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.
@Zwei- those charts don't really say "PP is losing market share". Sure, X-wing bumped Hordes to the #5 spot, but also notice that it maintains that position, While one of GW's games (Fantasy) falls off the chart when Attack Wing Arrives. Warmachine, meanwhile manages to reclaim the #2 spot from X-wing during spring 2013, before being bumped in the fall (probably due to X-wing Wave 3).
This makes me think that PP is holding its own, while GW is being pounded by a new competitor. Admittedly, lacking any real data we cannot make any conclusions, either for or against.
Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing which you shouldn't do. All the ICv2 is, essentially, is the compilation of results of a phone survey conducted with a variety of gaming retailers, who themselves essentially pull the answers out of the air. I can testify as a former director of a retail business that often what you think is doing well isn't always borne out by the sales figures, and is frequently coloured by what has been selling well that month, day, week or morning.
Fair enough. I can see that easily happening when a "new" game sells tons of stuff, while the "old" game keeps chucking along like it always has.
I find it less likely to happen with regards to the assessment that "gaming is growing, wargaming isn't". But I guess it could.
Again, some alternative "numbers" (or as close as we could get) would've been nice. Which is why I'd like to know that source for TheKbobs PP "is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip."
Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
I don't see how when some armies can be laughably stomped certain other lists. Unless you play with a small group of friends, the game is broken. Maybe its fine for you, but not everyone and that's what I meant. Heck, I play mostly with people I know and I have a blast. But outside my little world the game has serious issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 19:51:49
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing. I'm sorry, but that's moronic. It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away. It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Then you're factually wrong. There might be situations of "The game as I play it" being fine for you/your meta, but that's not necessarily the same thing as "The game is fine". In fact that's one of the issues with 40k in general - whether it's fine or not is almost 100% dependent on how you, your regular opponents, your not-so-regular opponents, people who might be your opponents the next time you play, people you've never met before but play at your FLGS, etc. play the game.
There are people here who don't seem to have a problem with the game because of how their metas work (Swastakowey springs to mind), but that's a far cry from the game itself being fine as it is, across all meta, which is what a balanced and decently-written game should strive to be. Just because you don't see problems (which isn't a bad thing) doesn't mean those problems don't exist; that's part of the trouble with GW's idea of how the game is played - it's 100% reliant on the style and tone and way that they play while ignoring everything else but taking no steps to make it so there's only one way to play the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 19:53:46
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Yeah, but then, some of us have read your posts, so.....
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Yeah, but then, some of us have read your posts, so.....
Oh, I've read some of yours as well!
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
I love how GW white knights always assume that the complainers are always wrong.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
40k is a hippy dippy mess of a game. This is a fact.
However, this does not make people incapable of enjoying it.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
40k is a hippy dippy mess of a game. This is a fact.
However, this does not make people incapable of enjoying it.
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
It's not useless if you find yourself a gaming group where it's useful.
Simply saying X is useful or useless is a fallacy, because there is not a single way to play 40K. In one group, Pentinent Engines might be useless, because people only run Riptides. In another group, the Riptide might be useless, because people don't play games with or against Riptides.
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
But 40K is meant to be played in a certain kind of meta. If you are not playing in a certain kind of meta, how would you know which books, supplements, models, etc.. you use, and which ones you dont? Which is why, to reference the discussion above, the gaming group is so important, as expressed by Jervis Johnson.
Spoiler:
Jervis Johnson in White Dwarf Weekly #9 wrote:
However, the sheer breath of choice these supplemental rules bring means that it is rare to impossible to use all of the different elements we've created in every game you play. In the old 'infantry skirmish' days, pretty much all of the rules we'd created were used in all of the games that were played. Nowadays, you can pick and choose and, if you want, vary those elements you use, meaning that there are lots of different ways to play. To use another analogy, the rules have changed from a set meal where you must eat everything you are given, to a buffet where you get to choose what to put on the plate.
So why did all that make me think about the importance of gaming groups? Well, all this choice means that the way we all go about organising our games has had to chagne a bit. Back in the day, pretty much all you could do was fight small-scale infantry skirmishes, and all games would be rather similar. Basically, if you didn't like infantry skirmishes, well, you were right out of luck.
Now, taking 40K as an example, you can do anything from a Kill Team mission through to a weekend long session of Apocalypse and lots of different things inbetween! Not only does this mean that you will need to pick and choose what sort of game you want to play before you play it, but it will also almost certainly mean that there will be some types of game that you prefer to play.
It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
If you don't have a specific meta to tailor 40K to your liking, you're probably better off not playing 40K. It's not designed for that.
I love tons of bad video games; games full of bugs, terrible audio, bad graphics, and broken gameplay. But the spirit and soul of a bad game can make on endure; enough charm may exist to turn it to love.
See Deadly Premonition.
But Deadly Premonition was a $20 budget game that turned into cult classic.
Warhammer 40k is a several hundred to thousand dollar game that is sustained on the endurance and love of the setting, not because of it's broken mechanics. Just because you find it quirky, lovable, and able to work around, it doesn't change what it actually is.
My comment on Privateer Press was base upon my travels and seeing it grow at many stores and at major GTs over the past several years. If you want to chock it up to anecdotal, then so be it, but it's at least a well educated hypothesis. There are no outward signs of slowing, lethargy, or sag in the market based upon any community response. It's the same vibe as Valve. They aren't publicly traded, but we know they are succesful and growing based upon their actions and stance in the market. None of the business transitions breed an air of despiration.
Now Games Workshop, on the other hand... *looks at $150 tool kits and $50 books with 1 page of useful rules* Hmmmmm,...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 20:26:47
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
It's more like this.
Poster A: 40k is a broken game that is absolutely internally imbalanced where units are far too good and some are absolutely unplayable. It can be entertaining but that is more due to friends, the models, the building, the painting, the large community, and the fluff that keep it up. The rules are terrible in every way and are objectively bad.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine
Poster C: You are wrong.
Poster B: But this video shows imbalance can be a good thing
Poster A: I like 40k. I do. I have armies, I still will buy models on occasion. That doesn't mean it is perfect.
Poster A edited update: The video has no real connection to your argument as the game is not perfect imbalance. It's a mess of bad rules, little playtesting, and monkeys on the typewriter.
Poster B: How dare all of you! I shall continue on stubbornly for a day or more.
Find a different gaming group where its useful? No gaming group is going to change how worthless it is. And what if changing my meta isn't an option? Sure, with my small group of people we could houserule or do special scenarios, but when playing with other people at my store, it's worthless.
Again, that's down to poor game design if I have to break the rules to use it. That's not good for the game. So again, answer my question this time. How is that good for the game?
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
Jervis Johnson wrote:It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
Yea, okay, Jervis. Then why don't you create a team of dedicated and identified power users who help establish said gaming groups through a company supported outrider program to foster new players, organize sanctioned events, and be an aid to the company for a small reward?
And why don't you support FLGS with respect in their ability to effectively market and sell your product to ensure players have space for gaming groups?
Oh, that's right, these are bad ideas. You're right, Jervis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 20:25:15
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
I wasn't insulting anyone, just stating that like any other game usually those that complain find complaining easier than conquering.
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
But 40K is meant to be played in a certain kind of meta. If you are not playing in a certain kind of meta, how would you know which books, supplements, models, etc.. you use, and which ones you dont? Which is why, to reference the discussion above, the gaming group is so important, as expressed by Jervis Johnson.
Spoiler:
Jervis Johnson in White Dwarf Weekly #9 wrote:
However, the sheer breath of choice these supplemental rules bring means that it is rare to impossible to use all of the different elements we've created in every game you play. In the old 'infantry skirmish' days, pretty much all of the rules we'd created were used in all of the games that were played. Nowadays, you can pick and choose and, if you want, vary those elements you use, meaning that there are lots of different ways to play. To use another analogy, the rules have changed from a set meal where you must eat everything you are given, to a buffet where you get to choose what to put on the plate.
So why did all that make me think about the importance of gaming groups? Well, all this choice means that the way we all go about organising our games has had to chagne a bit. Back in the day, pretty much all you could do was fight small-scale infantry skirmishes, and all games would be rather similar. Basically, if you didn't like infantry skirmishes, well, you were right out of luck.
Now, taking 40K as an example, you can do anything from a Kill Team mission through to a weekend long session of Apocalypse and lots of different things inbetween! Not only does this mean that you will need to pick and choose what sort of game you want to play before you play it, but it will also almost certainly mean that there will be some types of game that you prefer to play.
It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
The studio lives in a completely different universe to the rest of the gaming world. It is this disconnect that causes 40k's main issues.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 20:28:03
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
I wasn't insulting anyone, just stating that like any other game usually those that complain find complaining easier than conquering.
Because conquering involves sacrificing the models you like or forcing the other player to lower their power level.
StarTrotter wrote: I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
That's the whole point. Fluffy lists aren't even balanced. Hey, Star Trotter, how about you play against my fluffy White Scars all biker army? Or my fluffy, all Eldar Grav Tank Samm Hain army? Or my Fluffy Draigowing (that is a fluffy army)? Or my fluffy 9 Monstrous Creature Spam army (because any Nids army is fluffy, adapt and overcome!)?
So, is 40k some weird form of an RPG? If so, it is a horribly balanced RPG.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
So list tailoring? That's the narrative?
How does this work when I want a pick-up game because I'm in a new area? I use wargames to find cool new people. Argueing about rules isn't a cool way to meet new people. Neither is list tailoring.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
