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.

Title is pretty self explanatory. Firstly, don't jump the gun, read what is being said with thought is what I ask. Arguing about something that hasn't even been said leads nowhere.

This is a rant and an attempt to understand some really flawed logic at the same time. This is all in the context of how the game currently is, what it could be is another topic as I am only interested in the logic that pertains to what and how things are right now, which is pretty much always the case with complaints. Reading this forum you can quickly see the general consesus of there being around 3 viable codices in the entire game ( Tau, Eldar, Necron. ) Everything else is supposedly crap, or mediocre at best. Not true, and here's why.

Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context

There is no point about complaining that your Astra Militarum can't handle Space Marines allied with The Wolves Unleashed on their own. There is no point to being pissed about your Blood Angels not being able to beat 3 Flyrants allied with Adamantine Lance. Why? Here's why:

Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days? Perhaps Necrons occasionally, but even the top Necron lists tend to have something allied. That's about it. Every competent IoM player uses the allied matrix to allow their list powerful combinations or counters to things their Codex can't handle on their own. So why even complain that in a competitive enviroment my Codex can't take on anyone mono, when no one plays mono competitively? And if you play casually you don't need a competitive list. There is simply no way out of this one so it's use as an argument could just aswell be stopped as it's based on a paradox as a whole. Secondly, the Tau and Eldar codices remain updated and their next iterations will surely be brought down in power asfar as I'm concerned. We should see how things are then, and it's supposed to happen this year.

Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context where monocodex armies are rarely played and triumph even less, making complaining about a monocodex builds power abysmally pointless. You don't get to pick the worst of both, unless you want to be paradoxical ofcourse. But we can't have that, since we're all pseudointellectual experts of pretty much everything around here.

You can have competitive Blood Angels. You can have competitive Astra Militarum. You can have competitive Sisters of Battle. Because in this game, currently, you play competitive lists with allies and multiple detachments and codices, and that's that.


Complaining that a unit is not competitive

Yet another bit you see all the time. Certainly true with units that are undeniably bad ( Mutilators, I'm looking at you ) but almost daily you can see someone saying a unit that can infact perform being useless. Most of the time I attribute this to the player just being clueless on how to play such a unit on a general level, let alone with a synergized army. However there is a clear persisting mindset among your average players, that are really nothing special. Those who make up 98% of us wargamers, myself included. It would appear people judge a units effectiveness or how competitive it is based on an enviroment they themselves will never ever actually be in. This ever receeding, counter argument dodging bubble of ignorance, based on a theorized match inwhich the opponent is a perfect computer of a man ( yes, that's intentional ) and makes no mistake, countering everything you do perfectly, rendering unit in question useless.

Guess what? You're most likely the 98%. You're not in the top tables of ETC competing against Nick Nanavati in tooth and nail matches of tactical genius. No, you're most likely participating in local tournaments, playing with your friends, or even participating in the larger tournaments but never reaching the absolute top. So why do you judge a units competitiveness based on like you were? It's oxymoronic. Your friends mostly aren't 5 Sean Naydens either, they are also the 98% who make mistakes, not to mention the countless other factors affecting the course of a game. If you think you can't win with Blood Angels because the hypothetical Nickean Naydenvati hybrid android will crush you in his/its perfect match where everything goes the way you think it goes before the match has even taken place, fix your brain, because you're thinking wrong and not even remotely realistically.

I've beaten many general cookiecutter competitive lists with my Blood Angels. There is a Tau & Eldar player in my group that has beaten me once ( my Dark Angels, Blood Angels and CSM that is. ) I've seen Daemonkin already basically walk over a Reclamation Legion with Canoptek Harvest. I've been beaten by 9 Khorne Blood Slaughterers while playing my tournament Chaos Daemons. I've seen a Tau player win a local tournament with his casual Tau list by just being a good player, without a single Riptide, against armies such as gravspam White Scars. I've had an experienced Astra Militarum player dominate me with a mono codex list while wielding my Necrons with the previous Codex. I've seen amazing out of the box combinations dominate the cookiecutter in the biggest tournaments in the world. Stuff happens, and the stuff that doesn't work in the top tables of the largest tournaments of the world doesn't mean they don't work for you. You're most likely not in the 2%, so start thinking in your own context, where you and most of your opponents are the 98%. Why think that something will never work in a gaming enviroment you will never ever be in most likely. I press again, this only considering units that can actually perform when their user isn't a complete tool, not things like Mutilators. Personally I play the underdog armies as I find it fun. I also think the best way to develop as a player is to learn to deal with the most op fotm gak with some of the lowest powered codices around. You will then eventually learn to deal with said challenges while having the most barebone tools. Now imagine what happens when you then switch to a top tier Codex with an equally cheesy build? Exactly, you will crush the opponent who is used to his fancy tools. How could you not, you've done it before with a crappier army already.

The funniest bit. The 2% make things like Lictors and Scouts win in the top tables, the very units the 98% complain about, and that makes them the 2%. A fact.

...And all of this can be directed to the same conclusion: Gee Dubs writers are incompetent pieces of who don't know how to write codices well. Their focus is lost on the actual gaming, and are only a toy selling company.
The talk about balance is ultimately redundant because of this.

I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.

Meaning it's just a general, ignorant statement that probably a large amount of designers within the company disagree with and in no way reflects a companywide absolute truth. I don't even toy with the idea that the game designers are having the mindset of just selling toys, it's just too absurd. The upper management who are all about the business perhaps might have such an idea in their heads. You can see this same phenomenon in vaurious other companies and fields, such as advertising. The suits just think money, the actual creators think quality content to best of their ability, this I've seen in practice myself.

I also disagree about everything being the companys fault; some players really are clueless and can't make things work that actually could.

I also think there are clear signs of the focus shifting with the new CEO. But that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, and a completely different topic at that. I agree however, that their playtesting and ruleswriting needs to be better. A public betatest similiar to PP would probably do the trick, but that's not gonna happen.

Mutilators aren't that bad.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if someone made them work aswell. Personally I haven't tried as I don't play lists which require what they do/try to do.

From personal experience in doing well in tournaments:

The end of game roll going your way at the right time can totally trump list quality differences. I won a pro-painted knight from an ITC event with BA land raiders thanks to a few of those rolls.

People have the right to complain about the balance. Say what you want about " forging the narrative", the gamers crave a competitive and balanced game. Its what people have been wanting for years and there is just no excuse for GW to keep these idiot game designers employed.

The problem is that there are some people out there that are delusional about the problem. They are either:
a) a GW employee or fanboy
b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons
c) someone who plays a strong mid tier army such as grey Knights.

I mean, don't talk about balance if you've never payed 15 points to give a ig sarge a power sword lol. And that is the problem with the game, that GW would hold such things as an iron halo so highly....an incredibly rare and powerful item, but then give a whole frigging army an even better invul that is re animation protocol. And then you have a whole army of guys getting 2 saves instead of 1. Or how about armies like Tau getting 2 shooting phases and 2 movement phases.

Then idiots like the person who wrote this thread will say things like " well you shoulda brought 25 lascanons if you want to kill those riptides".

I mean, people that defend the balance are sort of like those people in Christopher Columbus times that argued that the Earth is flat. They will watch a Necrons army table an ork player and lose only 2 models, but that is just not enough evidence for them.

 RunicFIN wrote:
( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. )

And this is where everything else you have to say becomes invalid.

Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days?

What was the last major tournament and what was the armies used within it? Out of curiosity more then anything else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. )

And this is where everything else you have to say becomes invalid.

Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.

bob82ca wrote:
People have the right to complain about the balance. Say what you want about " forging the narrative", the gamers crave a competitive and balanced game. Its what people have been wanting for years and there is just no excuse for GW to keep these idiot game designers employed.

The problem is that there are some people out there that are delusional about the problem. They are either:
a) a GW employee or fanboy
b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons
c) someone who plays a strong mid tier army such as grey Knights.

I mean, don't talk about balance if you've never payed 15 points to give a ig sarge a power sword lol. And that is the problem with the game, that GW would hold such things as an iron halo so highly....an incredibly rare and powerful item, but then give a whole frigging army an even better invul that is re animation protocol. And then you have a whole army of guys getting 2 saves instead of 1. Or how about armies like Tau getting 2 shooting phases and 2 movement phases.

Then idiots like the person who wrote this thread will say things like " well you shoulda brought 25 lascanons if you want to kill those riptides".

I mean, people that defend the balance are sort of like those people in Christopher Columbus times that argued that the Earth is flat. They will watch a Necrons army table an ork player and lose only 2 models, but that is just not enough evidence for them.

The right to complain about balance was not the point to beginwith. It was complaining about 2 specific things in a way that makes no sense logically. Exercise some reading comprehension and better manners instead of being juvenile, thanks.

Well, we have evidence of stuff like greentide, mass scouts and droppod marines with Calgar doing great vs internet net-lists in tourneys.

OP: Casual Games are Casual and no reason to rage about. Competitive games depend on the general.

Everyone else : BURN THE DESIGNERS!!!

Peregrin: I like bagels....


Figured I'd give a TL;DR version

We really do not need the lines about reading comprehension, other people's intelligence or posters referring to other users as idiots.

Comments like this do not help move any discussion forwards and only serve to irritate or enrage other members.

Please desist in such behaviour.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.

You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

 Pyeatt wrote:
OP: Casual Games are Casual and no reason to rage about. Competitive games depend on the general.

Everyone else : BURN THE DESIGNERS!!!

Peregrin: I like bagels....


Figured I'd give a TL;DR version

Have an exalt.

 Peregrine wrote:

You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

Validation for you: Everyone likes to win. Good warm fuzzy feelings, like crushing your friend at MarioKart
Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game. Unless you're doing it as a profession, that is. See: Competitive.

 Peregrine wrote:
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.

There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game.

No it isn't. 40k is about as far from a "beer and pretzels" game as you can possibly get. It costs tons of time and money just to get the pieces to play, learning hundreds of pages of badly-written rules takes even more time, and then setting up and playing a game takes several hours (especially if you have to negotiate house rules to fix GW's mistakes). That's not a "beer and pretzels" game, it's a hobby you dedicate a significant part of your life to. So when you see "40k is a 'beer and prezels' game" what it really means is "STOP EXPECTING A HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCT AND BUY MORE SPACE MARINES!".

 Pyeatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

Validation for you: Everyone likes to win. Good warm fuzzy feelings, like crushing your friend at MarioKart
Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game. Unless you're doing it as a profession, that is. See: Competitive.

Yeah because competitive players do so as a profession...

Balanced rules would benifit 'fluffy' players just as much as competitive ones, and both types of players probably care equally about balance. If anything it would benefit fluffy players more, as they can then use the wackiest, fluffiest list they can dream up without hobbling themselves where as 'professional' players will just use whatever's competitive.

Casual players should be able to play their one codex army without it shooting them in the foot. They can care as much as 'proffesional' players. They probably care more, because they aren't just buying units they need to win, they're actually using models they like and care about. Just because it's a 'beer and pretzels' game doesn't mean balance isn't important.

And I'm pretty sure no one plays 40k professionally. It's not Magic.

 RunicFIN wrote:
A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable.

And this is where you're wrong. A "casual" game can be one where both players carefully arrange the power levels of their lists, but it also includes pickup games where both people show up with armies and play with whatever they brought (even if the power level isn't equal), games between skilled players with optimized lists where it's a tournament game except for the lack of prizes, etc.

If not, don't play such a person.

You really don't see why "don't play anyone that has an army that isn't perfectly balanced with your own" is terrible advice?

The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment.

Because "casual" does not mean "everyone takes bad units and uses weak strategies".

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.

There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.

Yes there is. Casual players should be able to play their lists 'competitively' as in be in with a chance. If you have the wrong list in 40k, you might not even have a chance. Why is there always this 'casual/competitive' divide when actually both sides would benifit from more balanced rules? We shouldn't be in a position where you might have to turn down a pick up game because you have no chance. There's literally no other TT game where that's a real worry.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.

There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.

Yes there is. Casual players should be able to play their lists 'competitively' as in be in with a chance. If you have the wrong list in 40k, you might not even have a chance. Why is there always this 'casual/competitive' divide when actually both sides would benifit from more balanced rules? We shouldn't be in a position where you might have to turn down a pick up game because you have no chance. There's literally no other TT game where that's a real worry.

Such as a fluffy "decurian list" vs Heavy Bolter space marines. One can guess what armies are going to win even if they were half designed.

Exactly. And that shouldn't be a problem that even comes up, if the rules were decent game rules.

bob82ca wrote:

b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons

As a side-note, I always find it fun when Tau gets mentioned along true top tier army. Double fun if SM and Daemons are.not mentioned.


That being said, I disagree with the idea that a unit's competitiveness is somehow related to the level at which you play. Better stuff is just that: better, even if in a less competitive setting you can make bad stuff work easier.

There has always been a difference between the competitive and casual crowd in 40k for as long as I've been paying attention at any rate, but I must say that this "Casual players just screw around and are bad at the game" is a much newer phenomena.

There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.

The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.

Even the most optimized Grey Knights list, the undisputed king of cheese in 5th, wasn't a guaranteed win; a hard fight for someone playing a SM Demi-Company or Guard footsloggers, but the level of complete obliteration suffered by a "casual" player against a "competitive" player as exists now was almost unheard of. The resentment of this by casual players, and the increased self-assuredness granted to competitive players has only added vitriol to the community and created a much sharper divide than existed.

And the best part about this is GW doesn't notice and wouldn't care if they did; the insane thing is the way they write their rules, they clearly intend for people to only play it casually, the very notion of a "tournament" is never mentioned, recognized, suggested or considered. The "GW Hobby Centers" do painting competitions and campaigns, never tourneys, but their rules are such a pile of steaming gak that the "best" way to play the game, the way to have the best chances of actually enjoying yourself is throw theme and fluff out the window and build a frankenlist from across a dozen sources relying on horribly balanced units and formations.

Casual or competitive, you should be bloody pissed about the state of the rules; the casual players have a lot more trouble finding a good game as, if anything, casual lists will be more diverse in power levels and effectiveness than any competitive army, and competitive players end up facing a lot more of the same lists and fewer opponents willing to play them, all a byproduct of gak rules.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I also think there are clear signs of the focus shifting with the new CEO.

You mean Kirby's puppet?

What are those "clear signs" by the way? What they are doing with Fantasy? Not the brightest new focus then.

LordBlades wrote:


Double fun if SM and Daemons are.not mentioned.

XFT. Top Tier doesn't mean it has the most Dakka posts crying about it (Normally Eldar). It means you can make at least 1 truly competitive list with it. Buy the codex, read it thoroughly before buying anything, then allocate proper funds for a small army. If you can't make at least 1 superb list with SM, then you simply don't know how to read a codex. (I don't know about daemons, I don't have that codex, and my local meta is all C:SM and Nids

That being said, I disagree with the idea that a unit's competitiveness is somehow related to the level at which you play. Better stuff is just that: better, even if in a less competitive setting you can make bad stuff work easier.

I feel like we should go back to OP's post where truly talented generals can make almost anything work... except mutilators... disgusting loser mutilators...

Luckily this thread was and is about something else than wanting your casual list to be competitive and your competitive list to be casual at the same time, which is in essence required for it to work even the other way around.

Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.

At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.

The only conclusion is that X has no clue. He can't make something work in an easier enviroment, complaining it's the units fault, whereas someone else does the opposite in the vastly more difficult enviroment. And that's pretty much it, there is no squirming around it with excuses.

There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.

The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.

3.5: Eldar Altoic Lists, Blood Angels Speed Is Key assaults, Chaos Space Marines Siren Song Chaos Princes.

4E: Skimmerspam/Falconspam Eldar, Fish of Fury Tau

5E: Mech Lists (admittedly the most balanced).

There's always been something at the top.

Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.

At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.

The only conclusion is that X has no clue. He can't make something work in an easier enviroment, complaining it's the units fault, whereas someone else does the opposite in the vastly more difficult enviroment. And that's pretty much it, there is no squirming around it with excuses.

And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y? And Casual Meta Players Meta has included key meta components that generally push Seekers into a terrible role as their role on the tabletop ends up either Useless or otherwise a terrible choice in said Meta.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Luckily this thread was and is about something else than wanting your casual list to be competitive and your competitive list to be casual at the same time, which is in essence required for it to work even the other way around.

Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.

At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.

And the point I was making is that should be irrelevant and a non-issue, for if the rules were in any way functional, or as functional as older editions, you wouldn't be seeing these complaints to anywhere near the same degree, and that the gulf which exists at present between the two camps wouldn't be as divisive.

Yes, with the right cross-codex manipulation, most units can be made half decent, but isn't that a little strange and self-contradictory in a game where every rulebook is about "Forging the Narrative" and the codices consist of about 80% background and fluff for a particular army, not Tigurius's invisible teleporting Centurions who picked up the Chapter Master of the Raptors along the way to go fight 6 flying hive tyrants?

There is something fundamentally disconnected between how the rules are written, how the game functions, what the community(s) want and what GW wants. The end result is a game with a fragmenting community, dominated by frustration, vitriol and conflict. What you're focused on is but one symptom of a larger problem, the whole "Well you guys just don't know how to play the game anymore," angle is very reflective of that growing divide in the playerbase which didn't used to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.

The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.

3.5: Eldar Altoic Lists, Blood Angels Speed Is Key assaults, Chaos Space Marines Siren Song Chaos Princes.

4E: Skimmerspam/Falconspam Eldar, Fish of Fury Tau

5E: Mech Lists (admittedly the most balanced).

There's always been something at the top.

There absolutely has, but the point I was trying to make was that they didn't used to break the game to degree we're seeing now. Being tabled turn 3 is something that just didn't happen in those editions, even between the top lists and the "casual" lists. The dysfunctional rules, lack of structure and even more wildly out-of-whack balance has made the difference an absolute, rather than relative one.

You put down an Adamantine Lance against a TAC Marine list, you've won before the first dice roll, more likely than not. Put down Fish of Fury vs the same list in 4th and you've got a good advantage, but you're not left with a case where the majority of the opponent's army has absolutely no way to harm your army in any way.