Worried about powerful codexs? Just agree to be decent human beings.

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.

**Toofast**

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine wrote:For the reasons already mentioned: fun is subjective and different people have different ideas about what is fun, shaming people for taking powerful stuff instead of fixing the rules directly is a terrible approach to game design, people very rarely agree on what the appropriate power level for a list is, etc.

There is a disparity in opinion about what's fun. That's fine. There's less disparity about what's fair.

Do you think that a 295 point base model wraithknight is fair, both in relationship to the Eldar codex and in relationship to the other units and codices currently in the game? The general concensus, I believe, is: "No. That unit should cost roughly 50 points more."

Do you think that scatbike spam is fair? The general concensus is: "No. Either the rules should say that you can only bring 1 scatter laser for every 3 bikes, or else, each scatter laser should cost 15 points, not 10 points, extra."

Do you think that a 2++ rerollable save is fair? I'm pretty sure that the general consensus is "no."

Are there certain lists that you could bring against which a TAC list of a different codex would have much less than a 50% chance of winning? Is that fair? "No," you answer? Then don't run that list. It would not be a fair match-up.

Let's set fun aside, and consider fairness. You and I have different views about fun (for me, what's fun is pretending that my sternguard are actually megacity-1 judges who are using lawgivers. So instead of saying "kraken rounds: rapid fire," I'll say "armor piercing: rapid fire!" (This is also part of the reason that I won't even consider putting my combimelta sternguard in a drop pod...that's not how judges travel; they travel either on bikes, patwagons, landraiders (I kid you not; check out the Cursed Earth saga) or H-wagons.) You clearly like to min-max your codex and win the vast majority of your games. That's fine. You can have your conception of fun, and I'll have mine.

But a 295 point wraithknight is not fair, given the current configuration of the game, and I don't think that anybody disputes this.

And you'll tell me: "But the rules themselves aren't fair!" That's basically what the gentleman from Alabama basically said. That's fine. But nobody says that you have to take advantage of unfair rules. Everybody agrees that it's unfair to spam scatter lasers, or else, they should be 5 points per model more expensive? Then let your conception of fun be what it may, but play in a way that everybody considers fair: Either only equip every 1 in 3 bikes with scatter lasers, or else, when you write your list, pretend as though your bikes are 5 points per model more expensive. Pretend your wraithknight is 50 points more expensive. And don't use the 2++ rerollable invuln.

Will you have fun playing that 800 points list (which should be 1000 points) against a 1000 points list of a different codex? Maybe. Maybe not. But nobody will claim that it's an unfair match-up, and there's no rule that says that you have to bring 1000 points to a 1000 points game. And if you're a decent human being, you should value "fair" over "fun." Always.

I'm sure that you can see the general point that I'm making, and I'll leave it to you and to my other readers to abstract this point and see its application to other points of the game.

Except it isn't, because they're two separate things. You proposed option #1, voluntarily avoiding the overpowered stuff.

All that I said, the only conclusion that I drew, which, strictly speaking, followed from premises 1 and 2, is that the players themselves must come up with a way of fixing the game and making it more balanced.

I pointed out that there's a second option, where you change the overpowered thing so that it isn't overpowered anymore and nobody has to avoid it.

Which would still be the prerogative of the player, no?

That doesn't make any sense. "Exploit" implies that you're doing something dishonest and breaking the intent of the rules, but that's not happening here. It's clear that the rules say what they do because of deliberate intent from GW. People aren't spamming Eldar jetbikes because there was a typo in the codex and they cost 5 points per model, they're spamming them because GW deliberately gave them powerful rules.

"Exploit" may be the wrong word. My point is that he admits that the rules are bad and unfairly bias the game in his favor...and specifically purchased the model(s) for that reason. That's basically what he said. But if you dispute my use of the word "exploit," then replace all previous instances of the word "exploit" with "take advantage of."

Here's the problem, there really isn't a general consensus. Some people think 1 in 3 is the best fix for scatter bikes. Others think they should cost more points. How many? That's up for debate and will change from one opponent to the next. Some people think the WK is undercosted. By how much? Well now we have another debate. I go to the FLGS or GW to play a game, not to have a 30 minute debate with my opponent about which of my units need a total re write and how to fix them.

No, changing the overpowered thing to make it balanced is not the prerogative of the player, that falls on the people writing the rules. I'm happy to play against someone using ITC or NOVA FAQ and missions. I'm not going to have an hour long debate and re write half my codex. If they don't want to play me using the stats and point costs written in the codex, fine by me. I have plenty of opponents that will. In my meta, the people making ridiculous demands and telling people what they can and can't use in their list are the ones not getting games.

I still fail to see how you think it is on the players to write the rules. I paid $85 for my BRB and $58 for my codex. If I was just going to make the rules up before each game I could've spent that money on more models and paint. Sure, I take advantage of strong units. I use what I think gives me the best chance to win the game. When I built my race car, I used the parts that I thought gave me the best chance to win races. When Saban picks our starting QB, he goes with the guy that gives the team the best chance to win. I'm not sure why wanting to win an inherently competitive game makes me the bad guy. Humans are competitive by nature. The rulebook is 208 pages of "here's how you determine who WINS and who LOSES". There are no narrative campaigns or asymmetrical missions allowing both players to accomplish their goal. The only expectations I have of my opponent are they do what they can to win the game, follow the rules and be a good sport.

TL: DR It is GWs job to make sure my opponent and I have a good game, that is what we pay them thousands of dollars for. Trying to win doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human playing an inherently competitive game.

**Traditio**

Toofast wrote:Here's the problem, there really isn't a general consensus. Some people think 1 in 3 is the best fix for scatter bikes. Others think they should cost more points.

Either one would be fine.

How many?

I could throw different numbers at you, but if we were to take a poll, what percentage of (non-eldar) resspondents would answer "less than 5 points per model more than they are now"?

That's up for debate and will change from one opponent to the next.

To an extent that's true. But here is basically your argument: "Pretty much everyone agrees that they should cost more points. But nobody can tell me just how much more they should cost. Therefore, there's no reason that I should run them as though they cost what they cost." That argument doesn't follow. If everyone admits that they should cost at least 5 points more (but some people say 10, and others say 15), then what's fair is for you to run them as though they were at least 5 points more expensive. Here, just go with the majority vote. Majority says 5 points? Then 5 points is fine.

Some people think the WK is undercosted. By how much?

Supra. What's the minimum points increase that most people agree to? I'm thinking "50."

Well now we have another debate.

Except, not really. You know that the wraithknight is undercosted by roughly 50 points. That' why you purchased the model. You know that scatbikes are spammable and undercosted by at least 5 points per model. That's why you purchased them.

No, changing the overpowered thing to make it balanced is not the prerogative of the player, that falls on the people writing the rules.

It's hypothetically/conditionally on the player if the people writing the rules don't do it properly. You should never say: "Hooray, the rules are unfair. I can take advantage of this."

I still fail to see how you think it is on the players to write the rules. I paid $85 for my BRB and $58 for my codex. If I was just going to make the rules up before each game I could've spent that money on more models and paint. Sure, I take advantage of strong units. I use what I think gives me the best chance to win the game.

By taking advantage of what you yourself think are "bad rules." Congratulations. That makes you such a skilled and strategic player. [/sarcasm]

TL: DR It is GWs job to make sure my opponent and I have a good game, that is what we pay them thousands of dollars for. Trying to win doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human playing an inherently competitive game.

No, but taking advantage of unfair advantages might.

**Bharring**

I did try to start a minimal-changes to make Eldar reasonable. There were some arguments, but most posters were quite reasonable.

**EVIL INC**

the thing is, there is no such thing as a perfect game. Even the others that are boasted about have issues (the people boasting about them just dont mind those issues as much because of personal preferences). One being "better" than the other is just a matter of personal preference.
All players have access to all armies. If one person wants to complain about the eldar player having too powerfull stuff, they too have access to go and get the same eldar models. Or they can accept that the power balance shifts and that for a set period of time, they will be the underdogs and that when it is their turn, they will be more powerfull than the eldar.
Personally, If someone is a jerk, I wont play them. They have superheavies in a tournament, I dont play in it.
The real issue is not the rules but how we react to them. We can work together to get along and act decently or we can insult and call one another names (calling someone a "GW apologist is name calling and thus breaks rule #1 here by the way).
True, the rules are not perfect and it is easy to exploit aspects. you can do that in ANY game where there are options of what you can take and you dont have the exact same models and rules. Heck, if you played chess by "buying" the pieces for points, you would have people complaining about how unbalanced the game was because someone chose to take an entire army of knights while the other player took a smaller army of nothing but queens.
So yes, the rules are not perfect and are often wonky and playing with strangers can be a pain but we knew that coming into the hobby at Rogue trader. There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".

**Wayniac**

The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.

**Traditio**

EVIL INC wrote:All players have access to all armies. If one person wants to complain about the eldar player having too powerfull stuff, they too have access to go and get the same eldar models. Or they can accept that the power balance shifts and that for a set period of time, they will be the underdogs and that when it is their turn, they will be more powerfull than the eldar.

"Either accept the fact that your army, which you paid 100x number of dollars for, is temporarily useless, or else, purchase another 100x number of dollars army."

Really? That's what you're saying?

The fact that you even had the audacity to type those words...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.

The players shouldn't. GW should make sure that the game is balanced.

But GW doesn't. Therefore the players do. QED.

**Blacksails**

EVIL INC wrote:
There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".

You're not actually referring to GW as a hobby, are you?

Also, good work trotting out the old 'No game is perfect' argument. Totally flawless logic there.

Oh, and finally, look up the definition for apologist. You might be able to argue that in the context it might be insulting, but there's really not a better term to describe someone defending a controversial subject, you know, like the definition of the word.

Try again Evil.

**Peregrine**

WayneTheGame wrote:
If someone like Jetbikes, why shouldn't they take it? Now yes if they suspiciously all have Scatter Lasers it's an indicator the person might be a WAAC type but if it's a variety, maybe they like Saim-Hann.

This makes no sense. Why does taking a poorly-optimized mix of weapons suggest that it's a "fluffy" list/player? Did I miss a section in the codex where it talks about how Eldar like to take stupid weapon choices just for the sake of being diverse?

Also, perhaps the all-scatter-laser player's thought process was something like this: I want to play a Saim-Hann army because I love their fluff, so what's the best jetbike army I can come up with?

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
If someone like Jetbikes, why shouldn't they take it? Now yes if they suspiciously all have Scatter Lasers it's an indicator the person might be a WAAC type but if it's a variety, maybe they like Saim-Hann.

This makes no sense. Why does taking a poorly-optimized mix of weapons suggest that it's a "fluffy" list/player? Did I miss a section in the codex where it talks about how Eldar like to take stupid weapon choices just for the sake of being diverse?

Also, perhaps the all-scatter-laser player's thought process was something like this: I want to play a Saim-Hann army because I love their fluff, so what's the best jetbike army I can come up with?

If you played orks, I imagine that you would be singing a different tune. Basically, what your posts in this thread have amounted to is: "But I like winning, even if that means that I get to enjoy unfair advantages. Why shouldn't I enjoy my unfair advantages and milk them for all that they're worth?"

**MWHistorian**

EVIL INC wrote:
There is a reason this is a "hobby" while other games are just 'games".

That's only said by GW apologists and is perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Infinity, Warmachine, Maliefaux are all part of the same hobby.
I convert, make scenery, paint, make lists for those games.
Look outside of GW and you'll find a whole world of gaming and yes, 'hobbying' too.

Edit: Oh, and "Just buy a stronger army is the second dumbest thing I've heard."

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Either one would be fine.

That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that way. If you voluntarily pay an extra 5 points per model for jetbikes some people will complain about "WAAC TFG cheese spam" and insist that you pay 10 points per model, limit yourself to taking one unit, etc. Then if you give them what you want you'll lose horribly against the other guy that thinks 5 points is an appropriate change and builds their army to that power level. As long as you're depending on unwritten rules, social pressure, and voluntary avoidance of "cheese" you're going to have this problem. The only way to fix it is to get everyone to agree on the necessary changes to the rules (point costs, 0-1 limits, etc), make them explicit, and then accept that this is how the game works and you no longer have any right to complain about "cheesy" army lists.

**Blacksails**

MWHistorian wrote:

Edit: Oh, and "Just buy a stronger army is the second dumbest thing I've heard."

He's on a roll.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
If you played orks, I imagine that you would be singing a different tune. Basically, what your posts in this thread have amounted to is: "But I like winning, even if that means that I get to enjoy unfair advantages. Why shouldn't I enjoy my unfair advantages and milk them for all that they're worth?"

You realize I don't play Eldar, right?

**EVIL INC**

WayneTheGame wrote:
The other, bigger issue is why should the players have to fix rules that run over $100 for the game rules and how to use their army (if not even more due to supplements)? Name one other game that does the same thing.

Because thats exactly what you have to do with any game you play whether it be 40k, warmachine chess tic tac toe or even rock paper scissors.
The game is cyclic, this week eldar are at the top, next week marines, week after orks. This is why we pick the army we like the looks and feel of. If winning is the only thing your worried about, you will complain. if your looking at the hobby (other games such as warmachine, Maliefaux and so forth are just games) you will enjoy collecting and painting and painting an army win or lose knowing that in turn, yours will be at the top.

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Either one would be fine.

That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that way. If you voluntarily pay an extra 5 points per model for jetbikes some people will complain about "WAAC TFG cheese spam" and insist that you pay 10 points per model, limit yourself to taking one unit, etc. Then if you give them what you want you'll lose horribly against the other guy that thinks 5 points is an appropriate change and builds their army to that power level. As long as you're depending on unwritten rules, social pressure, and voluntary avoidance of "cheese" you're going to have this problem. The only way to fix it is to get everyone to agree on the necessary changes to the rules (point costs, 0-1 limits, etc), make them explicit, and then accept that this is how the game works and you no longer have any right to complain about "cheesy" army lists.

Your point only holds on the assumption that people will attempt to maximize every advantage that they can under every possible rule set, ie., that the WAAC TFG is going to be WAAC TFG no matter what the rules are. Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG (not, of course, that I'm calling you any such thing).

As I said, when you compose your army list, take the following into account:

1. How would this fare against a standard TAC list composed mainly of infantry, some vehicles, maybe one or two fliers and up to one or two MC or GC (and which does not spam non-troop choice units)?

2. Does my list take account of underpriced/overpowered units, unit combinations or broken rules?

If the answer to 2 is "no," then revise your list.

If the answer to 1 is "such a list has much less than 50% chance of winning against my list," then revise your list.

Or else, be prepared to be labeled a WAAC TFG. It's really that simple, despite all the fluff and smoke that you competitive players have been raising.

**Blacksails**

EVIL INC wrote:

Because thats exactly what you have to do with any game you play whether it be 40k, warmachine chess tic tac toe or even rock paper scissors.

No.

No you don't.

Certainly not your last three examples, and your first one is to a much, much less degree of severity.

Come now, are you even trying?

**Martel732**

"Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG"

But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?

**Traditio**

Martel732 wrote:
"Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG"

But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?

Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Your point only holds on the assumption that people will attempt to maximize every advantage that they can under every possible rule set, ie., that the WAAC TFG is going to be WAAC TFG no matter what the rules are. Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG (not, of course, that I'm calling you any such thing).

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the fact that people can have fun in ways that you don't enjoy? Taking the best options and playing competitively does not make a player a WAAC TFG.

1. How would this fare against a standard TAC list composed of infantry, some vehicles, maybe one or two fliers and up to one MC or GC?

Why should I care about how it fares against a bad list? A list with a random mix of stuff is not a TAC list, it's a poorly-optimized list. A TAC list is one that can take on any potential opponent and expect a reasonable chance of winning. So, for example, Eldar jetbike + D-weapon spam is a pretty good TAC list.

If the answer to 1 is "such a list has much less than 50% chance of winning," then revise your list.

Why? Did you forget the fact that not everyone plays that kind of poorly-optimized list? Sure, if you're about to play a newbie with their first battleforce list you should probably tone down your tournament list so that you don't slaughter them mercilessly. But if your fellow players all enjoy playing competitively and consider list optimization a fun challenge then why should you spend even a moment of thought on how your list performs against a hypothetical opponent that you aren't playing against?

It's really that simple, despite all the fluff and smoke that you competitive players have been raising.

And here's where you're just hilariously wrong. I don't even play competitively in 40k, I'm just pointing out the fact that the things you enjoy are just the things you enjoy, not the objective One True Way To Have Fun you seem to think they are.

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:You realize I don't play Eldar, right?

Mea culpa. One of your previous posts gave me the impression that you play eldar.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

The game begins at list construction. Like it or not this is a game where designing a good list is part of being a good player.

**Martel732**

Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG"

But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?

Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

It's not fair to take legal choices from a codex?

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:Why should I care about how it fares against a bad list? A list with a random mix of stuff is not a TAC list, it's a poorly-optimized list.

It's a list which is obviously favored by 1. the CAD FOC and 2. the fluff. [And I'll here pass by a discussion of the points system and how "poorly-optimized" and "well-optimized" should not even be an issue, given the points system. That's just more of the WAAC TFG mindset, imho.]

And here's where you're just hilariously wrong. I don't even play competitively in 40k, I'm just pointing out the fact that the things you enjoy are just the things you enjoy, not the objective One True Way To Have Fun you seem to think they are.

Again, I don't care about fun. I'm not talking about fun. This notion of "fun" should not even come up in this context. I'm talking about fairness.

**Bharring**

How am I automagically a "GW apologist" for believing that, with the game the way it is, we shouldn't be douchebags to each other?

I'd rather GW wrote rules better. In some cases it just boggles the mind. But even with things imperfect, it can still be fun to play a game. And so there are some people who say "Being an asshat makes the game worse", who don't mean to excuse GW's rule-writing failures.

Its like claiming that people who say you shouldn't leave your car unattended while the keys are in the ignition and the door is unlocked are apologizing for car theives. Such an unreasonable leap.

**Traditio**

Martel732 wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG"

But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?

Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

It's not fair to take legal choices from a codex?

Abstractly? Yes. Concretely? Possibly not. It depends on the concrete conditions of the game.

**Martel732**

Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"Hey, I have an idea: stop being a WAAC TFG"

But why should I have to stop trying to win because GW can't write rules?

Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

It's not fair to take legal choices from a codex?

Abstractly? Yes. Concretely? Possibly not. It depends on the concrete conditions of the game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAAC TFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.

**Traditio**

Martel732 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAAC TFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.

Your question, Martel, is literally the following: "It's not fair to do everything that the rules tell me I can do?" Well...that depends. Are the rules fair? If the rules are unfair, then no, it's not fair to do everything that the rules tell you that you can do.

Again, it's really that simple.

But you'll answer: "But I didn't write the unfair rules! GW did!"

Sure. But you recognize that the rules are unfair, and you still take advantage of them. That speaks against the quality your character, not GW's.

**Martel732**

Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. The rules are the baseline problem, not the players. If you write good rules, then the WAAC TFG guy is basically back down with everyone else.

Your question, Martel, is literally the following: "It's not fair to do everything that the rules tell me I can do?" Well...that depends. Are the rules fair? If the rules are unfair, then no, it's not fair to do everything that the rules tell you that you can do.

Again, it's really that simple.

Why are the rules unfair to begin with?

**EVIL INC**

Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Nobody is asking you to stop trying to win. By all means, try to win...fairly, and after the game has started.

The game begins at list construction. Like it or not this is a game where designing a good list is part of being a good player.

Exactly. You will find people who are just horrible at list building. likewise, players who enjoy playing the game period and just want to have quality time with their buddies.

Bharring, any time you see someone calling you that, just report the post. it is breaking rule #1 of the site. these are all mere differences of opinion and as the saying goes, opinions are like...well, you know what they are like and that we all have one. Saying that one is more valid than another or putting down, insulting or calling someone names just because it differs from their own is just rude and impolite. i know others disagree with mine but you have never seen me put them down for it. it is healthy to be able to have open and polite discussions concerning our likes and dislikes. just, not everyone understands that others should have the right to be treated with the same dignity and respect they want for themselves when it differs.

**Bharring**

I'm fairly sure its "legal" to wait until after the game begins to, say, put a call in to whoever that your opponent's car is illegally parked. Then call it a forfeit when he runs to pay the meter (or whatever). But I'm sure most wouldn't call that 'fair'.