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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I can see it being an issue for a few weeks but once you start finding the players you enjoy facing and start to make friends, surely you will start to form a group and be able to try things. With friends you work this out like you work anything with friends out. How do friends decide where to go? How do they decide when? and so on. Its just the same when wargaming. I do not understand how its so hard for pick up gamers to just make friends with the store regulars and go from there.

For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.

Works the same everywhere I have gamed. A few games to break the ice, then the rest is easy going as you start to fit in with their styles and they take on your style and so on. Unless you refuse to get to know anyone you face, then yea every game is gonna be blind sailing.

Rules are there so you can play against perfect strangers and expect to have a resonable enjoyable game and dont feel like you wasted 4-6 hours playing. The rules arent required for a friendly game where everyone knows eachother and has planned from the start to have an enjoyable game.

Da Butcha wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I still don't see why so many people have such a problem with the idea that GW who write the rules could and should balance them.

3x Riptide Tau-Dar is unbalanced?

Make the Riptide 0-1, and don't have Allies rules.

Was that so hard?

I mean what it comes down to is that GW have a particular way they think the game should be played but they don't want to put it in the rules. WTF?!?!?

You are so right, and it's a GW Attitude that's persisted for a long time. Even the old article doesn't lay the blame at GW's feet, but on the player who "abuses" their books. I can't understand how anybody still believes this "writing rules is HARD" whine that GW rules writers have. You can dictate how many marines are in a squad, and how many guardsmen can fit in a Chimera, but suddenly it's impossible to tell someone that Riptides are limited to 0-1 (or whatever). Man up, you wimps!

It's not they can't be bothered to, it's the fact that it never even occurs to them that such combinations might exist, or that someone would have such disregard for the fluff or their fellow players to do so (and I'm not just talking about Triptides, all the OP netlists fall into this category).

Take for example, the Screamerstar. Did they really think that someone would combine the 4++ power with the Grimore and the re-roll 1s ability and with Fateweaver for the re-roll on the book? (I think that's how it works) Of course they didn't. And taken in isolation, each element is perfectly balanced. It's only when combined, in a way the designers never imagined anyone would, that it becomes an issue.

The same exist with Wave Serpents: They expect people to use them as transports like the Razorback, not as Main Battle Tanks. I imagine they expected the shields to be used primarily for defence, and only fired as a last resort, as per the fluff.

Of course, there's easy ways to solve these issues, such as ruling no Invuln can go beyond a 3+ or that the Serpent Shield is a one-use-only weapon, but they expect people to have the integrity not to go looking for these combos, and the decency to eschew them when they discover them for the sake of a fair game.

Or maybe they say that they don't want list abuse , but love it when everyone buys riptides for their army , they even make it easier to take them through formations. And they may of course know that some people may not like that. But those that don't like riptide class units , are probably those who already have an army and don't want to buy a lot of stuff. A new player doesn't care if suddenly you need serpents or ally or what ever to make a good army as he is spending the money now . Someone who plays the game for tournaments only , won't care , because to win those he will have to buy the best army possible.


The whole talk about how GW doesn't know or doesn't think people would play w40k in one way or another is just a smoke screen , just like the whole stuff about w40k not being a game , but a hobby.

 Swastakowey wrote:
For example you said how many armies should someone bring. Its simple, after a few weeks of gaming you get some of their contact details and then, you txt/email etc one and ask if he wants to play a game of 40k, he goes yes (or no, in which case ask someone else) then quickly arrange roughly what each guy is gonna take. Then you head to the store already prepared to face your enemy who is prepared to face you.

But the whole point of pickup games is that you don't have to do any of that. You just bring an army to 40k night and play some games against whoever happens to show up without having to worry about arranging it in advance, lining up schedules, finding a player that fits your story, etc. If your solution to balance in random pickup games is "stop playing them" then it isn't a solution.

I always, no matter the game, base my lists on what would the particular army I am building would actually have on the field. Most games seem to have been balanced with this kind of approach in mind but with 40k it can obviously be a little more...variable. I care little for 'competitive' games and even less for 'competitive' lists for 2 reasons; firstly I play wargames for fun and artistry and secondly 40k is almost certainly the least competitive wargame at the moment.

I have an actual IG infantry company, 3 full platoons (including heavy weapon squads) and not a single vehicle which is utterly hopeless in modern 40k while on the other end of the spectrum I also have a Death Guard warband (with all squads on foot with the MoN and in multiples of 7) which was pretty successful in 6th. I have owned Space Marine mechanised strike forces, an Ork green tide, a Tau Rapid Reaction force and dozens of others over the years but they have all been built with a specific role in mind and have only featured units that would fit that role.

'Fluffy' armies can be almost anything depending on what ever scenario the designer has created but I think the acid test of fluffy/faux fluffy is how much does that army change between editions.
It it remains fundamentally the same aside from minor changes to smooth the jagged edges that generally come with new editions then its probably owned by a fluffy player. If it is radically different and conveniently filled with the new 'competitive' units while removing the now 'uncompetitive' ones then its owned by a faux fluffy player.

But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .


The problem is only GW writing bad rules for units. If they made all units usable , the game would have more variaty and would be more fun to play.

Makumba wrote:
But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
.

Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.

 Paradigm wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
.

Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.

So you're calling Riptides undercosted (your words). Is not even the acknowledgement that something can be "undercosted" an admission that things are flawed in the rules / balance? And if so, what is the objection to people wanting those flaws repaired?

 knas ser wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But everything that can be legaly taken in a list is fluffy. Having two Calgars is not fluffy , because there is only one Calgar. But the fluff has whole formations of Riptides , eldar using not just seer stars , but whole armies of warlocks and seers .
.

Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.

So you're calling Riptides undercosted (your words). Is not even the acknowledgement that something can be "undercosted" an admission that things are flawed in the rules / balance? And if so, what is the objection to people wanting those flaws repaired?

I admit they are undercosted. I admit 40k is not a balanced game, or even close to being one. I admit that GW making such little effort gets in the way of some people enjoying the game. I have no problem with people wanting those issues fixed, and would not object myself.

But what I will say, and what I have always said, is that while 40k is unbalanced, it is by no means unworkable. Some player input and respect/integrity may be required, but there is nothing to stop people having fun if they don't take it too seriously. Unless you play like autoomatons, silently unpacking models, deploying and rolling dice, there will always be opportunity for discussion about the kind of game you're looking for; it's here that the suggestions made in this thread can be discussed and perhaps implemented.

I am lucky enough to play with a group of like-minded players I've known for a long time, and we all share the same views on the game; in our experience,there has never been a problem with balance, as no one is looking to exploit the issues that we all know are there.

I fully appreciate some people are not that fortunate, and that their experience can be and is hampered by the rules, but all I am trying to say is there is a difference between 'unbalanced' and 'impossible'. I would not object to balanced rules being put out, but we can work with what we have. I'd like to see any kind of system that doesn't require some input, communication and interaction between players, I doubt there is one.

Whats not fluffy about 120 shoota boyz and 90 lootas??

Tyranids general theme in the background is just to be adaptable and spawn the best units for the situation



So I guess the fluffy implementation of this would be for me to look over my opponents list and pick everything I need to counter it

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tyranids general theme in the background is just to be adaptable and spawn the best units for the situation



So I guess the fluffy implementation of this would be for me to look over my opponents list and pick everything I need to counter it

No, the Nids spawn in reaction to what they have fought before, not what they're about to fight. If they eat Guardsmen for lunch, and then the Drop Pod Space Marines show up for dinner, they're not going to be prepared for that.

On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to play against a list like that. It would be a fun challenge and if you had the models without proxying, I'd let you do it.

 Paradigm wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tyranids general theme in the background is just to be adaptable and spawn the best units for the situation



So I guess the fluffy implementation of this would be for me to look over my opponents list and pick everything I need to counter it

No, the Nids spawn in reaction to what they have fought before, not what they're about to fight. If they eat Guardsmen for lunch, and then the Drop Pod Space Marines show up for dinner, they're not going to be prepared for that.

On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to play against a list like that. It would be a fun challenge and if you had the models without proxying, I'd let you do it.

Yeah I wouldn't actually do this as victory would mean nothing, and I always build TAC.

However I've had someone do it to me but I didn't complain, I was looking forward to the challenge. Thought a bit less of my opponent of course. Even more so when he shouted out to his friend across the room everytime he got a big kill. /sigh, teenageTTgeeks

 Paradigm wrote:
Yes, it does,but how many times does it refer to those being taken in small skirmishes that games of 40k represent? 3 Riptides is fine at 2500+ points (the level where you're getting into mass-battle territory), it's when people exploit the fact they're slightly undercosted to cram 3 into a 1000 point list where it is neither fluffy nor decent to do so.

3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = commander and his best troops on a vital mission where the Tau are willing to risk even rare prototypes to maximize their chances of success.

3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = field testing of the new Riptides that unexpectedly turned into a real fight, and the Tau didn't think the usual support units would be needed.

3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = the Tau force is well-supplied and gets priority for new Riptide production, and Riptides replacing crisis suits is the long-term plan for the Tau army as a whole.

3 Riptides in a 1000 point game = delivery of new Riptides to a Tau force was ambushed, and now they have to go straight into combat without the support units they'd like to have.

Riptide spam is only "unfluffy" if you define "fluffy" as the opposite of competitive. If you instead look at the background fiction of the army it can be perfectly fluffy.

(Well, as long as you accept the fluff of the Riptide existing at all even though it shouldn't according to previous fluff.)

Yay, someone who agrees with me !
I have never liked the riptide, it being completely against the tau fluff up to this point. Everything that the riptide does in the fluff could be done more efficiently by crisis suits and the tau air caste super-flyers

OMG we're overlooking the real gem in this thread; when white dwarfs actually had articles.

 Peregrine wrote:

Riptide spam is only "unfluffy" if you define "fluffy" as the opposite of competitive. If you instead look at the background fiction of the army it can be perfectly fluffy.
(Well, as long as you accept the fluff of the Riptide existing at all even though it shouldn't according to previous fluff.)

Are these Riptides painted? If they are they may well be fluffy, if they aren't they probably aren't. 40k's fluff is extremely flexible but players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes.

 Palindrome wrote:


players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes.

I don't know if I can disagree with this statement enough.

No, absolutely not.

There are many kinds of gamers as there are gamers. There's nothing rigid about the way people approach the hobby, and the closest you can come to is by trying to categorize people based on their preferred aspect.

There are so many variables and degrees to how someone likes certain aspects of the hobby in general, not to mention 40k in particular, that judging someone or defining based on as little information as 'are the riptides painted' is comically absurd.

Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted? Does this person enjoy other aspects of 40k?

I fail to see how the state of the paint job on a riptide defines its fluffiness and I categorically reject the notion of placing gamers into 'rigid archetype' boxes.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:


players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes.

I don't know if I can disagree with this statement enough.

No, absolutely not.

There are many kinds of gamers as there are gamers. There's nothing rigid about the way people approach the hobby, and the closest you can come to is by trying to categorize people based on their preferred aspect.

There are so many variables and degrees to how someone likes certain aspects of the hobby in general, not to mention 40k in particular, that judging someone or defining based on as little information as 'are the riptides painted' is comically absurd.

Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted? Does this person enjoy other aspects of 40k?

I fail to see how the state of the paint job on a riptide defines its fluffiness and I categorically reject the notion of placing gamers into 'rigid archetype' boxes.

Well said Blacksails. Either the other poster failed to communicate, or he's bought into the fluffy vs competitive nonsense.

 Blacksails wrote:

Is the rest of the army painted? Are they new acquisitions? Are they in the process of being painted?

In my experience power gamers tend to be the ones with the perpetually grey/black armies. People who play for fluff tend to make at least some effort on the appearance of their army.

I see 3 broad categories of 40k player. Firstly there are people who play for the fluff and create 'realistic' armies that tend to be painted. Secondly there is the WAAC type of player who plays purely to win and doesn't care for the modelling aspects of wargaming. Thirdly there is everyone else.
These categories are obviously extremely nebulous, there are WAAC players with well painted armies for example, but as a rough guide they hold true.

If someone was to play a 1k game with 3 Riptides then I would bet a lot of money on them being unpainted and remaining unpainted.

I spend days building a list and perfecting it to be as strong as possible, and when I put the models down I strategise and play purely to win. But I also restrict myself from using OP tactics or armies (I play Tyranids, CSM, and DE - I originally played Tau but put them down once the 6th codex dropped), just because beating Eldar or Tau with Tyranids is far more satisfying than doing it the other way around. That being said, I do not put a single model to the table unpainted, and I put a lot of time into major conversions and my personalized paint schemes (even if I'm not the most patient painter I still work hard to get it all looking good). I constantly get compliments on the original paint schemes, and while I am one of the better/more competitive players in my local, I do it with my personal army handicaps and don't use supercheese tactics, and I always endeavour to keep it cheerful and jovial the entire game through, cracking jokes and laughing at crazy rolls or unfortunate explosions no matter whose side they are on (and I take care never to be obnoxious about it either, and sympathize if my opponent gets gak luck so long as he/she isn't being an ass or a baby about it). While I generally outplay most people I battle with, I have not played a game without getting comments about how cool my army looks at the same time. The main thing for me though is having fun in the social setting, and bantering with my locals, often about the fluff (this is one aspect I admit I lack in) but I enjoy being told about it more than I enjoy reading about it, and as far as I can tell people sure enjoy telling me about it


All in all, I participate and pride myself on a lot of different aspects of this hobby.

Your categories are stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to talk myself up here either, I just like people to know when they play me they are going to get a tough competitive match, against a well and fully painted army, with a friendly and jovial vibe (If they let it be, not much I can do about people who rage about losing / whatever else - they ruined the game for themselves before it even starting, just by coming to the table with such an attitude.)

Is it possible that not all competitive gamers are immature pricks who take 3 unpainted Riptides and pack up halfway in a huff because "the dice rolls are bs" when they just got outplayed?

These types do exist (I've seen a couple) but its not really fair to generalize 40k into 3 different catergories, especially if "oh you only play to win, you are a WAAC TFG!" is one of them. I don't play to lose boy - you best bring your A-Game if you expect to win - but even if you lose, hopefully you learnt something, had a laugh or two, and you enjoyed a challenging battle that didn't involve having to deal with any actual cheese (although I have had everything from Tyrannofex's to Talos Pain Engines being whinged about as 'cheese' - most people don't seem to know what this term means). And from my perspective, I have never once complained about any cheesy Riptide / Flyer Spam lists I've had to face, or even the guy who checks what I bring before he writes, I relish these games as a challenge. As far as painted models and keeping it friendly goes, I prefer to lead by example, not by preaching to people about how they aren't getting into the spirit of the game properly blah blah blah.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I don't play to lose boy.

Are you aware of what nebulous means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Is it possible that not all competitive gamers are immature pricks who take 3 unpainted Riptides and pack up halfway in a huff because "the dice rolls are bs" when they just got outplayed?

Is it possible that you didn't actually read my post?

Ok if you are willing to backpedal on your post than by all means. It's pretty obvious what you were saying though.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Ok if you are willing to backpedal on your post than by all means. It's pretty obvious what you were saying though.

I haven't backpedaled at all. Its obvious that you have misread my post though.

 Palindrome wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Ok if you are willing to backpedal on your post than by all means. It's pretty obvious what you were saying though.

I haven't backpedaled at all. Its obvious that you have misread my post though.

It's not obvious to me at all. I think that Shuppet read your post entirely accurately. You think in biased stereotypes that I'm not at all convinced are accurate. Three posters now have disagreed with your rather offensive characterisations which sound, honestly, quite elitist. It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models' in essence, with all the negative connotation that comes with people not being bothered to do something. I don't think it's right and if anyone has backpedaled, it's you. You began your original post with "players tend to come in fairly rigid archetypes". That's pretty strong stuff and the only way it holds true, imo, is if you Palindrome, are inserting people into preconceived categories to suit your prejudices.

 knas ser wrote:
. It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models'.....

So you are saying that competitive players are WAAC players? You will notice that this is something that I never said and WAAC players are the only group that I linked to being especially lax in painting because they generally are. If you wish to be defensive then fine but don't over react.

 Palindrome wrote:

 knas ser wrote:
. It comes across as 'competitive players don't bother to paint their models'.....

So you are saying that competitive players are WAAC players? You will notice that this is something that I never said and WAAC players are the only group that I linked to being especially lax in painting because they generally are.

WAAC is just a pejorative term. It also wasn't a term you used in your post. Peregrine made the point that fluffy should not be considered the opposite of competitive. Peregrine didn't use the term - they just said "competitive". You replied that players usually come in "rigid archetypes" and that if the models are painted they may be "fluffy" and if they weren't, they probably weren't "fluffy". That's the sum total of what you said and it was a stupid thing to say. You obviously realize that as you're back-peddling further now. First you started contradicting your "rigid archetypes" by saying these "rigid archetypes" are "extremely nebulous". Now you're post-adding in the term WAAC (which is, at any rate, just a way of pulling a No True Scotsman and trying to create some artificial delineation so the existence of competitive fluffy players doesn't undermine your worldview).

 Palindrome wrote:
If you wish to be defensive then fine but don't over react.

Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."

Bonehead.

 knas ser wrote:

Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."
Bonehead.

As some people continually fail to understand my posts let me break it all down into a single sentence that even you may be able to understand but given your insulting tone perhaps not. 3 groups with bleedthrough between them, WAAC, fluffy and general, fluffy builds lists for background reasons, WAAC play to win at all costs and general is everyone else. I cannot break that down any more.

WAAC is not a pejorative term, or at least it is more than that, it is a subset of competitive players who play purely for win and will use any means necessary to do so.

I have noticed that some people become extremely sensitive when the issue of playing with non painted miniatures gets brought up, I wonder why.

That's more than enough words wasted in this thread.

I wonder why. It's possibly because you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on stereotypes that you have literally invented and saying almost everyone falls into these categories.


People of all sorts play this game. There is of course bad eggs. But some people just can't afford $7 per pot of paint after buying undeniably overpriced miniatures.

 Palindrome wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

Translation: "I insulted people, I'm being called on it, so I'll claim they're being defensive."
Bonehead.

As some people continually fail to understand my posts let me break it all down into a single sentence that even you may be able to understand but given your insulting tone perhaps not. 3 groups with bleedthrough between them, WAAC, fluffy and general, fluffy builds lists for background reasons, WAAC play to win at all costs and general is everyone else. I cannot break that down any more.

WAAC is not a pejorative term, or at least it is more than that, it is a subset of competitive players who play purely for win and will use any means necessary to do so.

I have noticed that some people become extremely sensitive when the issue of playing with non painted miniatures gets brought up, I wonder why.

That's more than enough words wasted in this thread.

Look at that goalpost go!

Anyway, I run a fluffy Necron army with backstory and everything and keep my own headcannon regarding its evolving lore based on the results of the various games, leagues, Apocalypse games and campaigns it's been involved in. The actual backstory for this army was written before I actually had the models on hand, let alone assembled and painted, and once in my hands the army as saw months of games as bare plastic/primer/basecoat (depends on the models and chronological placement of the game) aside from 3 models- my first Overlord (first model I've painted), Ghost Ark and Annihilation Barge (both of whom looked a nightmare to paint if I held off until after assembly).

I bought my models, first and foremost, to play the game. As such I cared a whole lot more about them being fieldable than I did about them looking good on the table, and thanks to time constraints and general laziness getting them painted to any degree took a long ass time, and most of my painting sprees were the result of myself writing up lists for upcoming tournaments with minimal painting requirements and then painting the models I wanted to take to the required standards.

So, where do I fit in your rigid archetype scheme? Am I a WAAC TFG for my lackluster painting efforts and tendency to attend tournaments when available and play to win? A Fluffy player for my fluffy Necron army and lists? General (whatever the hell that means)?