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.

Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

Martel732 wrote:
Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

GW list? I was unaware that they were in the business of making army lists. Would you please point me to a relevent codex entry?

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

GW list? I was unaware that they were in the business of making army lists. Would you please point me to a relevent codex entry?

They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?

Martel732 wrote:They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?

That's a completely different issue. I was simply addressing one precise point that you made: "Why not a GW list?" GW doesn't make lists. To speak in culinary terms, they make ingredients with which you can make whatever recipe you want. They're not in the business of making recipes.

Martel732 wrote:
Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:They ARE in the business of supplying legal choices for lists. How can you fault someone for constructing a legal list?

That's a completely different issue. I was simply addressing one precise point that you made: "Why not a GW list?" GW doesn't make lists. To speak in culinary terms, they make ingredients with which you can make whatever recipe you want. They're not in the business of making recipes.

But it is their fault that "TFG lists" exist. If there were no "TFG" ingredients, one could not construct a "TFG list".

 Rippy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.

It's like blaming cough syrup manufacturers for the fact that certain persons use them to manufacture illegal narcotics.

 Rippy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why is it a "TFG list" and not a "GW list"? Why should we have to do extra editing on top of GW's codices? What are we paying them for?

Cheesebeard logic; "it is GW's fault my list is spammy and overpowered, therefore I am justified in my actions of taking this list".

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.

Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.

Martel732 wrote:
Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.

What games do you have in mind?

Traditio wrote:
They're not in the business of making recipes.

Firebase support Cadre and some formations get very specific about what you bring.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why don't other games work off that principle, then? In pretty much every other game, people are doing what they can to win. Not to make sure their opponent has a chance.

What games do you have in mind?

Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Traditio wrote:
They're not in the business of making recipes.

Firebase support Cadre and some formations get very specific about what you bring.

Yes, I expected something like this as an objection. Even so, they're telling you: "Here are your options. You have to pick x, y and z." They don't tell you: "But you have to take this formation and that formation, and in each formation, you must select these particular options."

It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.

I haven't played Land to World in Flames.

But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?

"But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?"

No, I really don't. This is NOT a co-op game. There is a winner and a loser. There is no excuse for GW's poor rules. A group of power gamers could get together and fix it in a week.

Even in StarCraft, in an 8-player FFA, rushing in a game that contains newbies was a TFG thing.

Bharring wrote:
Even in StarCraft, in an 8-player FFA, rushing in a game that contains newbies was a TFG thing.

The newbies have the tools at their disposal to stop the rush, though. They just need the knowledge. I understand BA and Eldar both very well, but I don't have the tools as BA to stop the Eldar. BIG, BIG difference. There's no Eldar base for me to scout and see what's coming so I can prepare. Eldar just get to flop their carrier equivalents on the map without going through the process of gateway -> cybercore -> stargate -> fleet beacon. I have opportunities to stop the Protoss. The Eldar just get to lay the wood.

If I don't want my opponent to have carriers, I can go marine/marauder/medivac and FORCE him to build units to defend or lose outright. In 40K I have to beg and hope that the Eldar player takes mercy on me. Feth that.

 Rippy wrote:

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You know what you are getting with GW rules, so you can make fun lists for your opponent, or make upsetting lists.

Please tell me where I can find this section in the rules. I'd love to figure out what criteria I should make a list by. I find the points thing, the part about using the appropriate models, and the section containing the CAD/allies/formations and so on.

There are so many fluffy OP lists, some that stink on ice, and every flavor in between. How is it the job of the customers to collectively decide on how to balance entire codices against others? I paid a lot of money for a rule book and rules. I spend lots of time making up lists, building and painting models, and don't even want to consider the monetary investment of that. Why should I spend extra time and even money to make a list that isn't what I really want to run to make a fun and balanced game? Didn't I pay enough for a fun and balanced game when I bought the premium rule books?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.

Then what company can't justify any activity with this?
Why do we not sell guns as paperweights? Nobody told you that you have to put bullets in it or that it can be used for violence.

In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?

Traditio wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Traditio wrote:
They're not in the business of making recipes.

Firebase support Cadre and some formations get very specific about what you bring.

Yes, I expected something like this as an objection. Even so, they're telling you: "Here are your options. You have to pick x, y and z." They don't tell you: "But you have to take this formation and that formation, and in each formation, you must select these particular options."

It's kind of like general education requirements as an undergrad. The school tells you that you have to take 6 hours in the humanities. Which 6 hours in particular? That's your call.

GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.
They also decided to include an allies chart, and unbound.

Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged. Try taking life science as a pre-med, or "blue planet". You can, technically, take it...but you won't get into med school.

Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Name one. Anything from chess to Candy Land to World in Flames to Starcraft.

I haven't played Land to World in Flames.

But do you really not see the disanalogy between chess and starcraft, on the one hand, and warhammer on the other hand?

Chess and starcraft have more in common with warhammer then they do each other.



As the Pickup thread proved, people have widely different ideas of what is considered a good unit. Sometimes this comes from incorrect knowledge about the game/rules, sometimes it comes from having a different (eldar) point of view, and sometimes it comes from ignorance of another units abilities/combos/point cost.

I, can't wait for GW to start selling Big Boy pants for people. I really hope they make them cheap.

Seriously, buck up and play the game. Don't like it? There are plenty of great games made by intelligent companies that don't just have your wallet in mind. Otherwise, learn to deal. Play what you want and don't play who you don't want to.

Or take GWs models, and concepts and just use a better rule set. I play 40k all the time with house rules and have a small gaming club to do it in. You couldn't pay me to play stock 40k in some FLGS with TFG. (Ok I'd accept the money and just put my models down and let him shoot them off.)

Savageconvoy wrote:Then what company can't justify any activity with this?
Why do we not sell guns as paperweights? Nobody told you that you have to put bullets in it or that it can be used for violence.

A similar point can be made. I don't think that you can blame a gun manufacturer for the fact that a psychopath goes on a killing spree.

In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?

I don't think that it's reasonable to object to someone using one riptide. I don't think it's reasonable to object to someone using one wraithknight. Spamming riptides, on the other hand...

Again, it's like saying: "But look, the grocery store sells habanero peppers. This is a thing that I can use in a recipe. I think I'll use 20 of them in this one recipe which is intended to serve 4 people! In fact, the store also sells a variety of other extremely spicy peppers. I'll just make a spam recipe of nothing but hot peppers in increments of 5s! Oh...and a starch and a meat. Because I have to serve those."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.

Can =/= must. What's your point?

Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged.

Not necessarily. Have you read an undergraduate course catalogue? When I was an undergrad, as I recall, it read like the following: "You must take x number of credit hours from one of these lists." Thus the reason I took logic instead of a "required" mathematics course.

Traditio wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:GW does tell me that I can take certain units for certain point costs in certain codexes.

Can =/= must. What's your point?

In this case, can does equal must.
I must take dire avengers for 13 points. I can chose not to take them, but I don't get to take them for 4 points or 45 points.
My point is that GW defines what armies are legal, not I. They are involved in army construction through several means, like unbound being legal and the ally matrix.
Did you have a point?

Traditio wrote:

Even your later example is flawed. For undergrads, certain humanities are allowed, and certain other courses are encouraged or discouraged.

Not necessarily. Have you read an undergraduate course catalogue? When I was an undergrad, as I recall, it read like the following: "You must take x number of credit hours from one of these lists." Thus the reason I took logic instead of a "required" mathematics course.

I'm a science professor at a state university. So, yes? I have?
Did you skip over the part where I mentioned a pre-med? You can't do what you did for that major, you must take calculus and statistics as your math credits.

I suggest you quote the entire passage.

We must not treat our enemies as humans, for they are not! Foul, alien heretics that they are... in the name of the Emperor they shall be cleansed in the fires of the holy wrath that is MINE!!! DIE, SCUM, DIE!!!!

Oh, mind if we do green peppers and mushrooms on that pepperoni? And no wings this week for me.

Rules schmules. Just have fun. It's a game, man... and about as unlikely a futuristic battlescape as is imaginable

I think GW have always been pretty clear that they make rules with the attitude that they're just writing guidelines for you to use when you're playing with your models, rather than just making models to use in carefully-constructed game. The rulebook even says at one point that using points values is basically optional. They're writing rules with an AD&D mindset rather than a chess or starcraft mindset, so it shouldn't be any surprise that the rules work best among a group of friends.

Having said that, it's possible to go wrong and while I think they've done extremely well with the 7th ed codices so far, it sounds like Eldar is a major misstep. It happens. People mess up. Or maybe they know something we don't. Maybe more armies are going to be getting D weapons and GMCs and eldar are just ahead of the curve, so they'll be temporarily broken until everything else gets updated to match. Maybe D weapons are about to get hit by a nerfbat in an 8th edition next winter. Who knows.

In the meantime, everywhere but tournaments the solution is pretty straightforward. Take a reasonable list, and ask your opponent to do the same. If he/she refuses, find someone else to play with. Houserule the "6" result off the D weapon table. Or find another game to play, and enjoy. Find the thing that's fun for you, and then do that thing. Better than being miserable.

Traditio wrote:

In this case, there is only the approved models available. If you bought the Chaos DP dataslate, there is only the one model you can use. Nobody tells you have to use it, but what's the point of even having or selling it if nobody is supposed to use it?

I don't think that it's reasonable to object to someone using one riptide. I don't think it's reasonable to object to someone using one wraithknight. Spamming riptides, on the other hand...

Again, it's like saying: "But look, the grocery store sells habanero peppers. This is a thing that I can use in a recipe. I think I'll use 20 of them in this one recipe which is intended to serve 4 people! In fact, the store also sells a variety of other extremely spicy peppers. I'll just make a spam recipe of nothing but hot peppers in increments of 5s! Oh...and a starch and a meat. Because I have to serve those."

Yeah, not even close, what you are describing is the "GW list" idea shot down above. A step-by-step guide picking out the units and showing how it all goes together.

GW is like.... "OK for this recipe you need pasta, meat and veggies". And that would be the end of the recipe.

My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.

Worried about terrorists bombing your buildings? Just agree to be decent human beings.

I'm inclined to agree with you OP. I never really understood the whole argument of, "It's a legal list, so you shouldn't complain if I use it!"

Last time I checked, pretty much everyone agreed that GW wasn't that great at making balanced rules. Last time I checked, 40k was a lot more fun when games are relatively close rather than one-sided. Most people play 40k to have fun, right?

If you know that bringing a smash-face list is going to cause your fellow player to not have fun, why are you bringing the smash-face list? Are you having more fun by making your opponent (whom you theoretically don't hate and can empathize with as a fellow human) have a bad time?

I get that it stinks when a list concept is considered overpowered, but what list are you trying to run that absolutely requires a smash-face lineup? Saim-hann can be responsible when it comes to choosing how many heavy weapons their bikes have. Tau players wanting to use lots of riptides can avoid mixing in buff'mander and ion abuse/missile spam. Iyanden players have it a bit rougher now as they're required to either use wraith knights or else bring a lot of guardians to the table, but I think the above proposal of using 2 wraithlords rather than a wraith lord and wraith knight is one of many elegant fixes to that particular problem.

Wyldhunt wrote:
If you know that bringing a smash-face list is going to cause your fellow player to not have fun, why are you bringing the smash-face list?

Because it's very rare that two people can agree on what a "smash-face list" is, and it's very difficult to predict who is going to have fun before the game begins.

Akiasura wrote:In this case, can does equal must.
I must take dire avengers for 13 points. I can chose not to take them, but I don't get to take them for 4 points or 45 points.

The bolded was the only point that I was making. Again, what you're ultimately responding to is my objection to another poster who claimed that there are GW lists. There are no GW lists. They don't make army lists. You disagree? Then show me one. Direct me to the relevent codex. I would love to see that.

My point is that GW defines what armies are legal, not I. They are involved in army construction through several means, like unbound being legal and the ally matrix.

As I said, yes: they provide the ingredients and the general limitations on how you can put those ingredients together. But ultimately, what recipe you come up with is your responsibility, not GW's.

I will, of course, agree with a previous poster: to an extent, it is GW's fault for making it possible to "break the game," so to speak. But the players are even more to blame. They're like that one guy who plays a video game knowing full and well that there is a glitch that will crash the game at x part of the game. He's playing with a group of friends. He activates the glitch. His friends get super annoyed at him: "Hey, don't blame me! Blame the game designers! They made it possible for me to do that!"

His friends, of course, would be perfectly in the right to refuse to play said video game with him ever again.

Did you have a point?

Supra.

I'm a science professor at a state university. So, yes? I have?
Did you skip over the part where I mentioned a pre-med? You can't do what you did for that major, you must take calculus and statistics as your math credits.

I suggest you quote the entire passage.

I skipped over the pre-med thing because it didn't strike me as relevent. Whether or not you get into med school is immaterial to whether or not you are satisfying the general education requirements. At any rate, you're putting too much into my analogy. My only point is that just as general education requirements indicate that you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but do not specify that you must take this or that in particular, so too, the codices indicate that, if you wish to take a formation, you must take x, y and z kinds of things, but not this or that in particular.

I'm pretty sure that there is no formation in the Eldar codex that says that you must spam scat bikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:
My entire eldar collection consists of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents. I spend a lot of time painting my models to a high standard. Now you're going to tell me I can't use my WK I spent 20 hours painting because GW can't write balanced rules? The onus is not on the player to make a balanced game, that falls on the game designers. If they fail, it's bad game design. Luckily I never have anyone turn down my list because I'm in a competitive meta.

Why does your entire collection consist of a WK, jetbikes, wraithguard and wave serpents? Because, I assume, you copy/pasted a cheesy internet tournament list and wanted to get all of the best units that everyone said are brokenly good, that will gaurantee you a victory.

You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.

Traditio wrote:
You must pardon me if I don't pity you. You are probably TFG. Good luck in 8th edition and/or the next Eldar codex 2-5 years down the line. Your current army will probably be useless, and you'll have to spend a bunch of money on the next broken thing.

It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about someone's personality, based on nothing more than how powerful their army list is.