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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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.

That still doesn't answer the question: how is such a useless unit good for the game? Also, those are specific scenarios that you'll never see in a normal game that are perhaps the only occasion where a PE wouldn't be completely useless. You'll never see that scenario.
Stop evading and just answer the question. How is such a useless unit good for the game? (A tabletop game of 40k, not Dark Heresy, not some made up game you just thought of, the actual game of 40k)

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 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.

Are you ing kidding me? I could give you credit for a Thousand Son army but two things. One, why is it that a Thosand Son army works less than a White Scar army? Explain to me this. Along with this, how is it that a Tzeentch list is a poor list. Explain to me this. Tell me how I should just give up on Tzeentch because his mark, his spells, his everything suck besides his daemon prince? Is this good balance? You know what, I hardly play it because it sucks. Then again, I hardly play CSM because I am not going to play Heldrakes. I vowed after two games to never play it again unless it gets balanced. I am not stomping on my friend's fun but the CSM codex is horrible. Stop that, quit that, why can't I play what I lvoe rather than deploying nurgle?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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.

I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that. More than likely people will play 1500-2000pts in a pickup or prearranged game at their FLGS or gaming club. To think this is how 40k is supposed to work is just asinine. It's the same king-canute esq. attitude that stems from the studio that just hurts the game. Who are they (or YOU?) to tell tens of thousands of people they're playing the game incorrectly as cover for GW's sloppy game design?

 MWHistorian wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question: how is such a useless unit good for the game? Also, those are specific scenarios that you'll never see in a normal game that are perhaps the only occasion where a PE wouldn't be completely useless. You'll never see that scenario.
Stop evading and just answer the question. How is such a useless unit good for the game? (A tabletop game of 40k, not Dark Heresy, not some made up game you just thought of, the actual game of 40k)

There is no "normal" game of 40K. If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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.

But this requries a complex set-up and, if it were better constructed in the form of balance or perfect imbalance, it would do its job even BETTER and be also capable of being used in other games.

 Grimtuff wrote:

I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.

I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.

Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?

Definitely, people need to adapt and overcome. This is nothing new to humans, it's in our nature to do this.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 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 much fun!

Basically this. I can play different builds. there's a reason I only take out those units when I'm particularly missing them or I just really want to play them. Even then, I sometimes just take them markless and "pretend" they are mark of tzeentch. For the most part, I just gave up and moved to building chaos daemons and IG. Yet CSM still holds a place in my heart for being my first army and Tzeentch even more so. I just want my fluffy list to be able to fight against all these other fluffy lists. The reason they are poor lists are because the rules are terrible.

double post.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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.

And what if no-one plays cultists in his area?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.

I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.

Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?

Who are you to tell tens of thousands of other players who want to play a proper wargame that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your pointless crusade of acting like everything is fine?

The hypocrisy in your post is staggering.

 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".

Isn't the fact that there are such 'go to' lists within 40k part if the problem? Surly they're indicative of problems within the game? Surely they're indicative that only some things are worth taking, and everything else stays on the shelf - you say it yourself - you refer to bad units elsewhere. Why should that be the status quo?

In 40k, good players win with one of those 'net lists'. Comp makes no difference - I've never seen a comp system that helped the game, or that couldn't be broken in turn. All comp does is apply a skew, and create a new grade of good units and bad units.
Compared to warmachine: good players win. Everything can be built into a game winning strategy. I've seen popular lists win, and I've seen lists and units right out of left field and deemed all sorts of bad to figure a role in a big win. Jamie Perkins won a uk invitational with kossites. A chap in America won with assault kommandos. A guy took the Swedish masters with Cassius (or mohsar?) and grayle. Three examples of maligned, or unpopular, or easily dismissed choices. And yet played for big wins.

Sadly, you won't see the same in 40k. It's a shame really.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Definitely, people need to adapt and overcome. This is nothing new to humans, it's in our nature to do this.

But the thing is, adapting in 40k involves purchasing pricey models, building them, and then painting them. It's time taxing for a "beer and pretzel" hobby. On top of that, you are ignoring the people that love the game for its fluff and setting that want that vibe when they are playing the game. I can adapt, as mentioned, I have. But I'm sentimental, I'm human, and those are my favorite guys. When somebody asks me what is my real army, I say Tzeentch marines because that's the guys that made me finally go, I want to make this my army (techincally it was Ahriman).

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Definitely, people need to adapt and overcome. This is nothing new to humans, it's in our nature to do this.

How do you adapt and overcome either A) nearly invincible units or B) units that have every special rule in the game to ignore any save you have except invulnerable?

Think wisely before you answer. Because if you knock this one out of the park, you'll be a shoe in for the next winner of NOVA Open.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.

I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.

Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?

Tens of thousands?!!

Is this from the same user who brought us X Wing has 0.001% the number of units of Warmachine?"

I do believe it is!!

Stop pretending that your view is anything but a tiny minority, and that to cater to it doesn't harm the game at large.

Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.

So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.

I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.

Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?

But you see, there are normal games. The normal games are the ones you see most individuals playing based on the rules. Yeah, there's tons of players that go the narrative way, in fact, I do as well. But I play more just normal games than anything else and then fluff them up. Most people play pick-up games here, that's in the majority. Narrative games are made for a bunch of friends to do.

Along with that, the studio also thinks that the battleforces are perfectly balanced and if we go by their "interpretations", SM should always win against everybody always.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.

So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules.

As this one says, at this point, why use the book, why buy any of the rules. Make your own! Don't even buy models. Buy some plastic guys and toss them on giving them S10 guns. Be free for the forging of narratives! No, want to know what the companie's forging the narrative is? Random spell generation, random warlord traits, and mandatory challenges.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.

This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Who are you to tell tens of thousands of other players who want to play a proper wargame that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your pointless crusade of acting like everything is fine?

The hypocrisy in your post is staggering.

How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.

Sorry. I bought and play 40K the way it is because of the way it is. I like it the way it is. If 40K were somehow different, more balanced, whatever, I wouldn't have bought it.

If you blithely ignored all the Forge-the-Narrative boxes and all the design philosophy clearly spelled out by guys like Jervis Johnson, only to find that you don't enjoy what they do with the game, I am sorry. If I were rich, I'd refund you the money.

But it is hardly hypocrisy if you enjoy a game the way it is written and in the spirit of the game spelled out by the game designers themselves. If I wouldn't enjoy it.. I'd simply look for a different game.

There is no hypocrisy if you like strawberry ice-cream for tasting like strawberry ice-cream. If you prefer vanilla, go and get yourself vanilla. But stop hating strawberry ice-cream for not tasting like vanilla.

Well, it's been fun for the nostalgia, but Zwei has no new material, is still unable to address the gaping holes in his argument and when cornered, moves the goalposts or constructs the most convoluted justifications to try and wriggle out of it, so that's me done for now, I'll just leave everyone with this advice...

 Desubot wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.

So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.

But you forget, if you just make up new ways of playing and ignore the rules, then the rules are awesome!

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

Mim-maxing means nothing when the riptide is blatantly good, CSM, Nids, and Da are entirely inferior, and all the units costs chunks of money and even more time. How the hell is it not fair to you if I could bring my "fluffy list" and have it play on equal grounds? By that implication, it's also balanced and I likely min maxed it to be within my theme (much like the white scars biker army) whilst still having a diverse force that is min maxed for take all comers. BAM! Both of us win.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

You play your fluffy whatever army, I'll play my fluffy White Scars Gravity Spam army and we'll see who has fun.

Further Clarification: If you are not picking up what's being stated, even "fluffy" armies are not equal. An all Nurgle army is far superior to anything else found in the Chaos Space Marines codex. Books aren't created with any thought of balance and armies, more so ones that follow canonicle fluff, are so off scale with each other, that you either have to work through a series of house-rule hoops or you have to be a "smarter" player and learn to guage a player and when to pull punches.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.

This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.

I think you're what's wrong with the game. Dispatching thoughtful min maxers as TFGs is offensively ignorant

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.

So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.

But you forget, if you just make up new ways of playing and ignore the rules, then the rules are awesome!

Now go pay for the overpriced 60-80 dollar toilet pap- rulebook, the 50 dollar codex, the 50 dollar supplement, multiple dlces, and hundreds of armies to make your army! Look at all the money you spent on such fine and well crafted rules.

Ha ha the fools! They didn't realize they could have just made their own and it would have been just as ballanced!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"

And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.

This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.

I think you're what's wrong with the game. Dispatching thoughtful min maxers as TFGs is offensively ignorant

Min-maxers that enforce blatant imbalances are bad. The good min-maxers that deserve some respect are the guys that maximize an army in a largely balanced game revealing new broken ways. Instead, you just copy everybody else probably and their lists.

 Zweischneid wrote:
How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

He mentioned tailoring a game of cultists in a crowded city against a penitent engine to make the immolator good. Does that count?

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

By self-policing, obviously. Duh?

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.