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.

It's deceitful to talk about rules and power in 40k and rules and power in MtG without mentioning the recently horrifically broken cards that have been released. WotC does help the player base more fully than GW does, but the comparison isn't exactly right. Comparing the rulesets would be MtG's comprhensive rules v the BRB. Codex rule comparisons would be closer to looking at the high-power cards of the block, i.e., Jace the Mind Sculptor or Griselbrand.

Talore wrote:Uuuhhhh, you know that's not actually how MTG works, right? In casual play your group just makes decks within a similar tier of power, and in competitive constructed play it is about who is the best pilot of a top-tier deck. If you can't acquire the necessary cards then you don't try to seriously play competitively. Ban lists, limited formats, and rotating formats act as the same restrictions that points limits do in 40k.

Oh, you can certainly add restrictions in after the fact to make it more fair, of course. Banned lists, though, aren't a part of the core rules of the game like FOC restrictions are in 40k.

And still, you don't need to have a lot of money to buy a "top tier" 40k army relative to the price of buying any other 40k army. The fact that you need money to buy into the "serious levels" of a "competitive" card game is still pretty telling.

Godless-Mimicry wrote: nor do many of them even understand it any better than the devs... What this usually results in is unrealistic expectations

Right. Just because a person can't win a game in the same way every time, guaranteed when new rules come out doesn't mean the game is necessarily imbalanced. I'd agree that a lot of the game's imbalances really boil down to "waah! I lost a game!" or "I think GW is stupid" or "I like blaming external factors for my negative emotions!"

Few, if any players of games are proper game designers in and of themselves. The fact that most people see the CSM codes as codex: helldrakes, for example, really shows a lack of the kind of depth of thought required to make meaningful statements about game balance.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:And in the case where they feel bad about it, they mostly just don't play the 'power gamer with the power list'.

Actually, that's an important point.

I bet there have been more people pushed out of 40k by the fact that they can't find anyone to play with them than have been pushed out by losing too many games in a row. I've certainly seen WAAC and TFG players slowly pushed out the door through the inevitable pressure of ostracization before.

And part of it, I suppose, is the nature of the beast. If you're one of only two casual players in a store full of competitive people, then you're likely just fine with the idea of playing the same person over and over again (coming up with new scenarios, etc.), while if you're one of only two play-only-to-win players in a group, you're probably going to get bored with only playing that one other person rather quickly.

hubbsey wrote:
It's deceitful to talk about rules and power in 40k and rules and power in MtG without mentioning the recently horrifically broken cards that have been released. WotC does help the player base more fully than GW does, but the comparison isn't exactly right. Comparing the rulesets would be MtG's comprhensive rules v the BRB. Codex rule comparisons would be closer to looking at the high-power cards of the block, i.e., Jace the Mind Sculptor or Griselbrand.

Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well. It's just more obvious a lot of the time because the cards have the exact same effect but one costs more mana than the other. For example.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=206349

Whitesun Passage - Cast it and get 5 life for a mana cost of 2

or you could use

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=48214

Sunbeam Spellbomb - Only one mana to cast and then a further one mana to either gain 5 life or draw a card.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

To the OP:

I agree, I do not like some of the combos that "competitive" gaming gives to people, but 40k was never designed as a "competitive" game, it was always designed as a casual game, it was designed for homebrew scenario games and homebrew units with a few snacks to go around with a few drinks and a laughs with mates

"Competitive 40k" is just really "I-have-rules-hammer" like many have said, the combo's you see just blatantly abuse the mechanics and whilst I like this edition as to me it looks more like a toolkit to create your own adventures with friends than an equal game where both forces have a chance of winning, so my advice would be not to look too much into it and create a few homebrew scenarios and units and get with a few friends and have fun, as that is what this edition of the game was designed to be

I hate cheesespam, whether it's all from the same book or from two different ones. It's just no fun.

Yet I am glad for the ally rules. For casual lists it allows nice fluffy combo armies, and in general allows playing more armies more easily without having to build all of them to "primary detachment" level. For my such allied-only detachments are IG and SoB (well, SoB models are still enroute with some additional IG infantry too).

I mean, I agree Peregrine, that the 2++ deathstars are no fun, but most deathstars are unfun to play against. Be it mass LRs, TWC in 5th, DCA in 5th, Wraiths, Paladins, etc. Its part of the game and solutions are easy to come by, you don't question taking anti-tank, why question taking anti deathstar?

MTG had certain decks that made me feel similarly helpless at times, combo decks, I think there are some similarities in their boom or bust style and both can leave you feeling really helpless.

Personally I like that 6th opened the doors for more combo type lists that rely on synergy rather than pure firepower. All sorts of lists are thriving. Unfortunately, they are mostly just different takes on Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Necrons.

Argh. people seem to keep forgetting that casual players usually play other casual players. They aren't being driven off by the WAAC players. In fact, they avoid the "other guys" like the plague, because smashing a guy with the current meta is not fun, it's just winning.

I am a casual gamer, and have been for 15+ years. I am completely out of touch with the current meta, or even the one before that. I field Orks like it's 3rd edition, or maybe even 2nd. My Eldar "Corsair" army only contains the units that I think are "cool" for Eldar to have, like Swooping Hawks converted from plastic Scourges, a small squad of Dark reapers, and a pair of old Wave Serpents( using the first ForgeWorld turrets they came out with) that I can change into Falcons. I don't even own a single Warwalker.

My Marines have been Ultramarines since Second Edition, and I have an entire army painted as Legion of the Damned.

I love 40K, but I hate that every unit, character, and weapon has a special keyword skill that you have to refer to an entire section of the rulebook to find, like it's Plainswalking, or Haste, on a Magic Card. (Obviously simple examples thereof, but they are off the top of my head and I haven't played a game of Magic in 10 years).

You do realize that you've made a conscious effort to play this way because you enjoy it, which is fine. You play with similarly minded people, which makes sense. The reason though that you've made that distinction is because 40k is such a poorly balanced game, players are nearly forced into different camps that disagree.

If 40k was balanced and tighter, there would be a much smaller gap between super casual players and super competitive players. You wouldn't have to worry about people bringing crazy deathstars or fielding nothing but wave serpents and riptides, because every army would function on a similar power level. Player skill would matter more, rather than what kind of list you bring.

Yeah checked out the results of NOVA... and listened to the podcasts about it... and so I hear there was a lot of Taudar, and TauTau... not to mention that there may have been a problem with games not ending on time... yet people say it was the best tournament ever. Does not sound fun to me, but I was not there so w/e.

I play CSM and my brother plays Tau (my main opponent considering the limited time I have to play the game) and not only do they just ignore rules that should be a part of the game, like cover saves, and it's also true they take forever to roll all their stupid tauquipment. He does not play the cheesiest list and is generally good about things but still, WTF GW? God I hate Tau.

Yes there are counters and ways to deal with it, but the point here is that anyone with an inkling of care for how their army looks on the tabletop and is lacking about 2 grand in liquid cash to pay for a painted army that would play against the newest meta, things just go way too fast to adjust. I really hope to see more combo scores of hobby + competition at tournaments, longer, more relaxed games at 2000 pts, and at this point, just allow forgeworld and dual force org and all the toys because the whole system is fethed anyway, i had a thin hope that GW was playtesting sixth ed to be balanced but that has flown out the window.

You just have to have an agreement with your opponent to make lists that are roughly balanced and equal, or just not care, simple as that... and it can be fun and I actually like the way that sixth ed plays better than fifth.

I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

To the OP, and as others have kind of chimed in about.

Welcome to 40k. Welcome to why I left it.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

Are you kidding me?

http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130429.pdf

Half the time the reasons 40k has complicated rules is because many are so poorly written, along with special rules combined with the fact that nobody writes codex's without apparently either checking the rulebook, looking at another codex, or actually talking to each other about it without thinking anything beyond what they feel like writing.

MTG's is simple at first, then you get into the more complicated set but at the same time it grows further from the simple beginnings. Considering you still have to balance for five factions, card interactions, along with the fact that you are building for an entire block (standard) rather then just simply doing what you feel like doing.

It might be better to figure out what you are talking about first, before showing that you have no knowledge of it.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

In essence that's true. The developers are also able to make counters very early against anything too strong. Every single tournament you see always has the new host of cards to pick from that are the next latest card to take. It doesn't take a lot for them to make a card redundant that was once strong. They just make a counter for it in the next upcoming set and because anybody can take any card then its available to everyone. So what was once an overpowered card in one tournament will be gone within the next tournament.

In order to do this for 40k you need to give each army their counters. Currently they are making the rounds with AA support. So this is the latest counter they are adding to the codices but of course this takes a while because codices have a large turnaround period.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd also like to throw one last little thing in about the MTG comparison.

MTG is a very simple game. You have the deck, you draw the cards, you tap the land, you play the cards, and you attack with creatures. Each of those steps is very easy and very simple. 40k is a very complicated game that has a hundred pages of rules.

Of course a game that's so simple and lightweight that all of its rules could be written on an index card is going to be easier to balance than a game like 40k.

Simple is usually better, granted, but MTG has absolutely nowhere near the depth of 40k. I mean, it's like saying that blackjack or tic-tac-toe is better balanced than 40k. Of course it's going to be.

Are you kidding me?

http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130429.pdf

Half the time the reasons 40k has complicated rules is because many are so poorly written, along with special rules combined with the fact that nobody writes codex's without apparently either checking the rulebook, looking at another codex, or actually talking to each other about it without thinking anything beyond what they feel like writing.

MTG's is simple at first, then you get into the more complicated set but at the same time it grows further from the simple beginnings. Considering you still have to balance for five factions, card interactions, along with the fact that you are building for an entire block (standard) rather then just simply doing what you feel like doing.

It might be better to figure out what you are talking about first, before showing that you have no knowledge of it.

This, confirmed for someone who knows very little about Magic.
Of course, this is ALSO ignoring the fact that the guy who helped create Magic was, y'know, a PhD in Mathematics.

Is balance perfect in MtG? No it's not, but if there is a rules dispute you are virtually guaranteed that there will be an answer. In fact I can't think of a single rules dispute in Magic that wouldn't be ended in a single post or less, as opposed to the ridiculous YMDC threads where people argue over "the" and "it".

Furthermore, with a few exceptions the MtG tournament environment is always very alive with different decks as opposed to "Tau, Tau/Tau, Tau/Eldar, Eldar, Eldar/Eldar"

I mean you could even boil down 40k to "move models, shoot with them, then move them again and assault" and it sounds just as contrived as Ailaros' example.

Personnely I feel it will be ok once all the codex come out with a new 6th edition shiny hardback.
I understand they want to make as much money from it so certain new ideas with in the game drive that home but they aren't stupid enough to not do Market research not understand if people don't have fun with the constant creep it will continue.
Wait for guard to come out, IG is the fluffy allie for SM I think we will see those two books work well together, I think we will see tryanids and orks being very stand alone powerful and we will see blood angels and grey knights more inline with imperial armies so they go together well to beat some of the more powerful xeno books standing alone or allying up.
I personally only play with my wife and my friends so we are all very open about just having fun, I would recommef that everyone just be more open with the people they play with, guess what it may sound cheese but it's in the rule book for a reason, forge a narrative! GW don't organise tournaments, at GD there isn't a list building or game playing comp there's a painting N modeling one, they sell novels and EU rpg and cards and games, I think people need to revaluate the reason they play and how they play.

 LValx wrote:
I mean, I agree Peregrine, that the 2++ deathstars are no fun, but most deathstars are unfun to play against. Be it mass LRs, TWC in 5th, DCA in 5th, Wraiths, Paladins, etc. Its part of the game and solutions are easy to come by, you don't question taking anti-tank, why question taking anti deathstar?

There are two big differences:

1) Anti-deathstar in 5th was mostly about making sure you had efficient weapons available, and the best anti-deathstar weapons (volume of fire, demolisher cannons, etc) were also great against everything else. With the 2++ deathstars you need specialized counters (5th edition relic psychic defense mostly) that not every army even has access to.

2) 5th edition death stars were tough, but killable. Once you accepted that it's going to take some work to kill it you could see meaningful results, especially if you went with volume of fire instead of depending on a handful of plasma guns. A re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much invulnerable. You aren't going to harm it in any meaningful way through firepower alone, so if your codex doesn't have leftover 5th edition psychic defense you're going to have a very frustrating game.

Personally I like that 6th opened the doors for more combo type lists that rely on synergy rather than pure firepower.

The problem is that certain things went from "synergy" to "broken". Taking orks to be a meatshield wall for your Tau gunline is synergy. Whether you like the idea of allies or not it's a legitimate game design decision to include that synergy. Whole units with a re-rollable 2++ is vastly more powerful, and feels like a mistake that GW didn't playtest enough to catch.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

That's a bad comparison because MTG has the built-in limiting factor of mana bases. If you play a monocolor deck you will have a very consistent mana base and your deck will always operate efficiently. If you play the best cards from all five colors you need to work a lot harder to get the lands to play them all, and you risk fatal inconsistency to get that power. That tradeoff usually drives good players to focus on a executing a single strategy effectively (playing limited colors to do it) and not do things like throwing a couple lightning bolts into their blue/white control deck.

With 40k, on the other hand, there are no limits on allies besides the troops + HQ requirement (which is often what you wanted to take anyway). As long as the allies matrix allows it you can just throw a rune priest into your army and enjoy your overpowered relic of 5th edition.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well.

Don't forget that most cards (by total numbers) in a MTG set are designed for either sealed/draft (where you need a lot of 'weak' cards to make it work properly) or "casual" players who like weird stuff regardless of its power level. When you see a weak common in MTG it's probably a deliberate design decision for limited. When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

Yeah, hilariously you actually got that one exactly wrong. Both cards are garbage and have no place in a constructed deck (they're sealed/draft fillers), but the artifact is actually the worse of the two usually. It costs the same total mana to get the life from both, but the spellbomb has to be played during your turn instead of at the end of your opponent's turn once you know you don't need to commit the mana to something else.

And yes, it's easy to point out a better card. Even a basic land would be better. TBH if you're using either of those in a constructed deck you probably don't understand MTG very well.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Exactly, its not a very good comparison and even if you were to try and compare it then it doesn't help the case of getting rid of allies because theoretically Magic uses allies to the extreme. For example you can make decks with split guilds no problem, so having a Selesnya and Boros deck isn't a problem and there is no restriction on it. Just make sure to match your mana base up to go along with your cards.

That's a bad comparison because MTG has the built-in limiting factor of mana bases. If you play a monocolor deck you will have a very consistent mana base and your deck will always operate efficiently. If you play the best cards from all five colors you need to work a lot harder to get the lands to play them all, and you risk fatal inconsistency to get that power. That tradeoff usually drives good players to focus on a executing a single strategy effectively (playing limited colors to do it) and not do things like throwing a couple lightning bolts into their blue/white control deck.

Yes, I did say it wasn't a good comparison. I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming. Not to mention mana limitation is easy to work around. There are plenty of land cards that allow for dual mana. Are you playing a red & black deck? Well you can just take Dragonskull Summits in your land base which allow you to use either black or red mana. On top of that you then use Akoum Refuge which does the same with a slightly different effect, etc, etc. I know of three types of red/black land mana cards off of the top of my head. So thats 12 land cards right away that allow you to use either red/black mana & the drawbacks are not too severe.

I am aware that most players don't use all 5 mana colors in tournaments but the point is that they can construct their deck around any colors they want. There are no restrictions to what colors they can take, so therefore they can build a deck around the cards that are the most effective.

With 40k, on the other hand, there are no limits on allies besides the troops + HQ requirement (which is often what you wanted to take anyway). As long as the allies matrix allows it you can just throw a rune priest into your army and enjoy your overpowered relic of 5th edition.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

Also not to mention that you have overpowered cards and useless cards within magic as well.

Don't forget that most cards (by total numbers) in a MTG set are designed for either sealed/draft (where you need a lot of 'weak' cards to make it work properly) or "casual" players who like weird stuff regardless of its power level. When you see a weak common in MTG it's probably a deliberate design decision for limited. When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

Needless to say I use Sunbeam Spellbomb in my deck and even then I'm sure somebody else will point out a better card than that to use in my deck.

Yeah, hilariously you actually got that one exactly wrong. Both cards are garbage and have no place in a constructed deck (they're sealed/draft fillers), but the artifact is actually the worse of the two usually. It costs the same total mana to get the life from both, but the spellbomb has to be played during your turn instead of at the end of your opponent's turn once you know you don't need to commit the mana to something else.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck? I shouldn't be using them at all? But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

And yes, it's easy to point out a better card. Even a basic land would be better. TBH if you're using either of those in a constructed deck you probably don't understand MTG very well.

Of course, but then you yourself have already confirmed the point I was making. Magic has useless cards and therefore by default it must also have cards that are better and so useful. Therefore it is not a "balanced game" where you yourself said earlier on this post "When you see a weak unit in 40k it's probably because GW didn't bother to playtest enough to realize how weak it is".

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

 DarthOvious wrote:
I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming.

Of course it can be compared. The point isn't the exact mechanism, it's that you need to have a mechanism. GW's current execution of the allies system is very badly done and is responsible for a lot of the most frustrating parts of the game. MTG, on the other hand, does "allies" well and doesn't suffer from the same problems.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want.

You can, but you won't win. Unlike 40k MTG has built-in design principles that focus your strategy and make "take the best of everything" a bad idea.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

You aren't allowed to disagree about that. WOTC has explicitly said that most cards in a set are balanced around sealed/draft formats, which require a range of power between "too weak to play" and "game-ending bomb". Those "useless" cards aren't useless, you're just not playing the format that uses them. In the part of the game where those cards are meant to be relevant they are balanced exactly how they need to be balanced.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're utter trash and I can't think of a single situation where either of them belongs in a constructed (IOW, not draft/sealed) deck, unless you're deliberately playing a weak deck to help teach someone the game.

But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

I never said that. No combination of cards will make either of those two playable in constructed.

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

I already did. They are "useless" because they are not designed for the kind of MTG you're playing. They exist because weak cards are necessary to make sealed/draft function properly. You use them in sealed/draft games, you're not supposed to even consider using them anywhere else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I was only pointing out that even if you were to compare it then it wouldn't work out anyway because it is a completely different game with a system that can't even be compared to tabletop wargaming.

Of course it can be compared. The point isn't the exact mechanism, it's that you need to have a mechanism. GW's current execution of the allies system is very badly done and is responsible for a lot of the most frustrating parts of the game. MTG, on the other hand, does "allies" well and doesn't suffer from the same problems.

It does allies well by allowing any guild faction to ally with any other guild faction. Technically thats not an ally system, its just a "take whatever you want" system. If you do that then of course you're going to have a balanced game because anybody can take any card they want in any deck they want. The only thing you need to do is make sure your mana base is fine.

Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want.

You can, but you won't win. Unlike 40k MTG has built-in design principles that focus your strategy and make "take the best of everything" a bad idea.

How is this any different from saying that you can take X unit from 40k but you won't win? The point I am making is that there are bad cards as well as good cards in MTG and therefore it is still a bad idea to have some cards in your list. The game isn't completely balanced in the way that you can turn up with your deck and play someone else with their deck and then be guranteed an even game. Thats simply not true. Some decks are considerably more powerful than other decks and thus it is still up to players to consult each other about the power level of their decks.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Although in some cases a weak card can be made to use another card a lot stronger, the vast majority of useless cards still end up being useless.

You aren't allowed to disagree about that. WOTC has explicitly said that most cards in a set are balanced around sealed/draft formats, which require a range of power between "too weak to play" and "game-ending bomb". Those "useless" cards aren't useless, you're just not playing the format that uses them. In the part of the game where those cards are meant to be relevant they are balanced exactly how they need to be balanced.

Oh well, WOTC said it, so it must be true. Well GW also said that 40k is a beer and pretzels game so you obviously can't disagree with them either. Oh wait, but you are disagreeing with them. See if you can disagree with a company's stance then so can I.

Once again I disagree. There are a lot of magic cards which are just useless and by that I mean its because there can be a better card that does the same thing for a better mana cost or the same thing with a side benefit for the same mana cost.

So what you telling me is that both those cards are useless and shouldn't be in my deck?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're utter trash and I can't think of a single situation where either of them belongs in a constructed (IOW, not draft/sealed) deck, unless you're deliberately playing a weak deck to help teach someone the game.

So basically you agree with my point?

But surely as pointed out above by yourself these "weak cards" could become stronger with other cards in my deck.

I never said that. No combination of cards will make either of those two playable in constructed.

So basically you agree with my point?

So please explain to me why the two cards I mentioned are useless? Is it because they didn't bother to playtest those cards?

I already did. They are "useless" because they are not designed for the kind of MTG you're playing. They exist because weak cards are necessary to make sealed/draft function properly. You use them in sealed/draft games, you're not supposed to even consider using them anywhere else.

The only issue I have with allies in 6th is the additional detachment they fill, rather than taking up space in a single FoC. While no one really cares if you take 7+ troops, it becomes game breaking when you have 3 HQs, 4 Elites, 4 Fast, and 4 Heavies. If we were restricted to the same allied limits yet within the standard FoC matrix, there would be less imbalance. As it is, you are penalized if you don't take allies simply because you give up those extra FoC slots.

Not saying allies are a bad thing, just that the expanded FoC is the real problem versus a non-allied/single-FoC army.

SJ

The only issue I have with allies in 6th is the additional detachment they fill, rather than taking up space in a single FoC. While no one really cares if you take 7+ troops, it becomes game breaking when you have 3 HQs, 4 Elites, 4 Fast, and 4 Heavies. If we were restricted to the same allied limits yet within the standard FoC matrix, there would be less imbalance. As it is, you are penalized if you don't take allies simply because you give up those extra FoC slots.

Not saying allies are a bad thing, just that the expanded FoC is the real problem versus a non-allied/single-FoC army.

SJ

I think that would add at least some balance. It's just too easy to use allies to shore up your excellent shooty army with the excellent choppy bits from another army. You might as well put each set of races that can ally in one giant codex to pick piecemeal from at this rate, as that's what people like to treat it like.

For me, if i am going to be playing an army, I like it to be one pure race/chapter, and part of the game(not necessarily the most FUN part, but a very legitimate part) is dealing with the downfalls of that army's particular playstyle.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Magic has no limitations either. You can take all the cards you want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to run with 5 colors but the vast majority of players run with at least 2 in tournaments and a 3 color deck is usually not a problem either. However I haven't seen a monocolored deck do too well in a magic tournament.

I just read this and had to respond.
As a Magic-player myself I have to tell you that that is untrue for Legacy.
In Vintage it are usually even the decks with 0 colours that win the tournaments

My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!
Not like WH40k, where 10 Flayed Ones are as expensive as a Helldrake.
Friendly games are usually balanced around a budget, not around a 'card maximum'.

Kangodo wrote:My favourite thing about MTG is the card-prices. If something is better, you are paying more for it!

Does that mean that you think only rich people should have the good armies in 40k?

AegisGrimm wrote:I think that would add at least some balance. It's just too easy to use allies to shore up your excellent shooty army with the excellent choppy bits from another army.

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

Peregrine, I suppose our opinions differ because I don't find the Screamer council or Seer council all that broken. I've got bigger complaints (Wave Serpents) than a very random, very expensive combo unit that many armies can counter.

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

That is true. Allies become especially and obscenely stupid when you can take your own army as an allied contingent. Lol, what?

"It was a day of infamy. The forces of the United States have stormed the beaches of Pearl Harbor. It will be a tough campaign to follow, but fortunately the United Stated brought a staunch ally along as their brothers in arms, the United States."

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Or worse, to take that shooty army and make it shootier.

I mean, what's the difference between a tau player and a tau/tau player? One of them can take 4 riptides, and the other can't.

What?

That is true. Allies become especially and obscenely stupid when you can take your own army as an allied contingent. Lol, what?

"It was a day of infamy. The forces of the United States have stormed the beaches of Pearl Harbor. It will be a tough campaign to follow, but fortunately the United Stated brought their brothers in arms, the United States."

Wouldn't it be more like

"The Army has brought in their most powerful allies, The Marines!'

I dunno, because at least they fight differently.

 Ailaros wrote:
Does that mean that you think only rich people should have the good armies in 40k?

No, I would like it if 'bad' units would be cheaper.
In MTG I have a couple of decks who are 'utter crap' but still enjoyable to play against newer players, they top at 50 Euro each.
They actually have a format where you can only play cheap cards.
A local gaming site actually hosts tournaments where decks may cost no more than 35 Euro.
And it's quite "hardcore" and competitive.

The 'tournament-list' for Necrons is around 570 to 600 Euro, that's around the same price as a good MTG-deck.
I wanted to start a melee-list with Flayed Ones, but I gave that idea up when I saw they were 36 per 5 models.
My "fun" and at the same time "crap" army-list was actually more expensive than a strong tournament-list.
But something like that can't be achieved in a game like Warhammer because of the way the models work, too bad.

In regard to casual 40k games,

I have been playing 40k for years. I great many of the games I play are casual pick-up games. My experience has been that almost nobody builds push-over fluffy list. I have fought against triple helldrake chaos, Nob biker deathstars (5e), metalbox spam armies (5e), double lash armies (4e, remember those), Nidzilla armies (any edition), you name it, all in casual pickup games. I don't think I have ever seen a Tyranid army without at least one Tervigon since there codex dropped, and I never saw one without at least two Carnifexes before their codex dropped. I also have never, under any circumstance, seen a unit of rough riders of vespid on the table top. These casual gamers everyone speaks of, the ones who knowingly take underpowered units and repeatedly get stomped, I don't believe they exist.

Sure there are plenty of players decent enough not to use obvious exploits like building complex wound allocation abusing Nob squads, but repeatedly taking weak army builds and getting stomped is another story.

A nob biker deathstar or a nidzilla list isn't a casual pickup. It's a competitive pickup.

Well, strictly it's neither. It's a pick up where your opponent fields the easiest list available at the time to win a game.

And making "bad" stuff cheaper necessarily makes "good" stuff more expensive. Not only does it do this relatively, but it would necessarily do this absolutely as well, as the prices of some items would have to go up to keep profits the same if the prices of other stuff went down.