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.

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

So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?

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

Or because you play in an area where people don't use low-power lists like your example in #3, so the fact that everyone in the group would crush the #3-style lists is irrelevant.

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

Any idea how many games I played setting up both sides of a game, letting my opponent pick a side, then switch at the end and play again?
I lost count, but in those special amazing cases they were fun as heck.
Notice this requires a complete customized list for both sides and a suitable scenario.
To try to achieve the much sought-out nail biting to the end game.

Those "guidelines" are just another house rule you place on yourself while failing to inform your opponent: that's nice.

I should summon Peregrine on his fine treatise on how what few things not determined by a dice roll, is your army list, that is why so much emphasis is placed on it: tactics tend to be watered down a bit with all the heavily random elements that is 40k.
That is why so many units with high probability of success or modify/bypass certain elements of the rules are the preferred choice you get to actually perform some successful 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?

I think I am detecting the holier than thou attitude that was being pointed out... takes me a bit to notice but beat me over the head enough...

<sigh> I really need to go look at your definition of "spam", I do have some concepts of broken but there are so many examples across so many codex's that I really wonder if "broken" is the new normal.

I have played many times with the classic example of a "balanced" force and at least in my local meta: that is not what you face... things have ramped up a bit grasshopper.
So please contact them and let them know the new rules... or should I inform them I would like to go back to kinder and gentler times.

"Need a crutch to win." Hehehe... ooh! that is beyond the pale insulting... no idea of the person at the other end, hehe. Gaming is a target rich environment for the WAAC players you keep talking about, victims are easy to find. I do not need them or want them. Tighten up your game, you beat me good and square according to rules as written and you will get a firm handshake and a smile.

I have no idea if I will lose or win because your concepts of "even" and "fair" are nebulous, I would be happy to agree to a game with various "house rules", it is still then a game (where both parties agree).
Just do not expect me to read your mind and to actually understand how being nice, polite and joke but play my hardest within the rules and I would still be a TFG?

Peregrine wrote:So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?

I don't know what a ratling is. But chances are, if you yourself are calling it a "spam list," then yes, probably.

Or because you play in an area where people don't use low-power lists like your example in #3, so the fact that everyone in the group would crush the #3-style lists is irrelevant.

An objection to the guidelines that I've proposed is not "but people don't play like that." For obvious reasons.

Traditio wrote:


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 accuse me of being vague, you are being pretty vague yourself.

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.

Vague notions include usage of popular undercosted overpowered units.

First of all, how do you define if its popular or not?

Second of all, how powerful does it have to be? How overpowered or undercosted?

Third, how do you determine that? Again, just by popularity/consensus? By who, from where?

The rest of your solutions don't actually address game balance issues, and hurt fluffy armies.

Finally, I play Guard, a notably mid to bottom tier army. I've always played either blob guard, or mechanized with armoured support, both of which are hardly overpowered.

Really, all you're doing when you say gak like that is making yourself out to be the TFG you're so against who's so ready to judge, insult, and otherwise dismiss based on something as childish and trivial as a list of models for a game. You can take your condescension and general rudeness elsewhere, because assuming things about someone does nothing to further the discussion.

You've made that mistake once in this thread already, I figured you would have learned. Clearly not.

If you wish to continue this discussion, you need to apologize for this;

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.

And learn to discuss your points without this sort of nonsense.

And again, if you really, well truly intend on trying to create a fair and balanced game, then actually make the game balanced by tweaking points costs and profiles. You want to talk about fair and just, that's fair and just. Let players play with what they want and simply make all the options on a level playing field.

Traditio wrote:
I don't know what a ratling is. But chances are, if you yourself are calling it a "spam list," then yes, probably.

An IG sniper unit pretty much universally considered to be garbage. A list that spams them would be seriously hurting its chances of winning by doing so. But yet you're willing to call it a WAAC TFG list based on nothing more than the fact that it has the word "spam". This is a pretty clear sign that your "simple rules" for balancing the game are hopelessly broken.

An objection to the guidelines that I've proposed is not "but people don't play like that." For obvious reasons.

And that's the problem: you've created a system that maybe works ok in your own group of friends, but utterly fails to handle groups that don't share your opinions on the game. Once again you fail to understand any perspective that isn't your own.

 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.

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.

And that is the problem and why it well not be fixed. But like I said it is hard for the ones helping to kill the game to understand the are. One way brings in new people, the other slows the bleeding.

Blacksails wrote:Vague notions include usage of popular undercosted overpowered units.

It's really not.

First of all, how do you define if its popular or not?

Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Second of all, how powerful does it have to be? How overpowered or undercosted?

At all. If it's overpowered or undercosted at all, you need to take it into account, for the sake of fairness, when you write your list. This is analytic to the notions of "overpowered" and "undercosted."

Third, how do you determine that? Again, just by popularity/consensus? By who, from where?

Supra.

The rest of your solutions don't actually address game balance issues, and hurt fluffy armies.

How?

Finally, I play Guard, a notably mid to bottom tier army. I've always played either blob guard, or mechanized with armoured support, both of which are hardly overpowered.

Imperial guard consistently pwn casual space marine lists. They bring overwhelming numbers and can spam pie plates. In fact, they can spam AV 14 vehicles which shoot pie plates. I have no sympathy for IG players.

I have already issued my challenge. Either step up to the challenge or admit that you're all smoke and fluff.

Propose 2 lists which would be an imbalanced match for each other, presupposing the guidelines I've set out.

Traditio wrote:


Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

You've shown your colours to everyone. TFG is an attitude, not a list. You're the one name calling, judging, and otherwise assuming things of others.

Instead of being so quick to label others as TFG, you should go and read through your own comment history.

It is 100% a flaw of the game if a balanced army sucks and can't win. Look at the type of armies GW sells and has sold in the past. Things like this:

Space Marine Megaforce (circa 2012?)
Captain
Command Squad w/Razorback
2x Tac Squads
Drop Pod
Land Raider
Scout Squad
Dreadnought

That, to me, is a balanced Space Marine army. It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units. If an army like this will get absolutely crushed by anything at the same points value (and I have no idea how many points it is, let's say 1250 for sake of discussion) then it's a flaw of design because it's actively punishing the player who DOESN'T just spam OP units, you know the opposite of what "forge the narrative" and "spirit of the game" are supposed to be encouraging. A narrative, fluffy player shouldn't want to spam bikes just because bikes are OP, they should be wanting to play a force that's fairly true to the source material. So sure you could take some bikes, up to 20 (two assault squads worth), but you shouldn't ONLY take bikes because that's not how a Battle Company operates.

And therein is the big problem. The game, for all the talk of narrative and casual and beer and pretzel play, seems to be ENCOURAGING spamming OP units and not taking balanced or fluffy lists.

To put it another way: What kind of player am I for bringing that to a game? The answer, if you're curious, is one who gets frustrated and gives up after having my fluffy army stomped into the ground by spam units because I choose to play fluffy.

Grimtuff wrote:Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

I didn't. I had to look it up on 1d4chan. Thus strengthening my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

Sup, pot! Have you met kettle?

And, with all due respect, if I am in error about your motivations, then my apologies. But that's how you come off. What you are effectively defending is the "liberty" of the player to spam cheesy units. That makes me seriously question why you would be defending such a thing.

Traditio wrote:
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.

And right on schedule there's the judgement of other players' motives. Why are you so obsessed with judging the purity of everyone's motives? Why can't you just accept that some people buy models because they look cool or because they like the fluff without trying to dismiss them as a tiny minority or "prove" that they "really want overpowered stuff and are just using fluff as an excuse".

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.

And they do. No matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise army construction is part of the game. If we agree to a 1500 point game we have the exact same chance of winning (at least in terms of list strength) because we can make the same army construction choices. If I take overpowered units you can take the same overpowered units and we're both equal. The fact that you make bad decisions and bring a weaker list with your 1500 points doesn't mean that you didn't start with an equal chance.

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.

This is not true at all, because the game begins at the start of list construction (if not earlier). Talking about how much of a point advantage once lists are written is a meaningless statement because we're already playing the game. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the game in the middle of turn 3, discovering that you have fewer points on the table because you've taken heavier casualties, and demanding that you get to add some more units to your army to bring the game back to 50/50.

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.

Then it's your fault for playing orks when you can't come up with a decent list for them. Don't blame me for your decision not to play a better army (like Eldar). The game was still fair when it started, you just made bad decisions and put yourself at a disadvantage.

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

And the game begins at the start of list construction (if not earlier). Please stop changing the supposed "beginning" to a much later point in the game just because it suits your argument.

Traditio wrote:



Sup, pot! Have you met kettle?

Then find the posts where I called people names, assumed things and insulted their ability to play a game in order to dismiss an argument or credibility or was otherwise unnecessarily rude.

I will apologize for each and every instance if you can find them.

For topic reasons, a PM will suffice.

Traditio wrote:
They bring overwhelming numbers and can spam pie plates. In fact, they can spam AV 14 vehicles which shoot pie plates. I have no sympathy for IG players.

Sounds like you're just bad at the game. Pie plates are not a major threat because you're usually hitting 3-4 models with a good shot, and probably giving up a cover save. Most IG players understand that the pie plate LRBTs are mediocre units at best.

Peregrine wrote:Then it's your fault for playing orks when you can't come up with a decent list for them. Don't blame me for your decision not to play a better army (like Eldar)

This is basically what your argument comes down to. If you're saying this, then there's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.

And I refuse to admit that the game starts before the game starts (which is, let us note, when dice start rolling, and not a moment before). You disagree with me? Then cite the relevent portion of the BRB.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Traditio wrote:


Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

More importantly, how is someone with such a shallow knowledge of the game in any way feeling justified in lecturing the rest of us how to play?

If you don't know what one of the trademark IG units is, that pretty much tells me you don't know what you're talking about re: the wider game in general.

Traditio wrote:

And, with all due respect, if I am in error about your motivations, then my apologies.

You are absolutely in error. Claiming I'm a terrible player and using it as a means to discredit my position is no way to discuss anything.

But that's how you come off. What you are effectively defending is the "liberty" of the player to spam cheesy units. That makes me seriously question why you would be defending such a thing.

I defend such a thing because there's more to building a list than needing to win beyond all reason.

I like tanks, and I like infantry. Why should you judge, insult, or look down upon my choice of units based on again, totally arbitrary restrictions you've made up that serve neither to help balance the game nor promote fluffy lists?

I'll wait for the apology though, still.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff

And this is where we disagree. I don't think that battleforce army is a fluffy list at all. It's a random collection of units (probably heavily influenced by profit margin decisions) that has no coherent theme. It's only a fluffy list if you define 'fluffy' to mean "the opposite of powerful".

 Blacksails wrote:
I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

You've shown your colours to everyone. TFG is an attitude, not a list. You're the one name calling, judging, and otherwise assuming things of others.

Instead of being so quick to label others as TFG, you should go and read through your own comment history.

When you post 90+ of your 120ish post on something like this, I think the problem might be something else.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units.

White Scars armies with massed bikes are very fluffy lists indeed.

IG tank companies, Saim-Hann jetbike armies... All fluffy.

Or perhaps 'lore-accurate' is a better term, since at this point the lore is not just fluff - it is what keeps many players from leaving for other games.

Traditio wrote:
If you're saying this, then there's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.

Or, once again, you're stubbornly refusing to accept that other people enjoy playing the game in different ways. Some people genuinely enjoy playing as competitively as possible against other people who are doing the same, and that includes picking a powerful codex. You clearly don't. But the point here is that your definition of "fairness" is just your personal opinion, not some universal truth about how the game works.

And I refuse to admit that the game starts before the game starts (which is, let us note, when dice start rolling, and not a moment before).

So deployment doesn't count as part of the game? Placing objectives in a good location isn't part of the game?

The OP has coupled legal choices within rules as an indicator of the nature or character of the person determined by his evaluation.

By society's definition and church I am a decent human being.

I do not appear to fit his definition.

After reading some of the insults bandied about, I would surmise a wee bit of hypocrisy is at work.

When I railed against the rules in 40k a rather sympathetic individual commented: "Who Rofl stomped you in a game and how often?"
I offer the same advice: you have most likely been beaten badly in the game many times and will not accept that many of your decisions have lead to your defeat.

Rather than seek changing others and labeling them "bad" just accept they obviously play a different game from you and can be good people.
I exercise the ignore button very infrequently but really am trying to seek some understanding no matter how painful that may be but it is getting tempting.

I will now thank the MODS for being patient, it is a bit like watching a train wreck.

Blacksails wrote:You are absolutely in error. Claiming I'm a terrible player and using it as a means to discredit my position is no way to discuss anything.

You might not be. What I said, admittedly, was a bit extreme and offputting. What I intended is something more like the following:

If you are not a terrible player (you, let us note, in general, not you in particular), then why the need to spam units? Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

I defend such a thing because there's more to building a list than needing to win beyond all reason.

Then what's the problem?

I like tanks, and I like infantry. Why should you judge, insult, or look down upon my choice of units based on again, totally arbitrary restrictions you've made up that serve neither to help balance the game nor promote fluffy lists?

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to give any actual reasons for it in concreto (thus my pot/kettle comment). Again, I repeat my challenge:

Show me this in concreto. Provide examples.

If you can't, you have no case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:So deployment doesn't count as part of the game? Placing objectives in a good location isn't part of the game?

By the time deployments are taking place and objectives are being placed, dice have started rolling.

Traditio wrote:
Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

Because the game begins in list construction.

 Ashiraya wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units.

White Scars armies with massed bikes are very fluffy lists indeed.

IG tank companies, Saim-Hann jetbike armies... All fluffy.

Or perhaps 'lore-accurate' is a better term, since at this point the lore is not just fluff - it is what keeps many players from leaving for other games.

And there's such a great discrepancy between some fluffy armies and others. Although I'd argue White Scars aren't ALL bikes, they'd be all mobile (the original 3rd edition "Just for Fat Bloke" rules required all units to have transports or Deep Strike). Still IMHO a game problem. The fluffy Saim-Hann player is going to stomp the fluffy Ultramarine player whether they try to or not because the power levels of the armies are way out of whack.

Peregrine wrote:Because the game begins in list construction.

If the points system is what GW claims it is, then you are wrong.

Furthermore, you are just obviously wrong. A game does not begin until the game begins. QED.

Traditio wrote:
A game does not begin until the game begins

List construction is part of the game.

Peregrine wrote:List construction is part of the game.

You can keep saying that as much as you like. I disagree that what you are saying is true in the precise sense that you intend it. Until you can back up what you are saying, I can dismiss what you are saying with the same facility wherewith you are asserting it.

It isn't really possible to have an opinion about facts.

Have you tried playing a game without a list?

 Azreal13 wrote:
It isn't really possible to have an opinion about facts.

Have you tried playing a game without a list?

Touche.

Note that I edited my answer to Peregrine.