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.

I've just started the tabletop side of WH40k (still in the process of assembling&painting my first 500 points of Tau), but I've been lurking a lot around internet forums, and I've seen a lot of complaints about the current state of 40k, how LoWs, fliers, super-heavies, Wave Serpent Spam, Riptide Spam etc. (really not trying to discuss specifics here) are OP and/or killing the game and how people are TFG / WAAC for using them.

Regardless of it's issues and contradictions, 40k's fluff is awesome for a game fluff (compared to the fluff of other non-historical war games I mean). I've got into 40k lore starting from Dawn of War I and it's one of the very few game worlds that actually made me want to look deeper into the fluff. Thing is, WH40k fluff is also incredibly detailed. We have (almost) full orders of battle for a lot of armies, rather detailed accounts of performances of different troops/weapons etc. All in all, it creates desire in people to play armies similar to what they read about (the 'fluff armies') and expectations about how they should perform. When these expectations don't meet the reality of the game table, people whine. For example I've seen quite a lot of complaints about terminators and heavy bolters sucking. Do you think there would be less complaints if terminators and heavy bolters weren't described as awesome in fluff?

Now I'm not trying to pretend WH40k has no issues (Some are pretty glaring), but how much do you think the false expectations propagated by the fluff contribute to the general negative attitude?

I mean, nothing is really illustrated perfectly from fluff then onto the tabletop. Otherwise, Space Marines would pretty much always win, Tyranids wouldn't care about a points value and literally swarm the crap out of people, Necrons would be tougher, and the like.

The thing that makes people dislike the game are the people that go out of their way to make stupid combos that are the opposite of fluffy. Or they just bring whatever they think is powerful. Like, most of the Eldar codex is very strong, yet why would you bring anything other than 5-man Dire Avenger squds just for the Wave Serpents? You wouldn't, there's almost no reason to besides playing a fluffy list.

That's the main issue I have with other players, and why I stay out of the competitive/tournament setting. The game has gone so far from fluffy and just to "who can bring the cheesiest/most powerful stuff". The game is so much an Arms Race it isn't funny. So, among my local store, we play fun, good lists, but stick to a theme or the fluff. That's probably the main reason I still play the game.

The game stats and fluff are entirely disconnected and something that is true in the fluff could be entirely laughable in-game and vice versa.

I find it easy to just 'shut down' my fluff-mind, such as when I see some charging Conscripts roll well and slaughter Nobz in melee. (Like, seriously? Rofl.)

Otherwise, I would not be able to play 40K at all.

Murderfang McMurdersauce from the planet Omnicide certainly affects the quality of the game for me.

There's no way I'm playing against such a ridiculous model with such poor fluff.

While I may be new to tabletop wargames (only thing I've played close to it was D&D miniatures), I have some experience with competitive PC gaming.

In pretty much every other game I've played, the fact that a list/build/deck/strategy optimized and tweaked for winning absolutely demolish any kind of casual equivalent was considered largely normal, and not something to hold against the game system.

I'm trying to understand why 40k is different in this regard and I thought maybe it had something to do with expectations created by fluff.

Because people will complain about everything. I have had the same experience with video games and CCGs. My modern zoo deck stomped everything it went up against, usually in 5-6 turns. When Jace was released, I don't think I ever lost a game in standard playing U/B control. On COD, a peacekeeper is about the only thing people use on hardcore matches and league games. There's 50 other guns to choose from but the mobility, accuracy and damage make it the obvious top tier choice. Nobody is crying about balance on MTG or COD forums like they do on 40k forums. I have no problem with the current state of the game. I don't have any problem taking on flyers, LOW, wave serpents or imperial knights. I have built a list with those things in mind. People just want to be able to run the same list they've had since 3rd or a "rule of cool" list and be able to compete with top tier tournament lists. Go ahead and make an MTG deck based on the cards you like the art work on and then take it to a tournament. Let me know how you do (hint: you will get annihilated). Yes, there are some units that are slightly OP. All of those units have counters. If you don't want to run counters to the best units, don't expect to win against competitive lists. I really don't see how the rules could be based on fluff or Calgar could defeat an entire ork army by himself. Maugan Ra could defeat an entire tyranid army by himself. It's just not reasonable to expect everything to be as good as it is in the fluff or almost every special character could solo a 2,000 point army. The game could have slightly better balance but it shouldn't be strictly based on fluff.

There has been a notable decline in the quality of fluff since 5th edition, there's a lot more stuff that stretches the suspension of disbelief even for 40k and a drastic explosion in absurd names and naming conventions. In some ways this has harmed the game, it makes it harder to get into the spirit of things when you're opponent is sitting there with "my flyer here shoots its blood missiles and the dreadnought it dropped off is hitting things with its bloodfists" (and we won't even get into the absurdity of Space Wolves).

That said, army lists now clearly are not really in any way designed to adhere to any particular fluff, at this point, with infinite detachements and unbound and whatnot (hell, even with a single FoC), there's not much that's directing/restricting/guiding/etc what one takes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, army lists now clearly are not really in any way designed to adhere to any particular fluff, at this point, with infinite detachements and unbound and whatnot (hell, even with a single FoC), there's not much that's directing/restricting/guiding/etc what one takes.

However, it does also allow you to take even fluffier armies than before, and even previously not possible armies.

I think its the other way around for the most part; the quality of the game is so poor that there's a huge disconnect between the fluff and the game. Some of that is somewhat understandable (otherwise 10 Marines could conquer a planet), but some is seemingly random (e.g. Terminators are terrible, but in the fluff are essentially demigods. There should be a compromise between that, surely).

Sure there's the weird fluff that seems way too cartoony such as Murderfang, but originally most of the 40k fluff was cliches and cult references anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, army lists now clearly are not really in any way designed to adhere to any particular fluff, at this point, with infinite detachements and unbound and whatnot (hell, even with a single FoC), there's not much that's directing/restricting/guiding/etc what one takes.

However, it does also allow you to take even fluffier armies than before, and even previously not possible armies.

See I would consider the fact that you need Unbound to do certain fluffy armies (1st company SM for example) to be a design flaw. That stuff should be available by default without resorting to Unbound, because Unbound opens the floodgates for all manner of ridiculousness that tends to color the fluffy army by association.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, army lists now clearly are not really in any way designed to adhere to any particular fluff, at this point, with infinite detachements and unbound and whatnot (hell, even with a single FoC), there's not much that's directing/restricting/guiding/etc what one takes.

However, it does also allow you to take even fluffier armies than before, and even previously not possible armies.

While potentially true, I've yet to see such abilities used in that manner.

Here are the main gripes I have:
-Orks should not be growing overnight, its dumb and too "magicy"

-I'm getting tired of reading about 1 on 1 battles that take days or weeks. It is so corny and asinine. Give me a primarch fight that last seconds or a minute.

-Giving the necrons personality ruins them for me.

Toofast wrote:
Because people will complain about everything. I have had the same experience with video games and CCGs. My modern zoo deck stomped everything it went up against, usually in 5-6 turns. When Jace was released, I don't think I ever lost a game in standard playing U/B control. On COD, a peacekeeper is about the only thing people use on hardcore matches and league games. There's 50 other guns to choose from but the mobility, accuracy and damage make it the obvious top tier choice. Nobody is crying about balance on MTG or COD forums like they do on 40k forums. I have no problem with the current state of the game. I don't have any problem taking on flyers, LOW, wave serpents or imperial knights. I have built a list with those things in mind. People just want to be able to run the same list they've had since 3rd or a "rule of cool" list and be able to compete with top tier tournament lists. Go ahead and make an MTG deck based on the cards you like the art work on and then take it to a tournament. Let me know how you do (hint: you will get annihilated). Yes, there are some units that are slightly OP. All of those units have counters. If you don't want to run counters to the best units, don't expect to win against competitive lists. I really don't see how the rules could be based on fluff or Calgar could defeat an entire ork army by himself. Maugan Ra could defeat an entire tyranid army by himself. It's just not reasonable to expect everything to be as good as it is in the fluff or almost every special character could solo a 2,000 point army. The game could have slightly better balance but it shouldn't be strictly based on fluff.

This largely mirrors my feelings. For example I was browsing through the official Warmachine forums the other day and found the thread of some guy who was extremely bitter after being destroyed by Deneghra in a 15 points game.Instead of telling him how the other guy was totally TFG/ WAAC for using Deneghra, most of the posts focused on constructive advice on how to beat that army. I really don't get it whi most of the WH40k community thinks differently.

LordBlades wrote:how much do you think the false expectations propagated by the fluff contribute to the general negative attitude?

Quite a bit. And they make for a lot of unnecessary arguments between the fans, too.

The real problem is not the level of detail from the fluff, however, but rather that it's incredibly inconsistent. This is intentional and even considered a feature of the IP by the people who work with it (for more on this topic, see this post from Aaron Dembski-Bowden), but a lot of fans are unaware of this rift between the sources and what it means for the franchise, or are so dead-set on their preferred interpretation that they cannot cope with any alternatives - which is understandable if you've "grown up" with a certain version of the IP, like me and my strong preference for GW codices and White Dwarf articles.

I think the problem stems mainly from licensed/outsourced material that focuses too strongly on individual armies or factions, especially when we get to the realm of Black Library novels that obviously apply the expected amount of plot armour for the protagonists. And since most fans of a particular army also read only those novels that feature "their" heroes, it creates a very one-sided interpretation of the setting. The same applies to codices and other material. The more you read, about everyone, the more balanced your image will be. Take the Space Marines, for example, often considered the pinnacle of mary-sueness of the setting as a lot of fans like to pretend they're almost invulnerable and walking gods of war - yet if you look at the fluff Games Workshop has pubished about them, you'll notice both technical details regarding their vulnerability to small arms fire as well as multiple examples of them getting pwned bad by random mooks just because they failed to deploy correctly. Their tabletop stats, as well as their characteristics in GW's d100 Inquisitor game, are accurate in relationship to their own studio fluff from the codices and White Dwarf. It seems a lot of people are quite simply used more to the representation in the novels, or perhaps they are taking the usual "you are the best" line that can be found in every faction's codex a bit too serious.

Said representation is not "wrong", but it obviously results in something very different to what Games Workshop originally had in mind. So I can sort-of understand the confusion about this gap, but in the end it's their choice about whether they'd want to adapt their image of the setting to what GW is writing, or simply continue to live with this rift. As Gav Thorpe once said, 40k is "tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers". All people need to understand is that only some of those will cater to their preferred image of [insert favourite faction], whilst others won't. So some people will complain about Marines being too weak in the TT, whilst I complain they're too strong in FFG's RPG. That's just how it works.