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.
The point he was making is that there are some units which will not be used regardless of what play style you're going for, as other units are simply better than them at everything.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The point he was making is that there are some units which will not be used regardless of what play style you're going for, as other units are simply better than them at everything.
This I disagree with. I regularly see people that use units others see as useless. I have a guy who regularly wants to use Snipers in his DA army even though they are almost complete garbage. I use Gene Stealers in my army and many, many Tyranid players are very vocal about how bad they think they are.
I tend to look outside the box. A unit is not viable until after I have used it in every combination I can think of. So far, the only unit I have ever seen that has been pointless was my friends DA warlord Azrael. Company Master's do just as well at half the cost.
I also tend to be more objective when I look at units, I don't look for the strongest possible combinations because I have seen and won way too many games with units people disregard because Strategy > Powerful units.
But in the end, its player preference.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Against a powerful army with a good player using genestealers will not typically yield good results. It may work for you because your meta isnt as cut throat but it will not work for everyone or even many people.
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!
wufai wrote: Imagine if your codex and 7th ed ruleset is 'perfect'. You are more likely to dread the next edition instead to hoping GW makes the right changes.
If the rules were 'perfect' (and frankly, after 7 tries, it's not unreasonable to think that they should be fairly close) there would be no particular need for a 'next' edition. GW could just focus on updating 15-year-old models and releasing campaign books and expansions that would remain current for longer than 2 years...
Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there.
Unless you post a full battle report, this is usually an apt assumption to make. People frequently look at Top 16 and Top 32 in 150+ man tournaments because you'll see cream rise to the top. When you have a full years worth of tournament data, you can make a pretty reasonable assumption what's good and what isn't.
Yes, you can be what we call a "statistical outlier" in the sense you're a good general with a solid army and you happen to beat another player with a certain army type that's "supposed to win". The point of armies and their strengths being lopsided is represented by good general + good army means a much more consistent outcome of winning for that player. Also, that good player + bad army is on the back foot for such games and bad player + good army will also be at a disadvantage.
It's boiling down the argument to very few variables, but you get the idea. If someone somehow cracks the nut, then feel free to bring the list to a major GT and see how it goes. Or post detailed battle reports for further analysis. The anecdote of "I beat Seerstar once with 4 Dark Angels Terminators and a bucket of clams" that we see floating around as a means to dismiss the power creep in 40k holds little merit almost all the time when pressed for further details.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:14:39
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
You know why Genestealers are looked down on? Because their extremely vulnerable to Bolters. Now how many armies have access to Bolters or something similar? They are not fast, they are not resilient, but they hit hard. Genestealers can do great things in a game where everyone is just having fun and they are honestly not that bad of a unit just entirely overcosted, there is no reason for them to cost as much as a Space Marine.
You are falling into a trap that so many new players fall into with 40k and that is believing that the your meta is somehow special and unique, it isn't. My meta isn't unique, I can play Genestealers in my meta without them getting torn to pieces every game, I sometimes DO play Genestealers for fun. But I still recognize that they are grossly overpriced and in a competitive sense they are terrible. Your meta just isn't as cut throat as you think it is unless you constantly see Screamstar/Seerstar/Serpent Spam or what ever top tier tournament list is making the rounds.
But I have challenge for you Lobomalo, since you seem to think that GW knows better than the players I want you to try and explain to me what use the Pyrovore is. Or how about Rough Rides if you are willing to go boldly into territory unknown to you. I have literally played and owned every single army since 3rd edition at one point or another, I have experienced most of the pros and cons of each army, but the one army that I have never sold, never shelved for longer than a month was Tyranids. You can not truly believe that every single unit has a valid use in this game, I just can not understand that mind set unless you are just ignorant of some of the worse this game has to offer.
Pyrovores, Hormagaunts, Mandrakes, Rough Riders, and so many more are in a place where they serve no function in an army. They are made obsolete by their own codex. This isn't to say they are unplayable but it is a serious design flaw when you have units in a codex that have no benefit to them other than you may like the way the model looks. These units CAN accomplish something on the table but you would be handicapping yourself by playing them.
The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.
For example my Hive Fleet Kielbasa was built over 18 months. I got the codex, selected units and scoured eBay for bargain secondhand models. Sculpted and cast new bases for my 66 Termagants. Got Chapter House and Forge World parts to build my Tervigon and Tyrannofex. Lovingly converted Hive Guard out of Bitz because the GW kits were crap.
Most of the models were converted from the GW standard, and the army was played at three local tournaments. I won some Spore Pods which were brought into service for the 3rd event.
If I was playing MtG I would just have bought some cards.
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
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
You know why Genestealers are looked down on? Because their extremely vulnerable to Bolters. Now how many armies have access to Bolters or something similar? They are not fast, they are not resilient, but they hit hard. Genestealers can do great things in a game where everyone is just having fun and they are honestly not that bad of a unit just entirely overcosted, there is no reason for them to cost as much as a Space Marine.
You are falling into a trap that so many new players fall into with 40k and that is believing that the your meta is somehow special and unique, it isn't. My meta isn't unique, I can play Genestealers in my meta without them getting torn to pieces every game, I sometimes DO play Genestealers for fun. But I still recognize that they are grossly overpriced and in a competitive sense they are terrible. Your meta just isn't as cut throat as you think it is unless you constantly see Screamstar/Seerstar/Serpent Spam or what ever top tier tournament list is making the rounds.
But I have challenge for you Lobomalo, since you seem to think that GW knows better than the players I want you to try and explain to me what use the Pyrovore is. Or how about Rough Rides if you are willing to go boldly into territory unknown to you. I have literally played and owned every single army since 3rd edition at one point or another, I have experienced most of the pros and cons of each army, but the one army that I have never sold, never shelved for longer than a month was Tyranids. You can not truly believe that every single unit has a valid use in this game, I just can not understand that mind set unless you are just ignorant of some of the worse this game has to offer.
Pyrovores, Hormagaunts, Mandrakes, Rough Riders, and so many more are in a place where they serve no function in an army. They are made obsolete by their own codex. This isn't to say they are unplayable but it is a serious design flaw when you have units in a codex that have no benefit to them other than you may like the way the model looks. These units CAN accomplish something on the table but you would be handicapping yourself by playing them.
On the contrary, my meta shouldn't be any different than what you would find at any other shop across the states, but this depends entirely on what armies are being played there because they are not always consistent across all shops.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
Also, when did I say GW knew better? Don't put words in my mouth, it is quite rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.
For example my Hive Fleet Kielbasa was built over 18 months. I got the codex, selected units and scoured eBay for bargain secondhand models. Sculpted and cast new bases for my 66 Termagants. Got Chapter House and Forge World parts to build my Tervigon and Tyrannofex. Lovingly converted Hive Guard out of Bitz because the GW kits were crap.
Most of the models were converted from the GW standard, and the army was played at three local tournaments. I won some Spore Pods which were brought into service for the 3rd event.
If I was playing MtG I would just have bought some cards.
MtG has a lot of the same investment and emotion. Especially when you look at the legacy and EDH formats. EDH is a format where people are constantly shifting and building more and more stuff into their deck and once you hit that point where you think it's done, a new set comes out with new cards and you find something that could work in your deck.
The emotional investment between building a great deck and building an army really isn't different and its callous to shrug off the effort people put into building a deck.
Not to mention, high end EDH decks easily cost more than 1k, mono red being slightly less because mono red is incredibly week in this format.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:24:35
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that any outsider who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:25:42
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!
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
Yeah, try the Pyrovore out as an anti armour unit, let us know how you get on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:31:00
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
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
Volatile is just fun, I can think of many ways to have fun with this.
Biggest issue, 40 pts per model. Toss them into an ongoing conflict with some gaunts or something cheap, get one to explode. Watch shenanigans happen.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:39:15
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
That was my point.
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:37:42
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
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
I just said that and I agree that the units that most people pan can have their uses. My point is that they are subpar in their supposed roles compared to other units in the same Codex. If one unit does the same thing or makes the unit's role moot for cheaper/more efficiently why would you take it ? I can understand taking a subpar unit just for the sake of having something unusual on the table. However, if that unit does well in the few games that it is taken that doesn't mean it is a hidden gem that the group-think Internet forums just decided was bad. It just means that under the circumstances it worked for you.
In addition, it does mean it's poorly balanced. There will always be good/not as good units in all wargames but GW is fairly unique in how pervasive the bad internal balance is. The fact that Tournament clearing lists tend to consist of a select few units speaks volumes about this.
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!
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
I just said that and I agree that the units that most people pan can have their uses. My point is that they are subpar in their supposed roles compared to other units in the same Codex. If one unit does the same thing or makes the unit's role moot for cheaper/more efficiently why would you take it ? I can understand taking a subpar unit just for the sake of having something unusual on the table. However, if that unit does well in the few games that it is taken that doesn't mean it is a hidden gem that the group-think Internet forums just decided was bad. It just means that under the circumstances it worked for you.
In addition, it does mean it's poorly balanced. There will always be good/not as good units in all wargames but GW is fairly unique in how pervasive the bad internal balance is. The fact that Tournament clearing lists tend to consist of a select few units speaks volumes about this.
But all these problems stem from the overwhelming amount of models GW uses. They have far more than any other miniature game out there, not all of them will be useful at all times.
People here use the term Balance far too often to explain things that have nothing to do with Balance.
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
What is stopping you from exploring other roles? Is someone physically preventing you from doing so? Is wanting to win every game you play worth not trying anything new?
Pyrovore need a price decrease, 20-30 pts should be fine, increase their unit size to 5. They're living artillery, get creative.
If not Elite, where would you have them? Too good for troop selection, not worthy of Fast Attack,not strong enough for Heavy Support.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:43:47
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:44:52
H.B.M.C. wrote: We're verging on the dreaded catch-cry of the woefully ignorant: "Use tactics!".
Not all units were created equal. Some units just suck.
Yes and no.
People on these forums told me flat out that Tactical Marines in BA are useless over priced and have no place. Played two games yesterday with them and it was the Tactical that won me the game. I'll admit they are over priced and Assault Marines are so much better than them, but they don't suck because something else fulfills the role better, they become not as useful is all.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
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!
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
What is stopping you from exploring other roles? Is someone physically preventing you from doing so? Is wanting to win every game you play worth not trying anything new?
Pyrovore need a price decrease, 20-30 pts should be fine, increase their unit size to 5. They're living artillery, get creative.
If not Elite, where would you have them? Too good for troop selection, not worthy of Fast Attack,not strong enough for Heavy Support.
Nothing is stopping me exploring other roles, just like nothing is stopping me stabbing myself in the scrotum as a means of distracting myself from my headache.
If there's a blatantly better option, why would I waste my time "exploring other roles" with an anti infantry unit?
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
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:50:40
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
No we don't.
We don't make a lascannon an excellent anti-horde weapon because we as players decide how to use it.
We don't make Wyches excellent objective campers just because we say so.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
Wow, for a player with self confessed very little experience, big head much?
Actually, you remind me of another new player, he stopped posting just around the time you showed up. Shame, you'd probably have got on well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/22 20:54:36
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
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Actually, I blame the tendency of Games Workshop to never playtest their rules adequately enough to see that some units are being overrepresented in the "Winners circle" so to speak. It's just human nature to not want to lose so people will gravitate to units that overperform. After all, it's not fun when your army accomplishes nothing and gets stomped into to the ground.
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!
In the works
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
