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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.

That one is nice, but sadly doesn't really fit the flavour my my commander.

Unfortunately, the most flavourful items seem to be The Death Mask of Ollanius (Sorry, I pay how much for IWND on a T3 model? ), and a Power Fist (Do these really need to be 25pts on S3 guys?).

It's just frustrating because I don't want to sacrifice the flavour of my commander, but at the same time I don't like feeling that I'm throwing a ton of points down the drain.

I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same. A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.

It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.

That is an interesting idea. I wouldnt say the constant argueing but rather the constant horse race of who is ahead by a nose and how to beat the odds. I still think the fluff,modeling aspect plays a large part. The game has been growing for decades and has never had a decline always getting bigger and more popular. That may indeed be part of the reason.

That's the singularly most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Frustrating old players and new ones alike isn't good for the game. And given that GW's hemorrhaging players and losing business, I'll say that what they're doing, isn't working.
I'd say that 40k was popular *in spite of* the amateurish imbalances. It was that frustrating imbalance that drove me and several others I know away.
And yes, it can be the fluff that keeps people on.
Also, 40k was the first big one, so it has more players and its easier to find a game. It limps along due to its own inertia, but right now it's like an animal that's falling forward and doesn't know it's already dead.
Yes, the back and forth arguing is good for the game, but not when its about horrible rules, OP and useless units. It should be about tactics, strategies and such. Not "The Mutilators I bought are useless? Any way to make them somewhat viable?" "LOL, sorry bro, they suck."

Oh, and 40k is in a decline. So there's that.

The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it. Other members are supporting that notion and are trying to convince s all to support it too. Your post stated that GW is responsible for writing the rules and that IS the point.

SOME players dont hold to the gentleman's agreement of fair play. That is perfectly understanable. However, I dont support hating those who do just because GW poorly wrote the rules.
My stance is
1. If you hate the rules and want to hate someone for them, hen you should hate the people who wrote them instead of the poor guy across from you.
2. If you want to hate those who do not support a "gentlemans agreement" of fair play in list building then hate those specific individuals. Dont hate everyone because of those few.
3. If you want to hate, than hate. Allow everyone else the right to hate who they choose and why they choose.
If you disagree with my stance as many here obviously do, than disagree. Just try to do it in a polite manner. I treat everyone with respect and dignity, I expect the same in return. It is only fair in my opinion.

MWHistorian, I was only saying that it was an interesting view and posted a few random ideas to go with it. I was not validating it or agreeing with it. My comment was that IF it was a part of why, that it would not be the argueing part that was doing it but that rather it would be more likely to be the "horse race aspect and playing the odds to get ahead by a nose. The reason for y comment in that direction is because i refuse to take all the cheese. I play fluffy balanced armies yet still try to win, thus trying to beat the odds. Again, I was not agrreing with him, just saying it was an interesting idea. My apologies if you misread.
40k and fantasy are cyclic in different areas worldwide. It rises and falls. It may indeed be in decline where you live. Overall? I believe it has beenadvancing overall worldwide. Often slower at times of course. Just curious, where did you find the stats for that and what were the groups, geographical locations? NM, that would be a different topic for a different thread.

 Zewrath wrote:

I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same.

Sorry, but I don't.

Maybe if melee weapons weren't so insanely expensive in the first place, but I just don't see why armies who don't get as much out of their melee weapons should still pay as much as marines for them.

 Zewrath wrote:
A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.

The problem is, you're neglecting the other aspect - which is the cost ratio of the model to its upgrades. i.e. it's far easier to justify a 10pt upgrade on a 100pt model, than on a 10pt model - since the former only need provide a minor bonus, whilst the latter has to double the model's effectiveness to be worth considering.

Let's take power weapons. A Marine Sergeant costs ~15pts, and can take a power sword for the same amount. So, for a 100% increase in cost, his attacks become AP3, making him a reasonable threat to MEQ models.

For a IG sergeant to get AP3 attacks, he has to fork out 300% of his cost. And yet, WS3 and S3 means he's still barely a threat to MEQ. Thing is, in order for this upgrade to be justifiable in cost, it would have to make him 4 times as effective in combat.

Even in a single book, you have similar problems. A Rhino pays about 28% of its cost for Extra Armour, whilst a Land Raider pays a measly 4% of its cost for the same upgrade. Is the Rhino going to get 7 times the benefit from that Extra Armour? I highly doubt it.

"Hate" is probably an inappropriate word for the actual feelings involved.

"feel frustrated by", "annoyed", those are probably more fitting terms than "hate". There's very few people in this world I "hate", there's a whole bunch that piss me right the feth off.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.

No there aren't.

There ARE people who hold players responsible for choosing to abuse poor rules writing and therefore making a game not fun, but I very much doubt there's much hate involved.

Plus, I know you've copped flack for spelling and grammar already, but "competitive" is in the fething thread title man, you don't need to know how to spell it, just how to match letters on the keys.

Yes, there are. That is why I am disagreeing with them. See the 3 points I made.
Is your grammar perfect? have you never even once made a grammatical error. I make an effort and my grammar is not the best. Making fun of others because of shortcomings like that is unbecoming. Should I ridicule you because you are shorter than I am? No. I make an effort.

I agree with AllSeeingSkink on this last. Hate should be too strong a word. However, thats the word and meaning thats being used. I would say that its only a game and no matter how poorly the rules are written or who wrote them, it is still only a game and not worthy of the all consuming teeth gnashing murderous hatred that is present and being proposed. The worst I've had towards one of "those" players is frustration and annoyance. Never hatred.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it. Other members are supporting that notion and are trying to convince s all to support it too.

No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that.

SOME players dont hold to the gentleman's agreement of fair play. That is perfectly understanable. However, I dont support hating those who do just because GW poorly wrote the rules.

Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that.

I treat everyone with respect and dignity, I expect the same in return. It is only fair in my opinion.

Quoting who you're replying to would go a long way to showing some respect. Right now people just need to assume.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, there are. That is why I am disagreeing with them.

Who? Who is supporting that notion?

Is your grammar perfect? have you never even once made a grammatical error. I make an effort and my grammar is not the best. Making fun of others because of shortcomings like that is unbecoming. Should I ridicule you because you are shorter than I am? No. I make an effort.

You do understand that even if you don't reach perfection that you can point out mistakes, right?
I mean, I'm not an architect but a design of a 500' tall tower with a 1" mounting point and no guy wires is just a bad idea. Since I've never designed a building though either a) all my designs are perfect and I can feel free to point out mistakes or b) obvious flaws should be pointed out. If you're truly making an effort you'd progress over time, not stay stagnant.

"No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that. "
Untrue statement.

"Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that. "
You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.
Even if you do not realize it, that is the message you are sending.

It is a message i just do not agree with. It is a GAME. I see no reason to hate ANYONE responsible for the rules or not to that extent without having a dern good reason. As a matter of fact, i dont think I hate anyone in the entire world to that extent. Taking a cheesy list wont do it, writing bad rules wont do it. Heck, even breaking a few of my models and ridiculing me in an online forum wont do it. maybe my heart just isnt hard enough.

My apologies for not being an architect and having a lower income. I may work for peanuts and have a current menial labor job but I take pride in my work and the knowledge that I do it to the best of my abilities.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, no one is supporting that notion. You're inventing that. "
Untrue statement.

Quote the post where I've supported that notion. Or anyone else in the thread has.

"Neither does anyone else in this thread. There's a difference between explaining why the perception exists and supporting that perception. Surely you can see that. "
You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.
Even if you do not realize it, that is the message you are sending.

I didn't say it was valid. Anywhere. And no, helping you to understand why is not the same as trying to change your opinion. I can explain why people believe in Allah without attempting to convert you.

My apologies for not being an architect and having a lower income. I may work for peanuts and have a current menial labor job but I take pride in my work and the knowledge that I do it to the best of my abilities.

Where the hell did I bring up income?!?! I don't care about your job, I never brought up your job (nor mine). This isn't about anyone attacking you - this is about your misstatements.

 EVIL INC wrote:
You and other are actually supporting it by validating it. Saying that they have good reason to IS supporting it. Trying to convince me that they have valid reason is trying to convince me to agrre with it to. That leads to doing it myself. You claim that you are not doing it but then your actions say otherwise.

That's not really true. People are pointing out why something exists, that doesn't mean they are supporting it. You can point out the reasons why Nazi's were convinced to hate Jewish folk... that doesn't mean you support it or are trying to convince other people they should hate Jewish folk as well.

A few questions for you. Did you or did you not say that the reason for the hate was the rules?
Did you or did you not say that they had good reason because the rules were poorly written?
Did you or did you not try to convince me to agree with you that the rules were poorly written?

Saying they had good reason to hate because of the poorly written rules IS supporting that hate. Trying to convince me the rules are poorly written is trying to convince me in turn to agree with that hate as well.
I agreed with you in the poorly written rules. Heck, I said that years ago. I just dont feel that HATE is the emothion we should be feeling and I feel we should hold each party responsible for their own actions. poor rules writers for poorly written rules and cheesy players for being cheesy players.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A few questions for you. Did you or did you not say that the reason for the hate was the rules?
Did you or did you not say that they had good reason because the rules were poorly written?
Did you or did you not try to convince me to agree with you that the rules were poorly written?

Saying they had good reason to hate because of the poorly written rules IS supporting that hate. Trying to convince me the rules are poorly written is trying to convince me in turn to agree with that hate as well.
I agreed with you in the poorly written rules. Heck, I said that years ago. I just dont feel that HATE is the emothion we should be feeling and I feel we should hold each party responsible for their own actions. poor rules writers for poorly written rules and cheesy players for being cheesy players.

That's a whole lot of logical fallacy right there.
Explaining why some people do things is not the same as agreeing or endorsing those things.
Trying to get you to agree that the rules are poorly written is not endorsing hate. I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.
What we're saying is that the poor rules foster a division of play styles within the community and this causes friction when two people want drastically different things from the same game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The issue is that there are players who hold "competative players" responsible for the poorly written rules and are hating them for it.

\
No, that is not the issue.

Nobody holds competitive players responsible for the poorly written rules. What they are holding competitive players responsible for is using those poorly written rules to allow them to bring a gun to a knife fight.

You're railing against an idea that simply isn't being presented anywhere in this thread. And have used up your quota of the word 'hate'. Please remove the 'h', 'a', 't' and 'e' keys from your keyboard until further notice.

 vipoid wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

I don't understand the existence of the Death Mask, but I do like that they are making everything cost the same.

Sorry, but I don't.

Maybe if melee weapons weren't so insanely expensive in the first place, but I just don't see why armies who don't get as much out of their melee weapons should still pay as much as marines for them.

 Zewrath wrote:
A space marine pays top dollar for his stats, save and special rules, so he shouldn't have to pay more because a missile launcher is better on him, than on a HWT, nor should he pay extra points because the power fist works better on him than a S3 model. To me, that's would be like if I was a good shot and had to pay 30% more for a gun in Walmart, because I'm better at using it than soccer mom behind me in the line.

The problem is, you're neglecting the other aspect - which is the cost ratio of the model to its upgrades. i.e. it's far easier to justify a 10pt upgrade on a 100pt model, than on a 10pt model - since the former only need provide a minor bonus, whilst the latter has to double the model's effectiveness to be worth considering.

Let's take power weapons. A Marine Sergeant costs ~15pts, and can take a power sword for the same amount. So, for a 100% increase in cost, his attacks become AP3, making him a reasonable threat to MEQ models.

For a IG sergeant to get AP3 attacks, he has to fork out 300% of his cost. And yet, WS3 and S3 means he's still barely a threat to MEQ. Thing is, in order for this upgrade to be justifiable in cost, it would have to make him 4 times as effective in combat.

Even in a single book, you have similar problems. A Rhino pays about 28% of its cost for Extra Armour, whilst a Land Raider pays a measly 4% of its cost for the same upgrade. Is the Rhino going to get 7 times the benefit from that Extra Armour? I highly doubt it.

Fair point, but I think the problem lies within the fact that GW thinks that melee is like 4th edition and assault is the most dangerous a unit can do. I've never understood the cost for Vanguard Veterans and gearing them for the role there suppose to be good at, or even now with DE. They nerf Wyches and their weapons/haywire and somehow still think that 10 ppm is a reasonable price for the Wych.

Your comparison of how much more they cost in % falls a bit short because it leaves out a very big factor, which is the potential to earn back the cost of the unit. A veteran HWT on the company command squad has much greater potential earning back their cost when killing units than high cost elites. Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?
It isn't all based on numbers alone though. I would gladly pay a 10 point upgrade for a 10 point model, if he was optimized to always deliver his points back. Paying for recovery gear and hunter killer missile on an immobile manticore that hides out of LoS isn't expensive % wise but would still be a total waste. A better example would be the humble IG sergeant; 5 points for a melta bomb doesn't make him 100% better but he can earn back his points over a tenfold in assault. Overall though, I do agree that this all simply gets ludicrous as soon as we talk CC. IMO CC needs a complete overhaul; WS and S, let alone the weapons that grants decent combat bonuses are all immensely over costed. Especially WS, I could care less if a model is WS 5 or 10, the extra benefit is abysmal to the point where it gets insulting, especially when you see the benefits of BS 4 and up. The cost of CC units is the worst offender though.. You know there's something wrong when you look at the Warp Talons and realize that they're actually cheap by GW standards, because they cost the same as 2 lightning claws + free model with marine stats and a daemon save, yet is universally hated due to their absurd cost (and lack of grenades).

I don't think I exalt you nearly as much as I should some times, insaniak. But today, I have.

OnT- I think a real push for the closing of the fluff-competitive gap would have to happen at the player base level. And is already happening in one way or another.

 Zewrath wrote:

Fair point, but I think the problem lies within the fact that GW thinks that melee is like 4th edition and assault is the most dangerous a unit can do. I've never understood the cost for Vanguard Veterans and gearing them of for the role there suppose to be good at, or even now with DE. They nerf Wyches and their weapons/haywire and somehow still think that 10 ppm is a reasonable price for the Wych.

Agreed.

 Zewrath wrote:

Your comparison of how much more they cost in % falls a bit short because it leaves out a very big factor, which is the potential to earn back the cost of the unit. A veteran HWT on the company command squad has much greater potential earning back their cost when killing units than high cost elites.

True.

But, this is why I don't generally have a problem with special/heavy weapon prices. Aside from a few oddities (Heavy Bolters costing as much as Autocannons), they seem pretty reasonable. I guess the difference is that they tend to be a more 'direct' increase in a model's offensive ability. For example, a Lascannon only cares about a model's BS, but is otherwise equally effective on all models.

In contrast, a melee weapon depends on a models WS, S, I and Attacks, *and* you need to get to combat *and* the model's defence is important for actually surviving to strike. There's a *lot* more dependence on the model's base stats than with shooting weapons.

 Zewrath wrote:
Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?

I get what you're saying, but at the same time would it be reasonable for a conscript to pay 15pts for a power weapon that barely makes a difference in his combat potential?

 Zewrath wrote:

It isn't all based on numbers alone though. I would gladly pay a 10 point upgrade for a 10 point model, if he was optimized to always deliver his points back. Paying for recovery gear and hunter killer missile on an immobile manticore that hides out of LoS isn't expensive % wise but would still be a total waste. A better example would be the humble IG sergeant; 5 points for a melta bomb doesn't make him 100% better but he can earn back his points over a tenfold in assault. Overall though,

Oh, indeed.

 Zewrath wrote:
I do agree that this all simply gets ludicrous as soon as we talk CC. IMO CC needs a complete overhaul; WS and S, let alone the weapons that grants decent combat bonuses are all immensely over costed. Especially WS, I could care less if a model is WS 5 or 10, the extra benefit is abysmal to the point where it gets insulting, especially when you see the benefits of BS 4 and up. The cost of CC units is the worst offender though.. You know there's something wrong when you look at the Warp Talons and realize that they're actually cheap by GW standards, because they cost the same as 2 lightning claws + free model with marine stats and a daemon save, yet is universally hated due to their absurd cost (and lack of grenades).

I agree entirely.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A few questions for you. Did you or did you not say that the reason for the hate was the rules?

Yes, I did.

Did you or did you not say that they had good reason because the rules were poorly written?

No, I didn't.

Did you or did you not try to convince me to agree with you that the rules were poorly written?

Yes, I did.

Stop projecting on me please. And no, trying to get you to understand isn't the same as forcing you to change your opinion.

 vipoid wrote:

True.

But, this is why I don't generally have a problem with special/heavy weapon prices. Aside from a few oddities (Heavy Bolters costing as much as Autocannons), they seem pretty reasonable. I guess the difference is that they tend to be a more 'direct' increase in a model's offensive ability. For example, a Lascannon only cares about a model's BS, but is otherwise equally effective on all models.

In contrast, a melee weapon depends on a models WS, S, I and Attacks, *and* you need to get to combat *and* the model's defence is important for actually surviving to strike. There's a *lot* more dependence on the model's base stats than with shooting weapons.

 Zewrath wrote:
Furthermore the scaling of cost on units based on % is flawed. If 3 point conscripts could buy power swords, should they then be 500% better? And on the same token, should I pay 500 points extra for a 100 point captain in order to raise his power by the same amount?

I get what you're saying, but at the same time would it be reasonable for a conscript to pay 15pts for a power weapon that barely makes a difference in his combat potential?

I guess not, but I think there's little point in discussing this though as it looks like we're entirely on the same page and the above quotes really just recaps it. Assault and the pricing in assault is horrendous.
Actually, now that you mention HWT's it made me look at a lot of units, and the potential to earn back their cost (excluding special units) is actually not very unbalanced and most shooting comes with a decent price. The curve just seems to shatter when it comes to CC units, who more often than not are waaaaay more easy to kill at range than the points invested in the unit that kills it.

Edit: incidentally, I find the pricing on the honor guard most hilarious. They're actually stupid cheap and durable for the price you pay. They pay just above 28 for artificer armor, + 1A, a bolter & bolt pistol and a power weapon of their choice. The vanguard veteran pays 34 points for worse armor, no bolter and if he wants to be a jump pack unit (you know, his signature wargear), he'll have to bump his cost to 37 points. So the Vanguard Veteran gets the privilege of paying ~ 32% more in order to be inferior to the honor guard.. This example is what bothers me the most about 6th and 7th editions way of handling assault; the point cost of assault units is entirely arbitrary and doesn't follow the same pattern of how you can balance most (most, not all) shooting units vs each other and come to the conclusion that the point cost is as fine as you could ever expect GW to make it.

 Zewrath wrote:

I guess not, but I think there's little point in discussing this though as it looks like we're entirely on the same page and the above quotes really just recaps it. Assault and the pricing in assault is horrendous.
Actually, now that you mention HWT's it made me look at a lot of units, and the potential to earn back their cost (excluding special units) is actually not very unbalanced and most shooting comes with a decent price. The curve just seems to shatter when it comes to CC units, who more often than not are waaaaay more easy to kill at range than the points invested in the unit that kills it.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of over-valuing of assault units, and weapons for that matter.

The thing is, assault for most units/armies has become less necessary, less reliable, harder to pull off and many melee weapons have been nerefed... yet the cost of melee weapons has remained unchanged. Hell, IG now pay more for their melee weapons than they did when assault was meaningful.

It's one of those really weird disconnects between how GW seems to think units work, and how they actually work.

 Zewrath wrote:

Edit: incidentally, I find the pricing on the honor guard most hilarious. They're actually stupid cheap and durable for the price you pay. They pay just above 28 for artificer armor, + 1A, a bolter & bolt pistol and a power weapon of their choice. The vanguard veteran pays 34 points for worse armor, no bolter and if he wants to be a jump pack unit (you know, his signature wargear), he'll have to bump his cost to 37 points. So the Vanguard Veteran gets the privilege of paying ~ 32% more in order to be inferior to the honor guard.. This example is what bothers me the most about 6th and 7th editions way of handling assault; the point cost of assault units is entirely arbitrary and doesn't follow the same pattern of how you can balance most (most, not all) shooting units vs each other and come to the conclusion that the point cost is as fine as you could ever expect GW to make it.

Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.

Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.

The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.

Based on their BatReps, they put together fluffy lists. Exclusively. That's it.

So, for example, they will build a SOB list that includes 2 PEngines, no priests, 1 block of Repentia and 2 blocks of BSS. With maybe a Rhino, no Exorcist.

Why? Because it's fluffy. The Sisterhood is an elite group with fewer members in the galaxy than there are Space Marines. There are fewer Repentia than regular Battle Sisters. Their vehicles are few and far between. And it's the Sororitas, they don't always have Ecclesiarchal members (liek Priests) along with them, but the PEngine is an iconic part of their image (even though fielding even one is actively reducing your chances to win).

And to head off the debate about numbers:

 Psienesis wrote:

Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.

The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.

The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains.
Let that sink in.

rigeld2 wrote:
The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains.
Let that sink in.

I had wondered why one of the most popular HQs in 5th got a massive point drop.

 Psienesis wrote:

Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.

The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.

Based on their BatReps, they put together fluffy lists. Exclusively. That's it.

So, for example, they will build a SOB list that includes 2 PEngines, no priests, 1 block of Repentia and 2 blocks of BSS. With maybe a Rhino, no Exorcist.

Why? Because it's fluffy. The Sisterhood is an elite group with fewer members in the galaxy than there are Space Marines. There are fewer Repentia than regular Battle Sisters. Their vehicles are few and far between. And it's the Sororitas, they don't always have Ecclesiarchal members (liek Priests) along with them, but the PEngine is an iconic part of their image (even though fielding even one is actively reducing your chances to win).

And to head off the debate about numbers:

Spoiler:

6 Orders Major, capped at 10,000 women each, with uncounted Orders Minor, that cap at a maximum of 1000 women, but many have only a single Sister. Mathematically speaking, you'd need over 900 of them to be at maximum size to reach even 1 million Sisters, and we know this is not the case, as there aren't enough planets in the Imperium to support that many Orders Minor, as we know that most planets don't have even 1 Sister on them. There are maybe a thousand Orders Minor in total, and of those thousand, the majority have less than 1000 members, some as few as 1.

The Sisters aren't getting to 1+ million members with those numbers, their recruitment standards are too strict and the pool of potential recruits too small.

Take it to Background if you want to discuss the Sororitas.

At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Examples of that are just depressing. It makes me wonder if anyone at GW gets round to playing their own game any more. Or, God forbid, just proof-reading their books.

The way GW plays the game is not the way anyone else on the planet plays the game.

The even mentioned in a recent WD that Librarians went down in price because no one ever took one - everyone was taking Chaplains.
Let that sink in.

To be fair I think that mentality was ingrained from older editions where a Chappy was one of the best cheap HQs because he had a power weapon and +4 Invul save for like.. I want to say in 3rd edition a Chaplain was like 80 points or so. So it's likely that they themselves continued with that trend.

But yeah, they basically write the game that they play with their mates, not something that's universal. So they always play fluffy armies versus fluffy armies, or I think on the offchance they don't play a fluffy army they play stupidly (e.g. taking 3 Riptides and assaulting with them; I think that happened in the final real WD batrep) because it's something cool/cinematic and "forge the narrative".

IMO the best stuff in the game came from Alessio Cavatore, who was IIRC the Italian Grand Champion before he joined the studio, so he brought that competitive "How does this affect the tournament scene" kind of knowledge that everyone else in GW sorely lacks.

At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.

Though, it makes you wonder why the Studio that creates the game doesn't have, like, 500 of every model for every army available to actually, you know, playtest rules with.

Oh, that's right, because they don't play-test. They create broken rules that permit things like Deathstars with 2++ rerollables, and then say "well, you shouldn't ever play like that, it's not sporting".

 Psienesis wrote:

At least in the past that was because they used the Studio army for battle reports, and Studio armies were meant to showcase models, not necessarily be a good range of units. Although at some point they seemed to move from using the Studio armies to individual players, which might be what you're talking about since even in things that showcase their armies, they tend to be fluffbunny lists that don't care for effectiveness at all but take what looks cool or what fits their background. Which would be great if that was actually a viable thing to do.

Though, it makes you wonder why the Studio that creates the game doesn't have, like, 500 of every model for every army available to actually, you know, playtest rules with.

Oh, that's right, because they don't play-test. They create broken rules that permit things like Deathstars with 2++ rerollables, and then say "well, you shouldn't ever play like that, it's not sporting".

I don't think it's that they don't playtest, it's that they don't even think of things from a competitive standpoint because of 20+ years of "spirit of the game" nonsense being drilled in. I remember actual multi-page White Dwarf articles talking about the "spirit of the game" and how your opponent is a bad person who's playing wrong if they took say minimum troops and maxed out Elite/Fast/Heavy because that's not how an army should be designed.

I really think they don't even acknowledge that things like Deathstars and 2++ Rerollable saves exist, because they'd never in a million years think of doing a combo like that and assume that nobody else will. They basically assume everyone playing is an idiot who will only play fluffy armies because it's the right thing to do. Which, arguably, wouldn't be a bad thing, but people aren't like that.

I recall something similar in D&D 3.x. WotC would never playtest new books with the entire gamut of new books, only with the new book and the PHB/DMG. This led to some prestige classes that were complete garbage and actually worse than sticking with a base class, several that were just outright broken when combined with other prestige classes, and some that were actually illegal by their own rules. It used to be a running joke that the WotC designers didn't even play their own game because they got rules wrong so many times or just built illegal builds that they showcased in Dragon magazine as the proper way to build out a concept.

At least with D&D you have a DM who can rein things in if you have a fluffy/RP type of group that doesn't powergame, so they can still get enjoyment out of crazy underpowered builds without just getting steamrolled by encounters. The same can't be said about 40k.

I recall something similar in D&D 3.x. WotC would never playtest new books with the entire gamut of new books, only with the new book and the PHB/DMG. This led to some prestige classes that were complete garbage and actually worse than sticking with a base class, several that were just outright broken when combined with other prestige classes, and some that were actually illegal by their own rules. It used to be a running joke that the WotC designers didn't even play their own game because they got rules wrong so many times or just built illegal builds that they showcased in Dragon magazine as the proper way to build out a concept.

Man, the stories I could tell you about broken class-builds in D&D 3/3.5...

Let me just summarize by saying that you can kill anything in any book with 2 characters as a party:

One being a Frenzied Berzerker, the other being a Sorcerer-based Mystic Theurge.

I backed out of mtg after playing against someone with a "perfect" list. I lost every game to him without even making a scratch on him. Eventually I realized the only lesson I was learning from losing to him was to buy more cards. As I met more and more "competitive" mtg players I started to feel like I was playing "who has more disposable income: the game." At least if someone beats me in 40k I have the satisfaction of knowing that my models looked good while getting slaughtered.Even against waac people I at least learn something from them and they usually aren't jerks about it. I have met plenty of nice people who play mtg but some of the worst people I have ever met play competitive mtg.

 MWHistorian wrote:

That's a whole lot of logical fallacy right there.
Explaining why some people do things is not the same as agreeing or endorsing those things.
Trying to get you to agree that the rules are poorly written is not endorsing hate. I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.
What we're saying is that the poor rules foster a division of play styles within the community and this causes friction when two people want drastically different things from the same game.

I'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him slide on that to make peace. Regardless, poorly written rules is hardly a reason for these haters (whoever they are) to have that hard of an emotion towards other human beings. These haters have misplaced their hate as I have been saying. they should hate the rule makers for the rules and the power gamers for the power gaming. Those are two seperate issues. Either way, That all comsuming murderous hatred is a little too much for my taste. Allseeingskink and I seem to have a similer view in that that is too strong of an emotion to have for a game. Frustration, annoyance or something like that would be far more appropriate. Games are for fun and to enjoy, If we experience that sort of hatred towards other human beings over a game of little toy army men we are simply not living healthily (yes that is likely not a real word grammar police)When you see these mysterious haters, maybe pass that along to them.

I've been saying the rules are poorly written for years. Likely for longer than most of the posters in this thread have even been playing the game. That is a given and your preaching to the choir when you say they are poorly written.

The OP just sounds extremely negative and like a big troll. He obviously just had intentions to come here and talk trash about the game.

He can't seriously expect this game to be about constantly changing lists and adapting. It's an expensive hobby and most people can't afford to buy the newest baddest stuff all the time to fix holes in their lists.

This isn't magic the gathering or a simple board game. This is wargaming, it has almost always been like this. There are some systems that have tighter rules, yes, but even those have "optimal" lists where playing competitively with anything else would just net you losses.

If he is here because he likes to play competitively, then he can do that. There are other players that love to play 40k competitively as well, and those wonky lists can play each other all day. But gaking on the rest of the hobby goers for how they play is pretty much, and I use this term lightly.....slowed.