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.

Bharring wrote:
How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

So, the fact I used quotation marks conveyed nothing to you, and the fact that it is a legitimate and factually accurate term to describe the position of a certain group (and I made no attempt to ascribe it to any individual) means nothing?

Troll has one very definite meaning in this context, unless you're going to try and argue that it is simply a convenient way of summarising another viewpoint. (Please do, that'd be hilarious.)

Azrael,
The quotations certainly didn't make it less of a pejorative. They did suggest that the label might not be the right one, but the rest of your post supported the use of said label.

You clearly attach the label to the preceding post, and any that agree with "that side". While the preceding post, and those it was agreeing with, were not apologizing for GW.

Troll, in this regard as used here is similar.

It is used as a pejorative. It doesn't fit with the class accused. It us used to frame the other group to align with a preferred straw man, enabling both groups to continue to talk past each other.

Both labels fit each of these facets.

"Troll" has much stronger negative connotations than "Apologist", but they both serve the same purpose in this conversation.

BlackSails,
I generally agree that your post is rational and valid, and up to the outline of a game you post, reasonable. That part had some hyperbole in it. But I agree with the rest of the spirit of your post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(TLR, your sister isn't the right woman for me.)

Troll has no legitimate application beyond the obvious.

Apologist clearly does, which is the manner in which I'm applying it. The quotations were largely a nod to those who insist on telling me what my intentions are.

Bharring wrote:

BlackSails,
I generally agree that your post is rational and valid, and up to the outline of a game you post, reasonable. That part had some hyperbole in it. But I agree with the rest of the spirit of your post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(TLR, your sister isn't the right woman for me.)

I'm not entirely sure what part was hyperbolic, but details I suppose.

And yeah, she's not much into gaming anyways.

Troll can be used to describe something that is big and green and hates fire. Not a reasonable use in the context, sure.

Either *can* be used without a negative connotation. Certainly nether here were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We could dig into that, BlackSails, but a little hyperbole is more reasonable than half the internet. Not really a problem. I don't think we need to sort the fine details out. I think we understand eachothers' positions.

Again, stop telling me my intentions.

In case anyone is interested, this thread's inching ever closer to a lock!

Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Peregrine wrote:I don't care what is statistically probable because individuals are not statistics. Unlike you I don't feel any obligation to question a player's motives for taking something based on what other people have done.

Translation: Statistically speaking, your judgment will be correct the vast majority of the time. But hey, that one guy (even though he's the exception, not the rule, and is literally one in one hundred) purchased his wraithknight just because it looks cool and for no other reason.

Ok. I mean, I'm not impressed by this, but ok.

But those things aren't the same. You're assuming that a fair game is one in which both players have the same total value of stuff in their lists, when in reality that's just your personal preference.

A game is fair if and only if both players have a proportionally equal chance of winning, apart from player skill, at the very beginning of the game.

Another player might define a "fair" game as one where each player has the same point total to spend, regardless of how intelligently they spend their points.

And he would be wrong. In principle, the points system is supposed to give us strict proportional equality. In practice, they don't.

You're certainly entitled to play the game that way and try to find other people who share your goals, but please stop assuming that your personal opinions are universal truth.

I'm simply assuming that fairness = justice = proportional equality. If you disagree with me, you disagree with Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Except we do have the same resources. We both had 1500 points to spend.

De jure, not de facto.

The fact that you wasted some of your points on weaker choices is not my problem.

You keep using these vague, loaded, emotionally-charged terms. There are, Peregrine, three possibilities:

1. I spent my points on overcosted units.
2. I spent my points on reasonably priced units.
3. I spent my points on undercosted units.

You might want to blame me for 1, but I'll answer that, given the points system, there should be no overcosted or undercosted units. That's what the points system is supposed to effect. But fine, blame me for 1.

Nobody can blame me for 2. But if you spam undercosted units and I only use reasonably priced (neither undercosted nor overcosted), then I'll be at a strong disadvantage of the start of the game. How much of a disadvantage? A disadvantage of however many points it is by which your units are undercosted, multiplied by the number of units that you're spamming.

But you'll still say that I'm "wasting" all of these points on reasonably priced units. So what you're really telling me, Peregrine, is that unless I spam the most broken, undercosted cheese in the codex, I'm "wasting" points. Except, watch what happens:

I spam, let us assume, the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Orks codex, and you spam the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Eldar codex.

I'll still probably be at a de facto points disadvantage. So then, Peregrine, you'll blame me for wasting points...in an 'inferior" codex. You'll tell me that I deserve to lose simply because I chanced to purchase the wrong book (in point of fact, I do not own an Orks codex).

You see how silly this line of reasoning can get?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that army construction is part of the game?

The points system is intended to effect proportional equality between units. QED.

The game starts when you start writing your list, not when you finish it and put models on the table. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the game is "unfair" and I'm "taking advantage of unfair things" because on turn 3 I have 900 of my 1500 points still alive against your 600 points, and that I should give you an extra 300 points to make up for the "unfairness".

No, that's stupid. A game is fair if and only if both parties have proportionally equal chances of winning, apart from skill, at the beginning of the game.

It really says a lot about you that this is the only reason you can think of for disagreeing with you.

Humor me. Why don't you post your standard list?

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

To everyone else: Why don't you just drop the argument about the word "apologist"? It's completely irrelevent to the topic of the thread. If you want to squabble like school girls, you could always take it to private messaging.

Mustela wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

That still doesn't make it an insult though. If people are defending GW rules writing then they are defending a bad thing. It's not an insult still, it's just a statement of what's happening.

Loborocket wrote:
Traditio, Evil Inc.,

These people are trolling you. You might as well stop responding. I am not sure why the mods don't shut this kind of thing down, but they don't. This thread was basically over 6 pages ago.

This is a somewhat religious argument anyhow.

To some people winning and playing at the highest level of competition is the most important part of a game. If you are not bringing your "A" game then don't bother and don't get mad when I beat you. You need to get better. That IS NOT TFG or WAAC, it is simply being an "elite" player.

To others the competition and "how you play the game" is more important and less emphasis is placed on winning. So to them, the first group IS TFG and WAAC. It is a sliding scale depending on where you are coming from.

This happens in all kind of competitive endeavours and I think is just part of human nature.

Just give up making the the argument for being a "decent human being" it is simply not something the other side on the argument in this thread even wants to hear about and they think they are being a "decent human being". They are playing within the rules given to them by GW, so how is playing within the rules not being a "decent human being"? They just have different expectations from the game and are looking to get something else out of it than someone who wants for the game to be more "fair".

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Either way stop feeding the trolls in this thread. Which ever point they are trying to make (if they even have one.)

Funny I honestly thought that the OP is trolling when I saw the thread title. Just agree to be decent human being? Cmon the hyperbole not to mention bit of an insult to all disagreeing. Worrying? Dont worry be happy, whistle, GW logo, buys a codex with a grin.

And no it's not only people who bring only the A game or elite. It's also people who believe gentleman's agreement is a crap solution to balance problems.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Mustela wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

That still doesn't make it an insult though. If people are defending GW rules writing then they are defending a bad thing. It's not an insult still, it's just a statement of what's happening.

Sure, it describes what's happening. Other ways the term is used are holocaust apologist, slavery apologist. That's the kind of bad thing I'm referring to. Eldar, while arguably quite egregious, are not quite on that scale. It's unrealistic to expect people not to be offended by being compared to those things, however unintentionally, by used of a niche word. Also, unless it is an insult, the manner in which people have been using it makes no sense. No duh, they're defending their position. People do that all the time. What else does it mean?

It can still be a pejorative in that case. Think about racial comments. To keep it from getting too far off topic, consider this:

(I hope you don't mind, BlackSails)

"BlackSails is such a human."

Technically correct. But if an Eldar says that while refuting BlackSails points, its also clearly an insult.

Now imagine "BlackSails is such an Ork.". There are Orks. Calling an Ork an Ork may or may not be insulting. Calling a Human an Ork, especially when refuting his points, is probably going to be insulting.

So, when "Apologist" is used to dismiss arguments that do not apologise for GW, its at best a mistake.

Mustela wrote:
...Other ways the term is used are holocaust apologist, slavery apologist.

Now the thread should surly be closed as we are fast approaching the end of the road with Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bharring wrote:So, when "Apologist" is used to dismiss arguments that do not apologise for GW, its at best a mistake.

Apologists...don't...apologise. Dictionary. Now.

Edit: Apologists are people who offer an apologia. Thus, Plato's Apology isn't about Socrates apologising for corrupting the Athenian youth. It's about Socrates' legal defense in court.

I find it crazy that so much discussion has been about the term "apologist".

Martel732 wrote:
I find it crazy that so much discussion has been about the term "apologist".

I'd welcome you to the web forums but you have a good 9000+ posts on me.

You can't control or dictate what/how other people want to play.

You can however choose who YOU play.

Seek out like-minded individuals that approach the game the same as you if that is important to your enjoyment.

I prefer a more story-based almost, rpg approach to 40k. I much prefer scenarios, story-based campaigns and narrative style gaming. I don't enjoy tournaments or win focused leagues so I don't waste the time of those who do by joining their events. I politely decline games with TFGs. I game at home with friends that agree with or enjoy my style of gaming.

People that want to make 40k a sport aren't wrong or bad per we, we just derive enjoyment from the game differently. agree to disagree and find other opponents. Both of you will be happier for it.

Wow...this thread has taken a dive...back on track?

In my gaming group, we've never really had a problem with OP armies. I myself was the resident Tau player, and I didn't spam stupid units. I had 2 Riptides, but even then, within our own meta, they were rubbish (almost all Xenos armies I think, but very little Imperium). I had 1 squad of missilesides, no Farsight Enclaves, etc. Those spam oriented lists are just boring. And I don't think I have ever tabled someone or come out of a game thinking I was winning from start to finish.

On the other hand, our resident Eldar player was very intense, very badly wants to win, and can get very short tempered and tetchy. Fortunately this didn't equate to pure Eldar cheese. However, he did take elements of what made 6th ed Eldar so powerful, a couple of Serpents, bikes, and a Wraithknight. While it was possible to deal with this list, considering none of us like spamming powerful units the Eldar still typically came out on top. I think I only ever beat him was in a Kill Team game in a tourney to celebrate the opening of our local GW. My White Scars were taking heavy casulties until my last 2 bikes just decided not to die, and then the Eldar just ran off the table after a failed break test! That was a good day. However, his power gaming tedencies to come through. In one other case, I had done the rules for a zombies game for our group, and he decided he would take a Chaos Dreadnought (not the standard one but a Chaos variant that I can't remember) and a Warpsmith, when everyone else was taking infantry! The strength of the majority of the zombies wasn't high enough to damage the front armour of the Dreadnought in combat, which itself camped on a piece of scenery roasting them with a Heavy Flamer as they approached via the walkways. Fortunately I did the rules so he wouldn't get a massive advantage from playing it, and eventually it got swarmed when the scenery collapsed (more special rules designed for the game).

These days, fortunately, he is playing Chaos Marines, and he isn't buying the new 7th ed codex for Eldar. Now he doesn't have to worry about opponents claiming all his wins were down to his choice of army.

So all in all, within our typical group it's all good. However, one experience I had in a pickup game in that local GW is one that seems typical when you look at accounts of people meeting stupid power gamers. I was playing White Scars, and the opponent I'm facing is playing an Ork army, fully comprised of Ork Nobz with Mega armour, or whatever it's called. But what really was the icing on the cake, was that he also had some Forge World Ork bomber, that he used to drop countless AP3 bombs on my White Scars, removing a lot of them. I can't remember what firepower it had, but I knew that I had no chance once I realised what it could do. What really confuses me is, what sort of sadistic high do these people get off on, that lets them enjoy beating someone just because they have some big expensive model? Do they do it because they get some weird fix by somehow feeling superior to someone else because they have a better piece of plastic and that they beat me in an unfair game? The best games for me are easily the ones that have you on the edge, where it is so close that it doesn't matter as much who wins and who loses, just because it was so close.

It should really be GW's job to keep it balanced, but considering they have failed almost completely to do that, then we should just keep a mindful watch on what we decide to play. The game requires multiple people to play, so you should remember that everyone should be able to have fun. So when it ends, you can all easily say that you would like to do it again sometime.

tophit101 wrote:
Wow...this thread has taken a dive...back on track?

In my gaming group, we've never really had a problem with OP armies. I myself was the resident Tau player, and I didn't spam stupid units. I had 2 Riptides, but even then, within our own meta, they were rubbish (almost all Xenos armies I think, but very little Imperium). I had 1 squad of missilesides, no Farsight Enclaves, etc. Those spam oriented lists are just boring. And I don't think I have ever tabled someone or come out of a game thinking I was winning from start to finish.

On the other hand, our resident Eldar player was very intense, very badly wants to win, and can get very short tempered and tetchy. Fortunately this didn't equate to pure Eldar cheese. However, he did take elements of what made 6th ed Eldar so powerful, a couple of Serpents, bikes, and a Wraithknight. While it was possible to deal with this list, considering none of us like spamming powerful units the Eldar still typically came out on top. I think I only ever beat him was in a Kill Team game in a tourney to celebrate the opening of our local GW. My White Scars were taking heavy casulties until my last 2 bikes just decided not to die, and then the Eldar just ran off the table after a failed break test! That was a good day. However, his power gaming tedencies to come through. In one other case, I had done the rules for a zombies game for our group, and he decided he would take a Chaos Dreadnought (not the standard one but a Chaos variant that I can't remember) and a Warpsmith, when everyone else was taking infantry! The strength of the majority of the zombies wasn't high enough to damage the front armour of the Dreadnought in combat, which itself camped on a piece of scenery roasting them with a Heavy Flamer as they approached via the walkways. Fortunately I did the rules so he wouldn't get a massive advantage from playing it, and eventually it got swarmed when the scenery collapsed (more special rules designed for the game).

These days, fortunately, he is playing Chaos Marines, and he isn't buying the new 7th ed codex for Eldar. Now he doesn't have to worry about opponents claiming all his wins were down to his choice of army.

So all in all, within our typical group it's all good. However, one experience I had in a pickup game in that local GW is one that seems typical when you look at accounts of people meeting stupid power gamers. I was playing White Scars, and the opponent I'm facing is playing an Ork army, fully comprised of Ork Nobz with Mega armour, or whatever it's called. But what really was the icing on the cake, was that he also had some Forge World Ork bomber, that he used to drop countless AP3 bombs on my White Scars, removing a lot of them. I can't remember what firepower it had, but I knew that I had no chance once I realised what it could do. What really confuses me is, what sort of sadistic high do these people get off on, that lets them enjoy beating someone just because they have some big expensive model? Do they do it because they get some weird fix by somehow feeling superior to someone else because they have a better piece of plastic and that they beat me in an unfair game? The best games for me are easily the ones that have you on the edge, where it is so close that it doesn't matter as much who wins and who loses, just because it was so close.

It should really be GW's job to keep it balanced, but considering they have failed almost completely to do that, then we should just keep a mindful watch on what we decide to play. The game requires multiple people to play, so you should remember that everyone should be able to have fun. So when it ends, you can all easily say that you would like to do it again sometime.

Pfffft! Apologist.

The problem with putting the restriction on your opponent comes when you only/mostly play pickup games at a shop where you don't know who will show up, and often you don't have a lot of time to play anyways so you want to minimize the discussion beforehand. If the shop closes at 8 and you can only get there at 5:30, you aren't going to have time to play a game if you have to spend time discussing what is and isn't acceptable to play.

May I try to drag this thread back on topic?

The thread title states, 'Worried about powerful codexes? Just agree to be decent human beings.'

To me this first part of the thread title is saying the imbalance in the game of 40k is apparent to a lot of players.
Does everyone agree this is a reasonable statement of intent based on the thread title?

And so the people paid to develop the game and communicate clearly how the game should be played to arrive at a enjoyable experience for the players, have failed to do their job properly.

The inclusion of point values and force organisation charts in a table top war game is ONLY used to support random pick up games , and tournament type play.

If a game is supposed to be narrative driven, then campaign books with multiple scenarios are used to support the narrative gaming.Point values are not needed for narrative games.Just an agreement on what makes a cool story for a game.

So including point values and force organisation that have not been fully play tested to arrive at enough game balance for enjoyable random pick up games .
Does in fact result in a defective product, as the product does not support the function PV and F.O.C are developed for.

The customer buys GW publications assuming the point values and force organisation charts have been play tested enough to arrive at enough game balance to facilitate enjoyable pick up games.(As this is the case in practically every other game from other manufacturers .)

When this is proven not to be the case, what action should the customer take?

I understand some people would want to complain about being 'mis-sold' a product.And others would want to try to address the issues themselves.

The second part of the title,'Just agree to be decent human beings.'

Seems to imply if you have a problem with the lack of balance in the game of 40k, you are not a decent human being?

I have the pleasure of knowing several decent human beings in my gaming group.
David is a teacher who works with children with special needs.He uses craft skills to help develop their motor and social skills.
Patrick is a lawyer who still takes on lots of 'pro-bono'(Sp ) cases for charitable organisations.

Both these blokes are decent human beings by practically every definition of the word.

However , David always plays to win, he will work out the most cost effective options/combination in any game he plays.Its all part of how he enjoys his hobby.(Its just as much fun as painting minatures to him.)

Patrick just loves making up a back story for every thing he puts on the games table .(He is an avid RPG player.)
These two people can pick up most table top war games and have a fun experience playing each other.

But because 40k has such poor game balance and lack of clearly defined rules, they simply can not enjoy a game of 40k!

So clearly being a decent human being does not empower you with the ability to totally understand the complicated mess that is 40k, and be able to arrive at balance force lists instinctively.

As the PV are applied subjectively , (based on the opinion of the devs , from limited play testing.)And the F.O.C is finalized by the sales department.

How on earth can the players sort this mess out on their own?
Unless they spend a huge amount of time and money play testing lots of different combination to find out what combinations of units are about balanced enough against each other to arrive at enjoyable games.
(Eg do the game developers job for them , and reward GW plc for publishing poorly balanced games.)

Why expect people to pay GW plc for publications that are not fit for purpose, then accuse players that have issues with this as not being decent human beings?

A better thread title would be..' We know 40k rule and codex books are rubbish.But just deal with it because GW plc does not care about game play.'

I posit that decent human beings actively realize the failings of GW and play better games from companies that offer superior customer service at a more affordable price. But then again, that's my definition of "decent" in respects to wargames.

GW has created an almost impossible to balance system using the current army composition rules along with a single list format and their codex method of army updates. Anything is "CHEESY WAAC TFG" (which are scrub terms that identity themselves more than the people they point towards) when you cannot effectively plan to encounter it. Unit parity aside, given the broad spectrum of unit types alone, building a traditional TAC list is nearly impossible simply because of the variability you would need to engage while also playing a scenario (which itself can be random and requires further house ruling).

Every other better designed game features great diversity, but the to intelligent game design, list composition is seen as part of the game strategy (because it is) and is balanced as such with either two lists, when lists are constructed, or managing unit construction with composition limits/requirements.

If you bring a bad list in any other game, you failed that part of the strategy. You can them be coached and mentored into better composition to make for winning tools for tactical decisions. In 40k, if you bring a bad list it's "blame your opponent." It's 100% on GW for making a bad army composition system which is a majority of 40ks problems and also because GW actively encourages scrub mentality.

Warhammer 40k is a bad game and requires house rules to operate. There's no point in labeling people who take the best items because the rules endorse it. It's not an RPG by literal design as a PvP game. It must hold to such traditions of game design or it results in this cluster of the "Care Bears v WAAC holes" that you can see from other games that mix these elements.

I agree with you up until the suggested title, I think.

A better one - because loaded words might be fun, but are less productive, would be "GW rules aren't well written. But I believe the game can still be fun despite this, if we all try to avoid things we think are OP".

Now, as some posters have shown, this doesn't work for them, as they play for the challenge. They have been called hateful things, but I think "Epic Players" (or "Group B") is a reasonable label.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. Let's call them "Casuals" (or "Group A").

Both groups have reasonable, decent people (and probably terrible people, too). Different strokes and such.

The OP is most likely a "casual". And it appears that his "solution" will work for "casuals". But it is strongly suggested that it won't work for "Epic Players".

Does this sound accurate?

Honesty Bharring, I would be considered quite casual in my approach to gaming. I don't want to waste time trying to find a solution that GW should have found. If it's casual that this solution works for, why does it involve a lot of extra work ?

When I play a warmachine game I don't have any issues, I don't get told I need to tone down my list. (More often people ask for something specific so they can play there own).
It's unheard of with infinity and starwars here for sure.

And none of the board gamers we share days with go, hey mind toning down the game so I can keep up. They say, hey I am new so it would be great if you let me learn.
All in a casual enviroment.
We still all want to try and win, we all play as best we can, and are all friendly and help each other to create the best enviroment posible.
In that end the game of 40k is dieing out, by the end of the year I don't think it will be played anymore at all here.

Bharring wrote:
I agree with you up until the suggested title, I think.

A better one - because loaded words might be fun, but are less productive, would be "GW rules aren't well written. But I believe the game can still be fun despite this, if we all try to avoid things we think are OP".

Now, as some posters have shown, this doesn't work for them, as they play for the challenge. They have been called hateful things, but I think "Epic Players" (or "Group B") is a reasonable label.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. Let's call them "Casuals" (or "Group A").

Both groups have reasonable, decent people (and probably terrible people, too). Different strokes and such.

The OP is most likely a "casual". And it appears that his "solution" will work for "casuals". But it is strongly suggested that it won't work for "Epic Players".

Does this sound accurate?

Eh, I would say any game can be fun if you have people who have the right attitude about it. Heck, some people could probably make Superman 64 a fun experience! (I don't know how, I imagine it would involve a lot of drinking).

All of these issues always come back to the point of monetary cost. It costs at minimum $135 for the rulebook and one codex. Single plastic miniatures are nearly $30, and the game continues to inflate armies so that you get less and less bang for your buck for a 1500 point army. On top of this, the rules are purposely not put together well, with the only reason being cited for this is that it's "for narrative forging." As if that meant ANYTHING!

I go look up in the thread about Australian trade restrictions and see the language GW uses there, so I KNOW they can write stuff without loopholes. But they don't do that, they leave the rules purposely a mess so that people will always be clamoring for the next version of their codex- "man, I can't wait till they re-do orks so Gorkanuauts can maybe get better"....does that offer any intrinsic value in the product??

So you have to balance the cost of the rules, the cost of the models, both of which are ever increasing, and then the rules get recycled and balanced poorly. You try to build an army that's reasonable, maybe aiming for the 50% win rate goal... you're aiming to hit a point where your actions and your opponents actions dictate what happens in the game. But GW makes that nearly impossible! So we get back to the point we always get to: it's the player's faults! Why, why, WHY do we always get back here? Because we don't want to blame GW? Because we know they damn sure won't do anything about it?

It's just a really frustrating situation, and I see it as why new players look at this game and say "uh, hell no. I'll go do...anything else!"

Apple,
I don't think it needs to take much time. I got used to not taking more than one serpent. Once I was used to that, it took me no more time to put together a list than it would if I hadn't been trying to match my meta.

In my meta, it clearly works. We don't see Serpent Spam or Screamer Star, or even many IKs. We haven't codified any rules. We don't sit down and discuss what's reasonable as a group (admittedly, I have had conversations with a few people, to keep myself in check as I'm a TFG at heart, but I've instigated those conversations, and they are rare).

Doing "it" in a codified manner is indeed a very complex and problematic undertaking. But it can be done in an ad hoc manner easily and simply.

Bharring wrote:
Apple,
I don't think it needs to take much time. I got used to not taking more than one serpent. Once I was used to that, it took me no more time to put together a list than it would if I hadn't been trying to match my meta.

In my meta, it clearly works. We don't see Serpent Spam or Screamer Star, or even many IKs. We haven't codified any rules. We don't sit down and discuss what's reasonable as a group (admittedly, I have had conversations with a few people, to keep myself in check as I'm a TFG at heart, but I've instigated those conversations, and they are rare).

Doing "it" in a codified manner is indeed a very complex and problematic undertaking. But it can be done in an ad hoc manner easily and simply.

And that would mean taking units I don't want, making the game far less fun. Not to mention players feeling rather hollow about any games, the best way to fix this has been found and it's playing better games.

Right now, where I am no one really puts up with 40k anymore.
It's close to dead.
GW will have to change to save it, and they will have to change fast.
Other games are being played, people feel empowered to play and when they lose feel like they can improve.

GW has lost the faith it's players had, without the nostalgia they got nothing left.