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.

 Xerics wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

i fail to see how the bolded is a problem?

unbound means Nothing... you can do just as bad with the base FOC, LOW? who cares there is very few that are that bad. maelstrom... well that ones trickier it leaves less to how you play and manouver and more on luck. so on reconsideratrion that one is a bit tedious. the others... meh not the problem people are making it out to be.

People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it).

That's not really true. Maybe of the people you play with, but for most people I know we don't like LOW because they a) tend to be unbalanced b) don't mesh well with the game size we tend to play.

The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex.

This is just silly. No reason to have one other than not wanting to use them which is a pretty good reason IMO. And not wanting to pay for the 9 best units in their codex? When did table top gaming become pay 2 win? Worse yet, when did table top gamers embrace the idea of pay to win?

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

Funny, I like to talk about other things before and during a game rather than it being a diplomatic discussion about what rules we are going to use and change.

Funny, I manage to do all that in a minute, if that. I quiote enjoy talking about the game, what we're both looking to do, general ideas behind armies etc. Makes it much more involving that just rolling some dice. Can understand if thats all you want from the game though, that doesnt mean PUG are unplayable - just how YOU want to run the PUG makes it unplayable.

Makumba - no, not hours. Dont exaggerate. A minute or two, and sort everything else out on the fly if you end up needing to. It really isnt difficult, or lengthy, as long as both players are reasonable. Given I dislike playing unreasonable people, and would usually rather not play at all in those instances, that isnt a huge issue for me.

It depends who you play against and what you and they brought. Most people I know tend to not bring their entire army, only what they intend to play with, which can make the pregame discussion awkward if someone doesn't want to play against what you brought with you.

Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along (depending on whether you write lists there or beforehand) and as I said- gain the E.I. to understand their opponents POV and to appreciate it.

Yes it can make the pregame discussion awkward, but only really a problem if one or the other is an immature, entitlement-centred player. If youre both reasonably mature individuals, able to hold a real conversation, with an ability to understand the game isnt all about you, its perfectly fine. Possible that we're lucky, but even with new members of the group we've not had problems - even facing a tournament style space wolves list with my chaos marines with ABG allies it wasnt a problem.

Problem is when people dont feel they can talk about what their opponent has taken and if they will enjoy it, which is probably the motivation behind the explicit rule that says you have to *AGREE* on what youre both taking.

Why did I say PUG's are unplayable? Because the pre-game negotiation. Why do I say that?
Read this thread right here on our very own Dakka. The negotiation is a nightmare sometimes because people have very different ideas of what is fun and I don't want to be TFG because I don't want to play against a LOW.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/604180.page#7016008

I don't think it's luck Nos, if you foster that type of environment then that's the kind of player you get. Once you've laid down the basic laws about how the people involved should behave the rest sorts itself out in my experience.

Once you have a group of players willing to treat each other with the appropriate level of respect they can decide among them however they want to play the games and it may even change week to week because the core tenants of how they behave toward each other are there.

Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

The thread I posted above shows how two reasonable and sane people can have drastically different opinions on what is fair and balanced.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The thread I posted above shows how two reasonable and sane people can have drastically different opinions on what is fair and balanced.

Remember, "reasonable and sane" just translates to "people who agree with me".

 Murdius Maximus wrote:


I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

Its not hate.

Many of the voices of discontent about the game still have fun, enjoyable games among friends. That doesn't change the fact that these same people can also understand that the game is deeply flawed.

Pick up games are difficult for people now, as there's a whole song and dance of ensuring both players have the same power level.

While the game has never been particularly balanced, I think the total absence of list building rules makes it even less balanced, especially for people playing against relative strangers.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

So a player wanting to play a perfectly legal list is the real culprit, not the rules that allow those lists to exist in the first place?

We love game so much, that when we recive a brick to da face we don't quit it ! It's just emotions and opinions not poison

PhantomViper wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

So a player wanting to play a perfectly legal list is the real culprit, not the rules that allow those lists to exist in the first place?

Yes. It's a game after all, a game between people. GW's rules have gotten worse and worse recently so it's up to the players to fix it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Same thing here.
I have the Vault from GW, I have one T-C'tan incoming from eBay and are planning to buy another one (I found a metal version!).
I also have a (Gaus) Pylon that I could field.

The problem is not that I don't have one and don't want to pay for it.
My problem is that I know the game becomes less fun for me if a player fields a unit that is 800 points, nearly unkillable and able to annihilate everything in its path.
It becomes a big problem since we mostly play games with 1500 points.

Maelstrom can be a great addition to the game, if you make tons of houserules and allow players to discard the annoying/impossible ones.

Unbound is just.. It's fine right to the point where people use it to spam their most overpowered unit.
I would use Unbound to field a melee-only Necrons list. That's when Unbound becomes a great addition since I don't have to field Warriors and Immortals.
But I would never use it to field 5+ AB's, etc.

Kangodo wrote:
[ That's when Unbound becomes a great addition since I don't have to field Warriors and Immortals.
But I would never use it to field 5+ AB's, etc.

Play a Maynarkh army (IA12 - Fall of Orpheus) and you get FO as troops

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

I voted reasonably unbalanced but I wanted to say Reasonably Unbalanced per all the crying over Lords of War, Unbound and what not.

Seriously if you follow the rules as dictated in the rule book no one is forcing you to play anything you do not want to play. This latest edition of the rules pretty much made it so that you can be a giant ass or a gentleman when it comes to game play. I guess that is a serious issue for a lot of people.

And as stated by Murdius Maximus "I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?"[u]

This cannot be said enough.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

It's not so black and white as that. There are many gross imbalances without "WAAC" lists being involved.
Also, can you define a "WAAC" list because so far I've never seen a clear definition. Only examples that often can't really be agreed upon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. You had no difficulty in one case. That's good. Others do have trouble. If you find the increasing amount of pregame negotiation isn't a problem, it could simply mean that you are easy to get along with, or what you expect out of the game is not hard for a variety of other players to meet. The fact that negotiations are required at all is a point of failure that should not exist; just because you handle it easily doesn't mean everyone does.

Story time: I know with my own little group, when it used to exist, there was always a good deal of tension between myself and one of my best friends, my main opponent, because we had different ideas about how the game should be played. I was a complete fluff bunny, he was much more competitive. I owned several armies that I'd built up over many years to fit the fluff, many of which were terribly non-competitive because of fluff-appropriate but game-useless units. He was spending money hand over fist to get as many options as possible for a new army, to try out all kinds of combinations, some of which proved very effective on the table, but which sometimes strained in-universe credulity in my mind. I didn't want to invest a ton of money into upgrading bad armies to prevent them from being hilariously stomped, I just wanted to play out cool scenarios. We used to argue a lot about this or that unit he wanted to buy or field, mostly because while I don't care THAT much about winning, I don't like losing all the time either. Likewise he didn't really enjoy lopsided games where I couldn't put up a good fight. Several of my armies stopped seeing table time altogether because they weren't worth taking out of the case.

Neither of us were "playing the game wrong" or being unreasonable, neither of us were WAAC or TFG. We generally managed to compromise on things but at least for me it reduced my enjoyment of the game (and again, not his fault at all, in case he's reading this - it's just a flaw in the game itself when putting together an iconic army for your faction results in a force that can't fight its way out of a paper bag, and subsequent releases not only avoid fixing this, but often make it worse).

To tie this back into the thread, I haven't played 7th, so I didn't vote. But 7th seems to continue a strong trend of removing what few restrictions exist on force building while also adding more high-power units you need to worry about potentially countering. It's "balanced" in the sense that the more complex you make your system (the more options you add), the harder it is for people to find an optimum (a meta-dominating build) and so there will probably be a higher diversity of relatively powerful builds available. The flip side of that is, with fewer restrictions and more high-power options, I think it's increasingly likely that people with different approaches to the game (or even just different tastes in army building or income levels) will find themselves with armies of vastly different power levels. Depending on the depth of your respective collections and how willing you are to negotiate, this might not be solvable either.

Just my opinion on the direction things have gone. To the people saying "if you hate it so much, quit", I did quit. Good enough for you?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also T-ctan is ridiculous at 1000 points but thats the other problem. Nobody plays with enough points and so everyone cry's foul at LoW.

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

Phantom - wow, hyperbole much? Sheesh, real life isn't so absolutist. No, he realised he was at a new place, so brought a few different lists along. Not tricky, at all.

Calgar- it was in response to a definitive, absolutist statement that the game is unplayable without... All I needed to do to prove it wrong was show one contrary example, which I did.

 Xerics wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

I don't play any of those games. Besides, I thought 40k wasn't supposed to be competitive. Instead of power creep, why not make a new unit that's really interesting, different or just really cool looking? Or if they really want a nice boost in sales, maybe a new faction like Convergence of Cyriss from Warmachine? Plays different than anything else, not over powered, not under powered, but different and interesting. That sounds better than pay to win. I won't play pay to win, one of the reasons I don't play 40k anymore.

Flying Toaster wrote:
I voted reasonably unbalanced but I wanted to say Reasonably Unbalanced per all the crying over Lords of War, Unbound and what not.

Seriously if you follow the rules as dictated in the rule book no one is forcing you to play anything you do not want to play. This latest edition of the rules pretty much made it so that you can be a giant ass or a gentleman when it comes to game play. I guess that is a serious issue for a lot of people.

And as stated by Murdius Maximus "I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?"[u]

This cannot be said enough.

To be honest it has been said far too much.

If you do not like to read threads in which people criticise 40K, do not read threads in which people criticise 40K.

Posting and reposting the fact you do not like to read such threads is spam.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

I don't play any of those games. Besides, I thought 40k wasn't supposed to be competitive. Instead of power creep, why not make a new unit that's really interesting, different or just really cool looking? Or if they really want a nice boost in sales, maybe a new faction like Convergence of Cyriss from Warmachine? Plays different than anything else, not over powered, not under powered, but different and interesting. That sounds better than pay to win. I won't play pay to win, one of the reasons I don't play 40k anymore.

I'm not the one who stated the competitive meta trip... if you read all the posts its merely a response to Sigvatr who said and I quote "Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down." -Sigvatr

If a game requires you to have a lengthy discussion of how it's going to be played before you play it, and requires both sides to re-write rules as presented, then you really wasted your money in buying the rulebook.

If those are the lengths required to play the game, why don't you and the opponent just put some models down, roll some dice, and decide that whoever rolls the most 6s wins whatever action you're doing?

 Xerics wrote:

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive...

Different definition of competitive. Uncomped 40k boils down to "Who can make the strongest list and then roll lucky". Actual competitive meta should aim at focusing the actual players more by removing poorly balanced power peaks and forcing to re-think. If you think that competitive means "I can bring the strongest list", then that's your very definition of competitive. I, however, fail to see where the actual competition lies.