use what's enjoyable for you. Competitive players use the "optimal" units, because they enjoy winning and, as the "optimal" units make it easier to win, they therefore enjoy using such units. Other people might prefer to use units because they like the model, or they like the fluff, even if it's a "bad" unit.

Don't forget that "bad unit" is different for every meta
Terminators are seen as bad units, because 2+ is ignored by so many things.
But if you play in a group that lacks the AP2-weaponry, they should be considered good.

That doesn't mean you should spam 2+-models, because that will inevitably lead to people using more plasma and friends.

Kangodo wrote:
Don't forget that "bad unit" is different for every meta
Terminators are seen as bad units, because 2+ is ignored by so many things.
But if you play in a group that lacks the AP2-weaponry, they should be considered good.

That doesn't mean you should spam 2+-models, because that will inevitably lead to people using more plasma and friends.

This. So much this.

From a casual perspective it's not nearly as much of an issue to worry that X unit considered bad by the 'Council of Dakka' or other tournament 'pros'. And even if that unit is far and wide pretty bad- who cares? If it works for you and you enjoy using it. Use it.

This game, much like most games for that matter- have been considerably tainted by the Internet. It's just the way it is. Access to limitless information also means you are left with very little to discover yourself.

People are entitled to play/enjoy this game however they deem fit.

It does appear, however, that far too many people that are competitive refuse to accept that 40k is a balancing mess that is not suited for tournament play (GW stands by this fact). They just make impressive models and cobble together a series of inconsistent rules to play with them.

Want to make 40k 1000x better? House Rule the living hell out of it. Everything is suddenly viable. Enjoy.

The following is how I rank the various aspects of the hobby:

1. Fluff
2. Modelling
3. Painting
4. Gaming

I enjoy building army lists and then figuring out ways to make the army unique. The gaming aspect is just a way for me to display my finished models to others.

A hobby is only as serious as you make it out to be!

An example from the other day: I took my farsight enclave to my local GW (mainly to get some painting done). A DE player asked for a game and I said why not. I got massacred - mainly because I was missing 5 drones (hadn't built them yet). Suits got eaten alive by dark lance spam with no drones to take the hits.

I didn't mind losing though because throughout the entire match people just stopped by the table to compliment my army/take pictures of all the XV81s / XV89s