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.
Fair point about the loaded words in the proposed thread title revision..

Here is another thread title that is longer but probably more accurate.

'40k rule and codex books fail to deliver the basic functional requirement for enjoyable random pick up games!But rather than play something else,lets see if you can make the best of a bad situation.'

In my experience all war games are basically competitive.(Players have opposed objective to with the game.)

Games with clearly defined and intuitive rules are fast paced and fun to play.
(No 'rules lawyers' can force an intent that was not part of the developers planned game play.)

Games with focus on game play tend to be heavily play tested ,( and often take feed back from player groups.)To ensure an enjoyable experience for players .
So players see all games they play of that game system as a worthwhile use of their time.

This is true of all good narrative based war games, and all good war games balanced enough for random pick up games.

I think there is a clear distinction between people who expect a quality product for the price GW plc charge .
EG
The rules to be well written , professionally proof read and edited.
Any point values and F.O.C. used are there to facilitate enjoyable random pick up games.

When GW plc does not meet this expectation , these customers are understandably upset.

And people who accept that the product they have bought is defective.But know that GW plc is not going to bother improving the quality.So decide to try to make do with the poor quality GW plc have sold them.

This can be done by just using the most cost effective options available.To allow more competitive players to enjoy the games they play.

However, the level of imbalance away from the top end 'uber competitive' mind set is vast.

So the 'casual players' can still call each other names if their particular idea of of balance is far enough away from another casual player.

It is more than likely all the name calling is actually in the 'casual' player group.As the tournament players are much closer in their mind set of how to play the game to have fun.

It is possible for a small group of players to put in the time and effort in to agree to have fun with 40k in the same way.

Beyond this , 40k is just not fun to play.This is the fault of GW plc , not any particular group of players.

 Blacksails wrote:
My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any) cries of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

Loborocket, I understand your post and I totally understand it. my issue isnt with that. it is with the total dissmissal of one side that the other has a right to a differing opinion. i dont care that someone disagrees with me. i only have an issue that they feel they are the only ones that have a right to their opinion.
by the way, calling someone a "insert derogatory name such as apologist for example" is name calling. Saying someone is doing something(insert verb such as trolling for example" is addressing an action and not the person so is not name calling. There is a huge difference. One addresses the person while the other addresses the behavior.
I would rather communicate with my opponant to discuss what type of game they want to play and bring an army accordingly. Thus A-game, I dont hold back or I expect to lose but do so in a fun and fluffy way. While B game (where winning is not the only goal) I bring whatever looks cool in my eye at the time or devise a pure fluff army. Either way, communication is key and I agree with the OP in that it should be done despite all the arguments to the contrary.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Loborocket, I understand your post and I totally understand it. my issue isnt with that. it is with the total dissmissal of one side that the other has a right to a differing opinion. i dont care that someone disagrees with me. i only have an issue that they feel they are the only ones that have a right to their opinion.
by the way, calling someone a "insert derogatory name such as apologist for example" is name calling. Saying someone is doing something(insert verb such as trolling for example" is addressing an action and not the person so is not name calling. There is a huge difference. One addresses the person while the other addresses the behavior.
I would rather communicate with my opponant to discuss what type of game they want to play and bring an army accordingly. Thus A-game, I dont hold back or I expect to lose but do so in a fun and fluffy way. While B game (where winning is not the only goal) I bring whatever looks cool in my eye at the time or devise a pure fluff army. Either way, communication is key and I agree with the OP in that it should be done despite all the arguments to the contrary.

Except there shouldn't BE a need for communication except what point level you want to play. Do you not really see an issue there?

Traditio,
Do you not see any difference between a 'WAAC TFG' player and a 'Epic Player', as outlined earlier in the thread?


Lanrak,
I don't think we're that far off in what you posted, until towards the end of your post.

In the last two lines you are saying 40k can't be fun for people unless they either play competitively, or the group formalizes an understanding of what is "reasonable" and what isn't.

That seems to be mostly true for the "Epic Player" group, but the "Casual" group, I believe, is a clear example of where it is possible for some groups. I know I've had fun, and so has my opponent, at times where we were neither competitive, nor did we pre-arrange alternate rules.

My conclusion is that some people won't have fun without a tight rulesset, but others still can. Different strokes for different folks.

(I don't blame players for GW's gak rules. But not being at fault and being unable to fix it are two different things.)

Bharring wrote:
Traditio,
Do you not see any difference between a 'WAAC TFG' player and a 'Epic Player', as outlined earlier in the thread?

No. Not really. I have a very strong suspicion that "Epic player" is just a euphamism for "WAAC TFG."

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

An "Epic Player" wouldn't necessarily:
-Cheat to win
-Use external situations to their advantage (such as calling the meter maid)
-Demean their opponent

A WAAC TFG would do all the above. Some "Epic Gamers" would, but so would some "casual" players.

To the "Epic Player", min/maxxing is, itself, a part of the game. So, any advantage they can eek out is fair, because capitalizing on every in-game advantage is a central part of the game to them. Note that they also want opponents who do the same.

A WAAC TFG want to capitalize on any advantage they can, but will probably cry cheese when the opponent does.

By contrast, the "Casual" considers the game something else. They love their WK and want to see it wreck some face. They want to lead their on-foot SM captain to victory over the endless swarm. They want to just hang out with others who enjoy the universe and roll some dice. They want a story to unfold.

Different things they enjoy, but that doesn't make either wrong.

Traditio wrote:
1. Does my list spam non-troop choice units?

"Spam: maximum amount or just more than troop choices? Remember much of these are scoring not just troop choices. In prior versions of 40k you needed the troop choices to score, now most units can score so a "troop" choice has little meaning.

2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units

Sometimes undercosted units were viewed as a way to equalize an imbalanced codex, now you can pretty much shop around so I cannot easily assign blame for using them.

, unit combinations or broken rules into account

GW regularly publishes formations that get some bonus or throwing in some psy unit can give a major buff: really hard to know what is competitive vs "taking undue advantage".

(and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?

I do not know about others but I tend to get insulted when someone feels they need to create a "handicap" at least you can try to hide it a bit in a scenario or play an army to it's comfort zone (raid vs. defend)

3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

Would said opponent know this is the target opponent you are looking for? Would they dare use anything different and make you upset?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

There is just no good way to be "fair" (according to these rules) and still even try to win.
There is a measure of dissatisfaction beating someone who is not giving it their all.
It is a hollow victory and confuses your opponent on these various rules.

If you are opposed to revising your list, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

Ha! typically I face the opposite, a very aggressive player who did not sharpen his choices well enough to ensure a win and wants me to change.
If someone demands from you in a loud voice why reward bad behavior?
Oddly, if I face a new player or my choices hugely outclass the other army I would request making a change to "try" to even-up the game which is a challenge all it's own.

WAAC and TFG tend to not be overly concerned with following rules which by definition is not REALLY playing a game.
Playing within the rules to the bleeding edge is trying to push tactics to the max, to drive competition.

I don't know about you but the trend of "we do not keep score, we are all winners!" suddenly makes me want to steal your prom date and kick sand in your face.
I want a good, honest, challenging win; why be so determined to hamstring yourself and not take a good honest win or loss?
It just defeats the whole purpose of WAR gaming, gentlemanly war is rather over.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

Or people who would I don't know.... want to play the game and see what crap they are and stop or just don't start. All you solution does is keep the die hard fan playing while the game die around them. Only the possible person who would disagree is a fan boy who believe once money it spent on something they have to keep playing or they some how feel like dumb, and can't figure out that models and fluff don't have to go with the rules sold for them.

Slayer-Fan123, So your saying that 2 players should not communicate? What is so wrong with friendly banter? discussion of tactics or compliments on paint jobs or even the communication needed to say "hey, want a game" and "sure, how many points".

the point is not that the rules are broken (each and every wargame in existance is imperfect and thus broken). The point is that such communication can alleviate that problem in SOME situations as a thumb in the dike stopgap method to help. This whether its 40k, flames of war or dust or whatever.

the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

Traditio wrote:
I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

This subjective minefield of a post does a better job illustrating how borked the 40k rules are than any "hater" could possibly hope to achieve.

 EVIL INC wrote:
the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

The problem that got this all going was the attitude displayed in the OP:

And there you have it. My probably poorly thought out, possibly too rational to ever be accepted, answer.

It's the whole "I guess I'm the only one good enough to think of something so braindead obvious, the rest of you don't get anything" that sent us down this fun road.

Talizvar wrote:Spam: maximum amount or just more than troop choices? Remember much of these are scoring not just troop choices. In prior versions of 40k you needed the troop choices to score, now most units can score so a "troop" choice has little meaning.

I defined "spam" at the bottom of the post that you quoted...you may have started responding to it prior to my edits.

Sometimes undercosted units were viewed as a way to equalize an imbalanced codex, now you can pretty much shop around so I cannot easily assign blame for using them.

Undercosted units are unfair to play as written. This is true by definition of "undercosted."

GW regularly publishes formations that get some bonus or throwing in some psy unit can give a major buff: really hard to know what is competitive vs "taking undue advantage".

Note the words "publically/popularly recognized."

I do not know about others but I tend to get insulted when someone feels they need to create a "handicap" at least you can try to hide it a bit in a scenario or play an army to it's comfort zone (raid vs. defend)

With all due respect, I don't think that anybody would claim that playing a wraithknight as though it were 350 points instead of the 295 points listed in the rules is a real "handicap." De jure, it's a handicap, but de facto, it's really not. Learn the distinction.

De jure: what is indicated by official rules
De facto: what actually holds in practise.

Would said opponent know this is the target opponent you are looking for?

Note, I'm not saying that you actually have to run such a list. I'm saying that you should assume, when you write your list, that you are going to be playing such a list, and that you are aiming for a 50/50 chance of victory, abstracting from player skill level.

There is just no good way to be "fair" (according to these rules) and still even try to win.

My point is that you should try to win after the game starts.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

WAAC and TFG tend to not be overly concerned with following rules which by definition is not REALLY playing a game.
Playing within the rules to the bleeding edge is trying to push tactics to the max, to drive competition.

No it isn't. You sound like that guy who plays a fighting game and insists on spamming that one combo move. Seriously. There's other moves. The fact that you can hit down, down, B doesn't make you good at this game. It makes you unpleasant to play against.

I want a good, honest, challenging win

Then follow the list guidelines that I set out above and dazzle everyone with your superior tactics.

But you won't do that, of course, because you probably insist on spamming the most broken thing in the codex...because you need a crutch to win. You consistently would lose in an even, fair match-up. Right?

Apple fox wrote:

Other games are being played, people feel empowered to play and when they lose feel like they can improve.

This, for me, is a key point.

While I'm still working on 40K armies from a painting/modelling POV, nearly all my game time now is dedicated to X Wing (and probably Armada, hope to have my first game next week.)

I've seen at least one person in this thread claim that other games suffer from balance issues, and cite X Wing as one of them. While there are defintitely optimal and sub optimal lists and options in X Wing (and Warmahordes and pretty much any other high profile system one cares to mention) the key difference is they aren't so far from centre that they feel insurmountable in the way that some 40K match ups can.

I remember tackling new Tau when they were the recent update with my Blood Angels. I wasn't running anything like an optimal list, but I wasn't running a bunch of gak either, but I do remember not only losing, but thinking afterwards that I couldn't see how I could have won if I'd done things differently.

Contrast that with X Wing where I've run lists that I've never played before and taken all of 20 minutes to construct against copies of world championship winning lists and still had a good game, been able to compete and, while I did admittedly lose, felt like if I played better or implemented a few tweaks, that I could have won.

This is a big weakness for 40K in it's current incarnation. List construction is too big an element and in game decisions are frequently being replaced with random tables. I wouldn't have half the issues I do with the current state of the game balance wise if there was more I could do as a player to mitigate it, but the reality is, barring the odd statistical outlier, that the strongest list on the table at the start of the game is going to win, and player skill in terms of in game play is nowhere near as important as it should be.

Noir wrote:Or people who would I don't know.... want to play the game and see what crap they are and stop or just don't start. All you solution does is keep the die hard fan playing while the game die around them. Only the possible person who would disagree is a fan boy who believe once money it spent on something they have to keep playing or they some how feel like dumb, and can't figure out that models and fluff don't have to go with the rules sold for them.

I'm not sure I understand. Rephrase?

 Accolade wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

The problem that got this all going was the attitude displayed in the OP:

The problem was not the attitude of the OP at all. The attitudes responding to him are far far worse. The problem was that he had an opinion that differed from those who replied to him. it is because his opinion differed or that he had the gall to disagree that caused the problem. i only stepped in because i feel he has a right to his opinion. One that I agree with in that it CAN be usefull in SOME situations. likewise, I feel that you have a right to your opinion in that the rules of the game need work (just as does any other wargame because none of them are perfect some worse, some better but that is not the point the point is that there are problems that exist at all.) and that that level of communication should not be needed because that too, I agree with.
But we have what we have and have to deal with it. We have the issu and thats the OPs opinions of how he deals with it in his gaming group.
Different opinions may be more or less valid nd that is even before bringing in the sources of the needto form those opinions. What I see all the time here is not issues with differing opinions themselves but outrage and vitriol at people excercising their right to have those opinions

Traditio wrote:


I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

I fail to see what about the rest of your post is simpler than what I wrote. Additionally, mine doesn't have odd rules, definitions, or nonsense about abstract concepts. Further, for better or for worse, the talking to your opponent is kind of important for 40k to function.

Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?

Already in your first step you have to define two concepts. Hardly simple.

2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?

More vague terms you won't get a consensus on, making it a meaningless guideline in reality.

3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

And why does any of that matter? What if I want to play a list with multiple MCs, or tons of flyers, or not having a blend of different units? These are totally random, arbitrary standards you're holding people to. In other words, its not simple, and its not fair for all players involved, as it actively seeks to limit player choice based on your arbitrary and/or vague concepts.

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.

Or...you could do as I listed.

And you know, play a list you want to play instead of jumping through your own totally arbitrary hoops.

*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

Why? Why does that matter? Why shouldn't players just play with whatever they want? Who are you to judge or make random restrictions in addition to the rules of the game?

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

Again, why? More totally random, arbitrary, and restrictive nonsense that doesn't actually balance the game or make lists fluffier. In other words, it not only fails at its intentions, but it restricts players needlessly.

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

So I can't spam some units, but I can spam chimeras all I want?

In short, your entire proposal doesn't do anything it actually tries to do.

It doesn't make the game more balanced, as different armies will suffer differently with restrictions. Eldar will still be significantly stronger than Orks even after all these restrictions, and I'd argue it'd hurt the likes of weaker codices more.

It doesn't make the game fluffier, as just about any combination of units from within a codex and using battle brother allies is entirely fluffy, and even some lesser alliances make perfect sense.

Its more complex, it doesn't allow for flex between players, and it assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing from the game as you.

Instead of all of what you wrote, my list is far more adaptable, lays out all possible options, and still lets players play with whatever models they so choose without being judged, labelled, looked down on, insulted, or generally frowned upon.

"Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people."
This is what both sides in this thread are saying. The fact that the rules need work is not the issue. A "perfect" set of rules would mean that there would be zero questions ever and that each and every single person in the entire world would agree perfectly on every aspect. As that will never happens, your right, there would always be some people who would not like or would like different aspects.

That is not the issue and is being used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that the whole controversy in the thread is that the OP expressed the opinion in that some situations a deeper level of communication could help use deal with the issue until it gets better.
You may feel that there shouldnt be that need to begin with. We ALL do. He and others are of the opinion that finding ways around it until it is fixed can allow us to still have a little fun. I see nothing wrong with him having the right to that opinion.

Blacksails wrote:I fail to see what about the rest of your post is simpler than what I wrote.

It's universally applicable and eliminates the need to work things out on a one on one basis.

Already in your first step you have to define two concepts. Hardly simple.

If you look at the definitions, it's really not that complicated.

More vague terms you won't get a consensus on, making it a meaningless guideline in reality.

Again, the key words are "publically/popularly recognized." I envision the following. A player thinks about running a wraithknight. He's not sure about this. So he comes on dakka forums and he sees everyone complaining about them, insisting that they should be at least 50 points more expensive. He then decides to treat the wraithknight as though it costed 350 per base model.

And why does any of that matter? What if I want to play a list with multiple MCs, or tons of flyers, or not having a blend of different units? These are totally random, arbitrary standards you're holding people to. In other words, its not simple, and its not fair for all players involved, as it actively seeks to limit player choice based on your arbitrary and/or vague concepts.

Note that I'm not claiming that you must use such an army composition. I'm saying that, when you are making your army, you should be comparing it to an army composition of that sort for the sake of determining whether or not your list is "fair" to your opponent. IE, you should be asking yourself: "Are there certain army types that my list completely shuts down?" If the answer is "yes," then revise your list. Don't be TFG.

But if you want to play only infantry, then fine. Go for it.

If you only want to play monstrous creatures, then, depending on which ones you have in mind, bring it on, maybe, just so long as it passes the guidelines. You want to play an avatar of khaine, one wraithknight (suitably nerfed), a few wraithlords, etc? That might be acceptable.

Or...you could do as I listed.

And you know, play a list you want to play instead of jumping through your own totally arbitrary hoops.

If you're interested in fairness, my solution is the best shot at it.

Why? Why does that matter? Why shouldn't players just play with whatever they want?

Fairness and balance. A game is fair if and only if both parties have roughly a 50/50 chance at winning at the beginning of the game.

Again, why? More totally random, arbitrary, and restrictive nonsense that doesn't actually balance the game or make lists fluffier. In other words, it not only fails at its intentions, but it restricts players needlessly.

You can say that it's totally random, arbitrary, etc. that doesn't balance the game, etc...but you haven't really supported this with any arguments. If you actually think through the consequences of how you would actually have to build a list if you followed my guidelines, you might think otherwise.

So I can't spam some units, but I can spam chimeras all I want?

Maybe. All 3 of my guidelines work in tandem. You have to be able to give the appropriate answers to all 3 in order to play your list and meet my guidelines. Note that 6th edition wave serpent spam would pass guideline 1, but it would fail guidelines 2 and 3.

What I had in mind was rhinos. So what if I want to put all of my troops in rhinos? Nobody is going to complain about rhinos.

It doesn't make the game more balanced, as different armies will suffer differently with restrictions. Eldar will still be significantly stronger than Orks even after all these restrictions, and I'd argue it'd hurt the likes of weaker codices more.

Ok. Propose two such lists that meet all 3 guidelines but are still unbalanced relatively to each other.

Its more complex, it doesn't allow for flex between players, and it assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing from the game as you.

I'm just looking for fairness. If you're not, then I don't really care about your opinion. That would simply mean that you have, at least to some extent, a bad and unjust character.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people."
This is what both sides in this thread are saying. The fact that the rules need work is not the issue. A "perfect" set of rules would mean that there would be zero questions ever and that each and every single person in the entire world would agree perfectly on every aspect. As that will never happens, your right, there would always be some people who would not like or would like different aspects.

Still gonna keep tilting at that particular windmill are ya?

you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

The game is broken. Play it the way you like when you can, but expect to play it as written in a PUG environnement. Deal with it.

 tenebre wrote:
you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

Finding pickup games in other wargames tends to be as easy as "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool!".

Traditio wrote:

It's universally applicable and eliminates the need to work things out on a one on one basis.

Except its not universally applicable because your concepts are so vague and will not find universal agreement.

Further, if you want to eliminate the need for discussion, then just go ahead and balance the game, rather than impose arbitrary restrictions. Tweak values, balance, play test, tweak more until you have a balanced codex for all the factions you and your opponents play. Telling people what they can or can't bring is not a good idea.

If you look at the definitions, it's really not that complicated.

Its not that its complicated, its that they either make no sense, or are too vague to get any sort of general agreement in a diverse group of gamers.

Again, the key words are "publically/popularly recognized." I envision the following. A player thinks about running a wraithknight. He's not sure about this. So he comes on dakka forums and he sees everyone complaining about them, insisting that they should be at least 50 points more expensive. He then decides to treat the wraithknight as though it costed 350 per base model.

Define publically/popularly recognized. Then, explain why that's relevant. Then explain why its needed such things be restricted. Then explain why using those things without restrictions makes a person TFG.

Note that I'm not claiming that you must use such an army composition. I'm saying that, when you are making your army, you should be comparing it to an army composition of that sort for the sake of determining whether or not your list is "fair" to your opponent. IE, you should be asking yourself: "Are there certain army types that my list completely shuts down?" If the answer is "yes," then revise your list. Don't be TFG.

No, you shouldn't be concerned with that. You should be concerned with building the army YOU want to use, not the one your opponent would wish you to use. Playing with a collection of models I like does not make me TFG, and your insistence on that makes you TFG for dividing, labelling, and judging people on their collection of plastic miniatures in a game.

If you're interested in fairness, my solution is the best shot at it.

No, no it isn't. We have a sub forum here called 'Proposed Rules'. Go there and propose in depth and complete balance fixes in a fan made codex. Make it look good and presentable. Offer it to be play tested and for feedback. Test it yourself. Change it, tweak it, improve it. When you've played dozens of different styles at dozens of point levels against dozens of different armies, you might have a good idea if its balanced and fair.

Telling people what they should or shouldn't take isn't fair. Not in the slightest. If you well and truly are invested in fairness, put your money where your mouth is, and develop a balanced set of codices that offer similar levels of freedom/variety the current books do.

Fairness and balance. A game is fair if and only if both parties have roughly a 50/50 chance at winning at the beginning of the game.

Then balance the game, don't restrict players and judge them.

You can say that it's totally random, arbitrary, etc. that doesn't balance the game, etc...but you haven't really supported this with any arguments. If you actually think through the consequences of how you would actually have to build a list if you followed my guidelines, you might think otherwise.

If you propose a system of not using multiple of 'X', some armies that are inherently weaker will not be able to maximize the usage of their best units they depend on to remain even a little viable. Books like Necrons and Eldar are universally better than other books, like Orks. Restricting Orks or Sisters the same way you'd restrict Eldar would still leave Eldar as a superior army.

Maybe. All 3 of my guidelines work in tandem. You have to be able to give the appropriate answers to all 3 in order to play your list and meet my guidelines. Note that 6th edition wave serpent spam would pass guideline 1, but it would fail guidelines 2 and 3.

And the point is that your guidelines are totally arbitrary and don't actually balance the game or make it any fluffier, while restricting player choices they'd otherwise have. Why should you be concerned about an opposing list that had a blend of stuff, and not just be concerned with a list of all tanks that was otherwise fair and balanced based on point distribution and blended weapon profiles for a number of threats?

In other words, if you really want to balance the game, then go ahead and do that. Universal restrictions don't help all armies equally. There have been dozens of threads on army comp systems (similar to your proposal) and each time they got shot down for the same reasons. They don't balance the game. They simply shift it, and even then, many of the current top armies remain top armies. Weak books need help, not restrictions. Surely you can understand that.

Ok. Propose two such lists that meet all 3 guidelines but are still unbalanced.

No because guideline 2 is not something that can be agreed upon or defined sufficiently, and guideline 3 is a totally arbitrary standard that makes no sense from either a balance perspective or fluff perspective. Guideline 1 is also arbitrary for the same reasons.

Stop thinking about restrictions, and start thinking about balance. Make a fan-made FAQ/Errata for the books, or write new ones entirely. That's how you fix things. Telling people to leave their favourite models at home is not the solution.

I'm just looking for fairness. If you're not, then I don't really care about your opinion. That would simply mean that you have, at least to some extent, a bad and unjust character.

Oh good, I have an unjust and bad character for letting my opponents play with whatever they so choose.

Explain to me how I'm the bad person for not judging people, not laying out guidelines and rules to follow, and not restricting their own personal choice?

For someone so concerned with character, you sure do spend a lot of judging other people based on their plastic miniatures. Remind me again how that isn't a sign of bad character? Something about judging a book by its cover?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 tenebre wrote:
you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

Finding pickup games in other wargames tends to be as easy as "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool!".

Indeed. Though a dick is a dick no matter what game they play; it is decidedly more difficult to game the system in WMH than it is in 40k for example due to a tighter written ruleset that leaves very little open to inventive interpretation.

Blacksails wrote:Except its not universally applicable because your concepts are so vague and will not find universal agreement.

The rest of your post is basically just more of the same of the above. So, I'll restrict my answer to this: Ok. What in particular do you find vague? For someone who is accusing me of being vague, you are being pretty vague yourself. You can contradict me all day long. That's one thing. Actually providing specific reasons that what I've proposed is unworkable or unfair is another thing.

Give me concrete examples of where the guidelines that I've proposed do not, in fact, make for a fair match-up.

If you can't do that, then you have no case.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going: "BLA BLA BLA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

As I said: Don't be TFG.

I'd definitely agree that being "a decent human being" is the best way to be. Don't be a bad loser, don't be an obnoxious winner, make friendly conversation with your opponent, and all the rest of it. Be nice. But I've never thought that list composition came into this.

Maybe this is because in the past I've been criticised for taking strong lists so it feels unseemly for me to be telling someone that they shouldn't use the models they invested time and money into. Or perhaps I also have a different perspective in that I've pretty much jumped ship from GW's games (still enjoy the fluff and models, but it's rare for me to get a game). I've never seen the kind of arguments and ill-feeling that WH40K can generate in less bloated and ambiguously-worded games Deadzone or Bolt Action, for instance. If you're having to examine each other's lists with a magnifying glass or tick boxes on what constitutes beardy cheese before the game even starts, maybe it's time to cut your losses.

If, however, you decide to stick with GW games, then...just accept it. I think that by agreeing to play the game you're implicitly agreeing to use the rules GW have provided, meaning that the other player can bring any list, as long as it's legal. By all means ask if they'll agree to your restrictions or house rules but if they say no, you've got to accept that too.

Traditio wrote:


You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going: "BLA BLA BLA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

No words...