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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y?

I would imagine there aren't many tournaments into which you can bring a singular unit with the premise of them dealing with a niche present with almost every players list. If you're talking a "tournament player" playing his local meta instead of a tournament that usually has people from across the country or other countries participating, then ofcourse, the competitive player can counter his local meta with a specific unit should the meta be so one dimensional. If they're into list tailoring, that is.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
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.

I agree. My rant and both points had to do with how things are ( as written ) not what they should be though. But, if you want to discuss "how it should be" -then yes.

I am playing in the now, and most complaints are about the now, and my rant pertains to the 2 big paradoxes usually accompanying said complaints. I'm sure you understood, and I understood you. You have my word.

I must say though, I remember the old editions very differently from you. The difference of power was almost the same between the top builds and the bad ones afaic. The game has always been like this, I'm more amazed at the people who are amazed about it than the game's unbalance. Regarding your turn 2 tabling, I have literally been tabled by the 9 Obliterator + Basilisk Iron Warriors of the old, in 2 turns in a tournament long ago.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


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.

Fish of fury was a neat trick, but in no way was it any where near the top of the game. Decoy launchers/skimmers moving fast and IC status suits were the features tau used and abused effectively, not devilish squads who could at best, get one round of rapid fire in. The whole fourth ed. Tau codex has one decent build (3x hammerheads, 2x IC crisis suits, kroot for infantry, obligatory fw squad in a fish) and while it was decent for the first two years of fourth ed, it was never anything more than a mid tier build. by mid to late edition, it was really starting to show it's age and was really creaking at the seams, and in short order was pretty much outpaced, outclassed and made obselete by every newer codex.

And by the way, you forgot fourth ed iron warriors. They'd make the current cheese lists blush with Shame.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


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.

This actually proves the point more than disproves it. Hypothetical example to fit this discussion: "Oh I like Pathfinders a lot!" Suddenly, A wild Imperial Knight Wall Appears. They use double blasts of doom. It is super effective "I think I'll go on dakka and complain about how useless they are in all situations because I employed them against a unit they couldn't do much against."

 Pyeatt wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


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.

This actually proves the point more than disproves it. Hypothetical example to fit this discussion: "Oh I like Pathfinders a lot!" Suddenly, A wild Imperial Knight Wall Appears. They use double blasts of doom. It is super effective "I think I'll go on dakka and complain about how useless they are in all situations because I employed them against a unit they couldn't do much against."

And if all you see is Imperial Knights because they can do everything enough that there's never any point to taking pathfinders?

I mean let's see, there's potentially tons of good units (no mutlilators aren't even good in optimal settings), but many of them are worthless in the face of OP builds that you'll often see after some point.

Some of which aren't even hard to make, the Necron Decurian is something many people find fluffy and maybe casual, but it's one of the single strongest things in the codex.

Wave Serpents are the Eldar's primary transport, having a bunch of them should be okay but no it pretty much ensures AV12 and below won't be useful without specific circumstances.

Some of these define the meta without even trying.

I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

In response to the OP's title.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?

The reason I ask, is that I enjoy mono-dex armies myself, but if I don't have a good counter to something, the usual response seems to be, just ally whatever you need. The only problem I have there, is that many times the ally answer is something from some other army that I never had any desire to play or collect in the first place.

On the other hand however, the fact that players "can" ally in pretty much whatever they want is what seems to lead to such an incredibly large mix/mash of innovative units utilizing each others rules for special tactics.

But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.

Well posting this on Dakka is just asking for trouble .

Totally agree with the OP though. It is silly how many people complain about being competitive in a casual sense. Most people will never ever be able to agree though as it would be admitting that they are in fact not amazing at the game. Of course ironically the best players are probably the ones who know they always have more to learn, but that's the case with most things.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?

ronin_cse wrote:
Well posting this on Dakka is just asking for trouble .

Totally agree with the OP though. It is silly how many people complain about being competitive in a casual sense. Most people will never ever be able to agree though as it would be admitting that they are in fact not amazing at the game. Of course ironically the best players are probably the ones who know they always have more to learn, but that's the case with most things.

It's really not silly how people complain for reasons that have been stated already in this post. 'Casual' players have just as much reason to complain about the rules as they are now.

ronin_cse wrote:

Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?

Well,

3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.

Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.

What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"

If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.

As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.

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

This implies the two are exclusive, and they aren't. A casual game shouldn't need to use gimped lists, the game should be balanced correctly that choices are viable for both. You're making some hard divide between "casual" and "competitive' when this typically does not exist, nor should it.

This isn't even limited to GW. I play Warmachine and I see this same kind of horsegak peddled there where you should take a gak list to fun games and a good list to serious games instead of take a good list (possibly subjective, possibly not) to games, period.

There is a fundamental flaw between what people want (balanced rules that allow both casual and competitive games with little or no house ruling needed) and what GW puts out (random balance that seems to be nonsensical) and how that actually works in the game. When you have a unit that's garbage next to another unit that's great, this is 100% the rules designers failure and it's not on the player to deliberately choose to take the gak unit for fun games because the OP unit is going to be too easy to win with - the sheer fact such a thing is uttered means the rules are total gak and need a lot of work to fix.

The only real defense for GW is that many, many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing. However, there are games that do hold up and resist optimization pretty well, so there is proof that it can be done.

However, to me, there is little room to forgive the poor in-game function of units like Howling Banshees or terminators.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

This this this. A good game would put narrative, fluffy armies on an equal footing to "competitive" lists, at least enough where player skill can win the day. A fluffy army shouldn't get roflstomped by some allied OP spam list. If you want to play fluffy Eldar with different aspects or a Terminator-centric SM army for the narrative you shouldn't get your teeth kicked in for picking subpar units. If you want an Undivided CSM army you shouldn't automatically be at a disadvantage for not taking Nurgle.

I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.

I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.

Where is it written that casual means "bring crappy units and play like crap?" I've never understood that definition.
A. There shouldn't be crappy units, only units made for certain situations, like anti-infantry/cheap or elite. ETC.
B. You should always play to win.
C. Always play with both players' fun in mind.

 Azreal13 wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?

Well,

3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.

Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.

What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"

If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.

As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

What you are describing is basically every unit being viable against every other unit. If that in fact ever happens the game would be VERY boring. Even a game like X-Wing with 3 factions (and before with 2) this isn't the case. There are ships and upgrades that people simply don't take. Really IMO 40k is the best when it comes to being able to make most things work. If you really want to you can take that awesome looking model and actually get something done with it because there are soooooooo many variables that they can't all be accounted for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.

I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.

Please point me to a company that has real balance in their game, has "fair prices" (fair prices are honestly what people will buy a product for), and puts out models at least as good as GW? GW does actually have really great customer service so I can't really fault the interaction, feedback would be nice but they aren't exactly the only company to play stuff close.

PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing on the discussion because it's entirely opinion. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.

Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.

This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.

By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.

Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.

You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?

ronin_cse wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.

You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?

Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.

Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.

This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.

By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.

Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m

It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%

Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.

You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?

Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.

I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.

I'm assuming you don't play X Wing?

 ronin_cse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.

Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.

This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.

By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.

Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m

It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%

Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.

You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?

Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.

I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.

I don't drink beer so I'm basically picking names off my head based on what little I know. You're basically comparing a 6-pack of Guiness (insert "high end" beer here) to a 24 pack of Budweiser (insert "average" beer here). The value of the models makes GW less valuable because not only does it cost more but you need more as well since you get less value (i.e. points in the game). When I pay $50 for a unit of 10 guys in Warmachine, that unit is representing a larger chunk of my force than a $40 unit of 10 guys from GW.

 ronin_cse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?

Well,

3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.

Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.

What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"

If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.

As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

What you are describing is basically every unit being viable against every other unit. If that in fact ever happens the game would be VERY boring. Even a game like X-Wing with 3 factions (and before with 2) this isn't the case. There are ships and upgrades that people simply don't take. Really IMO 40k is the best when it comes to being able to make most things work. If you really want to you can take that awesome looking model and actually get something done with it because there are soooooooo many variables that they can't all be accounted for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.

I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.

Please point me to a company that has real balance in their game, has "fair prices" (fair prices are honestly what people will buy a product for), and puts out models at least as good as GW? GW does actually have really great customer service so I can't really fault the interaction, feedback would be nice but they aren't exactly the only company to play stuff close.

PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 ronin_cse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.

Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.

This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.

By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.

Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m

It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%

Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

ronin_cse wrote:

That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.

Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.

You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ronin_cse wrote:
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.

One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.

Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?

Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.

I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.

I don't drink beer so I'm basically picking names off my head based on what little I know. You're basically comparing a 6-pack of Guiness (insert "high end" beer here) to a 24 pack of Budweiser (insert "average" beer here). The value of the models makes GW less valuable because not only does it cost more but you need more as well since you get less value (i.e. points in the game). When I pay $50 for a unit of 10 guys in Warmachine, that unit is representing a larger chunk of my force than a $40 unit of 10 guys from GW.

Please don't be obtuse: I'm comparing a package of one of something to multiples. Let's use coke. I can buy a 2 liter of Coke for cheaper than a 12 pack of Coke, but if we compare the price per oz the 12 pack is cheaper. There is no reason this is not a valid comparison. Maybe I'm throwing a party and so I need more soda. Obviously buying soda for the party is more expensive than just buying enough for me to have dinner, but it doesn't change the value of the 2 liter vs the 12 pack.

Either way: when we choose to play a game that requires more models to play, there is no point complaining about how many models are required to play it

Winners use spoiler tags, or don't re-quote massive quote trees.

Just sayin.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.

So a mountain king (or what ever the troll one is called) is a completely valid choice and you see those in competitive lists all the time?

This is pointless anyways, we will never agree on what constitutes balance in the first place. I asked that question on Warseer awhile ago and no one gave me the same answer as to what balance really means. IN MY OPINION 40k is just as balanced is Warmachine, especially considering how many more options and releases 40k gets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Winners use spoiler tags, or don't re-quote massive quote trees.

Just sayin.

Should be pretty obvious I haven't posted on here all that much

A nigh-random selection of models from any of my 40k armies tends to perform substantially better than a nigh-random selection from my Cygnar collection.

40k has a lot of options that are clearly substandard, but rarely do many of them feel pointless just because I brought the "wrong" HQ.

Even in chess, you can have "casual" games. Just make a move and think about it later. Could be a lot of fun as a replacement for a more "serious" game when I played.

"Casual" isn't necessarily a weaker list, or playing to lose. It can be things like Asurmen leading a charge when holding position locks in the win. Or blowing up a building filled with Genestealers instead of charging the Death Company that'll charge you next round, because you get to fry those filthy bugs!

I think you're oversimplifying.

 ronin_cse wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.

So a mountain king (or what ever the troll one is called) is a completely valid choice and you see those in competitive lists all the time?

This is pointless anyways, we will never agree on what constitutes balance in the first place. I asked that question on Warseer awhile ago and no one gave me the same answer as to what balance really means. IN MY OPINION 40k is just as balanced is Warmachine, especially considering how many more options and releases 40k gets.

The MK is subpar and corner case but you can still build a valid list around it if you wanted to. You don't autolose by taking one. So yes it is a valid choice.

There is no definition where 40k is more balanced than WMH. There also aren't really that much more in terms of options in 40k (different weapons, but there's probably more units per faction in WMH, and very very few are never worth taking. Most of the options in 40k are subpar and you see the exact same things being taken every time).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A nigh-random selection of models from any of my 40k armies tends to perform substantially better than a nigh-random selection from my Cygnar collection.

40k has a lot of options that are clearly substandard, but rarely do many of them feel pointless just because I brought the "wrong" HQ.

Even in chess, you can have "casual" games. Just make a move and think about it later. Could be a lot of fun as a replacement for a more "serious" game when I played.

"Casual" isn't necessarily a weaker list, or playing to lose. It can be things like Asurmen leading a charge when holding position locks in the win. Or blowing up a building filled with Genestealers instead of charging the Death Company that'll charge you next round, because you get to fry those filthy bugs!

I think you're oversimplifying.

Thing with thag argument is, if something's bad in 40k, it's just bad. Where as things in WMH can be made good with the right caster. And I don't see how you can use a 'random selection' type list as a comparison for balance...

 ronin_cse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Winners use spoiler tags, or don't re-quote massive quote trees.

Just sayin.

Should be pretty obvious I haven't posted on here all that much

Equally, if I'd just been aiming it at you, I'd have made it clear.

Back to the OP, the problem is that the gap between "good" and "garbage" in 40k is basically huge. There are units in the same codex that fill similar roles where one is just worlds better than the other for seemingly no reason, to the point where there's no realistic reason why you would ever take Unit B over Unit A. That's poor from a rules standpoint alone, but let's see how it affects the casual and competitive gamers.

The competitive gamer, let's call him Spike (as a homage to MtG) looks at Unit B and sees that it's worse than Unit A, so won't take it based on that alone. If Unit B was better or maybe did a different type of role to Unit A maybe Spike would consider it, but since it doesn't it never factors into his choices, and he plays (and probably wins) without it. Spike would never pick Unit B if it was worse than Unit A, so it doesn't affect him at all.

The casual gamer, who we'll call Bob, really likes how Unit B looks visually, and he might even have a concept or theme for his force that Unit B fits in better than Unit A. Even though Unit B is worse in every way compared to Unit A, he will take Unit B because Unit A doesn't fit and Unit B does. What's the result? His force is less effective because he didn't choose Unit A (the superior unit) but instead chose Unit B (the inferior unit). Bob gets punished because the theme he wanted for his army and maybe spent lots of time coming up with works better with a unit that's vastly inferior on the table, regardless of if he plays Spike or another Bob. Unit B's crappy rules means that Bob suffers for picking something for flavor and not power.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with 40k's awful rules and worse balance. It punishes Bob more than Spike because Bob is the guy who is more likely to pick that subpar unit based on everything except it's use on the tabletop. Spike could care less how cool it looks, the unit sucks in the game so he'll likely never buy it let alone field it.

It gets even worse when you consider this scenario:

Jim is a casual gamer too, like Bob. Just like Bob, Jim comes up with a good, fluffy, narrative army concept and goes about collecting it. Jim's concept however is better suited by Unit A (the superior unit). Jim is not punished like Bob is, because Jim's concept means he's taking the better choice, even though unlike Spike he doesn't care about its performance. If Bob and Jim play a casual game, Bob is at a disadvantage because Bob just happened to like a concept that makes him want to use a worse unit. Bob likes the wrong things, while Jim likes the right things.

That's complete and utter rubbish to ever happen in a game, doubly so for one that claims to encourage narrative and casual gaming, because it's clear that the rules do not. Bob is a narrative, casual gamer and gets screwed because the unit(s) he likes aren't as good as the units Jim (another narrative, casual gamer) likes even though both of them want to play units they like.