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.

If Traditio believed what he was saying, he couldn't play 40k. The game itself is not fair by design (which links have been proven what makes fair game design by a game designer) and Games Workshop lies, cheats and steals. Their fluff is lifted, they sue the pants off everyone, and they're former CEO (but still on the board) wrote the most deceitful annual financial report statements...

Scratch that, Traditio is perfect for 40k. Much as you might call making less money doing bad, but it's not really, playing a busted game with Scrub mentality would be bad, but it's not really. It's Kirby logic made manifest on the tabletop. Just think of Kirbys definition of "decent" financials.

It all makes sense!

Also, would love to see his head explode when other game companies make fluffy lists centered around spamming one unit over and over. Evil Spam!!!

I dont' see how 40K can be unfair. Assuming Eldar are the best army and all of us have enough money to purchase an army of our choosing, we all have the option and equal access to the best army. If you were to choose a different army then you are purposefully putting yourself at a disadvantage. Saying 40K is unfair because you don't play a certain army is like saying tic-tac-toe is unfair because you just never use the middle box. I also don't see how playing an optimized Eldar list is at all fun if all you have is some spammy weblist clone that entirely removes the strategy involved in army building. If I did that I would just be robbing myself of the most strategically complex and cool part of the game. But, I admit that's personal preference.

I see how someone can be upset that their favorite army is weak, or that the game is unbalanced army-wise or whatever, but those things do not mean the game is unfair. My advice is that being okay with losing will improve your quality of life. Also, brainstorming ways to beat that unbeatable list your own way, or better yet actually doing it is another way to enjoy the game. The few minutes you actually spend winning is a poor return for a three hour game.

Mustela wrote:
Assuming Eldar are the best army and all of us have enough money to purchase an army of our choosing

Some people don't, which kind of invalidates that argument real quick, certainly not a second army anyways.

Unless you're advocating people sell their current army to re-buy in Eldar, and using that logic to claim everyone has equal access. Technically, you'd be correct, in a perfect world where an army could be swapped at will for full MSRP, or we all had unlimited funds, but in reality that is very much not the case.

People don't buy another army to be purposefully weaker either. They buy armies because of how they play, how they look, modelling/painting considerations, conversion possibilities, the background, and the power level.

The fact that some armies are more powerful is precisely why the game is unfair. Same goes for some units being more powerful than others.

Saying everyone has equal access ignores reality and the cost associated with buying an army. No player should be punished for liking something.

 Blacksails wrote:

Mustela wrote:
Assuming Eldar are the best army and all of us have enough money to purchase an army of our choosing

Some people don't, which kind of invalidates that argument real quick, certainly not a second army anyways.

Unless you're advocating people sell their current army to re-buy in Eldar, and using that logic to claim everyone has equal access. Technically, you'd be correct, in a perfect world where an army could be swapped at will for full MSRP, or we all had unlimited funds, but in reality that is very much not the case.

People don't buy another army to be purposefully weaker either. They buy armies because of how they play, how they look, modelling/painting considerations, conversion possibilities, the background, and the power level.

The fact that some armies are more powerful is precisely why the game is unfair. Same goes for some units being more powerful than others.

Saying everyone has equal access ignores reality and the cost associated with buying an army. No player should be punished for liking something.

When did I say anyone should be punished? I wouldn't call losing a game punishment.

I don't think you understood my post. Yes I'm advocating people selling of their armies to buy whatever the best army is, if winning is all that matters to them. Your armies aesthetic, background, playstyle and such may be a trade off for power. If power on the table is all you care about, and you're not whatever the strongest army is, then you made a mistake in gameplay by not identifying the best army.

The work around I AM advocating for the real world is that people understand the benefits and liabilities of their army and be more creative about how to go about winning if they are dedicated to winning with a certain army.

Hopefully I clarified that for you.

 Blacksails wrote:

Mustela wrote:
Assuming Eldar are the best army and all of us have enough money to purchase an army of our choosing

Some people don't, which kind of invalidates that argument real quick, certainly not a second army anyways.

Unless you're advocating people sell their current army to re-buy in Eldar, and using that logic to claim everyone has equal access. Technically, you'd be correct, in a perfect world where an army could be swapped at will for full MSRP, or we all had unlimited funds, but in reality that is very much not the case.

People don't buy another army to be purposefully weaker either. They buy armies because of how they play, how they look, modelling/painting considerations, conversion possibilities, the background, and the power level.

The fact that some armies are more powerful is precisely why the game is unfair. Same goes for some units being more powerful than others.

Saying everyone has equal access ignores reality and the cost associated with buying an army. No player should be punished for liking something.

This x100. Part of the intrinsic problem with 40k is that the units Bob likes might be way better (because reasons) than the units Jim likes, such that Bob will always have a better army than Jim without adding any other factors (e.g. skill). A player shouldn't be punished because they like Terminators, or Warp Talons or any other unit that's "bad" just as a player shouldn't unduly be rewarded for liking Jetbikes. They should, all else considered, have a roughly equal chance of winning a game; that's how balanced games operate.

This is what bothers me the most about 40k. The game espouses the "narrative" and "casual" and "play what you like" approach, but does absolutely nothing to ensure that it's still roughly a fair game if players do exactly that.

This is also why 40k needs MORE restrictions, not less. If GW plays "balanced" armies that are mostly troops with a smattering of elites, fast attack and heavies, then the rules need to enforce that. Instead, they let you do whatever you want knowing full well that if you do what they're telling you, the game is going to be unbalanced. That's always been the problem. GW plays the game in a very odd way (which arguably isn't a bad way) but they don't do anything to say what that way is and do absolutely nothing to ensure that if people play a different way that the game is still balanced enough so both parties have fun. It goes back to the "spirit of the game" concept that they push. They talk about the spirit of the game but don't enforce it, but at the same time say that anyone who doesn't follow the spirit of the game is a bad person (or to use terms thrown around here, a WAAC TFG).

I have a *ahem* collection of older White Dwarfs, the last one being from 2010. This was a CSM army from October 2010 (5th edition?), roughly 1606 points at that point in time:

HQ
Daemon Prince

ELITES
5 Terminators
10 Possessed w/Rhino

TROOPS
10x Marines w/Meltagun + Icon
10x Marines w/Flamer + Icon
8 Lesser Daemons (Bloodletters)
9 Lesser Daemons (Pink Horrors)

FAST ATTACK
2x Chaos Spawn

HEAVY SUPPORT
Predator w/TL Lascannon
Defiler

That, to me, is a fairly balanced army and indicative of what a typical CSM army should look like. How would such an army fare today on the tabletop?

Or look at the Crusade of Fire campaign, look at the army composition that the GW staff use. That's how 40k should be as far as army composition goes, but they don't do anything to enforce it.

Mustela wrote:

When did I say anyone should be punished? I wouldn't call losing a game punishment.

You didn't. I'm saying it. You implied that picking a faction that happens to be weak means you either suck it up, or buy a different one, which, as far as I'm concerned, is basically punishing the player for liking a faction for various reasons. I'll tell you its certainly not rewarding a player who happens to like Blood Angels only to find out they're pretty rough now.

I don't think you understood my post.

I'm pretty sure I understand the gist, but clarification is welcome.

Yes I'm advocating people selling of their armies to buy whatever the best army is, if winning is all that matters to them.

Which will only ever be the tiniest fraction of players that literally only buy an army based entirely around its power level.

For the overwhelming majority of people, power level will be of some concern, obviously, as no one enjoys knowing they have very little chance of winning no matter what they do against certain factions.

Your armies aesthetic, background, playstyle and such may be a trade off for power. If power on the table is all you care about, and you're not whatever the strongest army is, then you made a mistake in gameplay by not identifying the best army.

And that's my point; it shouldn't be a trade off, nor should it be acceptable to even think there should be a tradeoff, nor should any player have to suffer being a weak faction for completely unnecessary reasons. People don't entirely care about power level, but I'm sure most people would be lying if they said they didn't care a little about their codex's power level.

That's unacceptable, and not fair in the slightest for players to spend decades building, painting, collecting, and playing with an army only to find out next edition their codex is garbage. Not fair at all.

The work around I AM advocating for the real world is that people understand the benefits and liabilities of their army and be more creative about how to go about winning if they are dedicated to winning with a certain army.

Which isn't unreasonable, but what I'm going to ensure you understand is that it is not fair that some armies are better than others.

Hopefully I clarified that for you.

It helped.

For the record, when I'm saying 'being punished', I mean that a player is forced to eat some sort of unnecessary downside for liking a faction. In that sense, no, a player should never be punished for liking an army. Don't shift the responsibility and burden of balance and fairness onto the player, leave it with GW and don't accept that its totally fair because we can just shell out $1000 to buy an Eldar army.

 Blacksails wrote:
Saying everyone has equal access ignores reality and the cost associated with buying an army. No player should be punished for liking something.

I think you're confusing several different issues here:

Fairness requires that each player has the same opportunities available, and that's the case in 40k. Each player gets the same point total to spend, and has access to the same rules and models. The game might have a cost to play that is more than some people can afford or might not have enough diversity in options for others, but it's still fair.

Ability to enjoy the game is about whether or not a player can do the things they like and still get the results they want. This includes things like being able to win at an acceptable rate with a player's desired army/units, being able to play successfully on a certain budget, etc. How well the game succeeds at this depends entirely on a specific player's goals.

Good game design requires that the game accommodate the widest possible range of player goals (at least without sacrificing important aspects of the game). 40k clearly fails at this because a lot of players aren't able to achieve their goals.

So, a game that has only one viable list at a time and costs $10,000 per year to play is still fair as long as both players have equal access to that list. It's probably not a very good game, but it's fair.

I think Peregrine's explanation of why 40K is fair is much better than mine.

For the record Blacksails, I think that all armies being equal is ideal and would be in the best interest of GW. Unfortunately that's not the way it is. The main thing I wanted to get out is that one possible solution to this problem is to redefine how you enjoy the game.

In fact, I checked Crusade of Fire for a referece. These are the armies the staff use, IMHO perfect examples of what "proper" 40k armies look like; this is based off of what the armies are shown in the pictures only as some of them show only parts of the army:

Chaos Space Marines (World Eaters): Daemon Prince, Berserkers in Rhino, 2 big units of Terminators (DS?), Berserkers (footslogging), Bloodletters, Helbrute/Dreadnought, Bloodthirster, 2x Predators

Space Marines (Howling Griffons): Captain + Command Squad w/Razorback,Terminators, Librarian, Dreadnought, Tactical Squads, Assault Marines, Devastators, Landspeeder, Predator

Space Marines (Imperial Fists): Lysander, Librarian w/Veterans, Boarding Marines (?), Terminators w/Land Raider, Terminators (DS?), actical Squad w/Rhino, 2x Vindicator, Stormraven (or Stormtalon?), Techmarines, 2x Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind, Predator

Dark Eldar: Duke Sliscus, Lelith Hesperax, Jetbike unit, Scourges, Incubi, Wyches in Raider, Warriors in Raiders (x2)

Space Marines (Flesh Tearers): Chapter Master Gabriel Seth, Command Squad in Stormraven (?), Sanguinary Guard, Assault Marines, Chaplain w/Death Company, 1x Tac Squad, Predator

Chaos Space Marines (Red Corsairs): Huron Blackheart, 2x 3-man Bikes, 1x 6-man Bike, 2x CSM w/Rhino, Terminators, Vindicator, Predator, Unknown Chaos character*

* Purposely did not take daemon engines as he felt Red Corsairs were recent converts and would operate closer to a Marine chapter.

Space Wolves: Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf, Wolf Pack (?), 2x Grey Hunter packs (1x Drop Pod), Dreadnought, 2x (?) Wolf Scouts, Predator

Chaos Space Marines (Word Bearers): Dark Apostle, Possessed w/Rhino (?), 2x CSM Squads, Maulerfiend

Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion): Dark Apostle, Chaos Lord, CSM Squads, Cultists, Forgefiend, Heldrake, Helbrute

This is IMHO how the game should be played; these armies represent the normal 40k type of army, and again I ask how would these fare on the table now? The problem is that GW doesn't put restrictions anymore, and it's up to the player. How many people do you know who field well balanced, fluffy armies like this? How many spam OP units because they're the best? Why should someone who wants to play a fluffy army like the ones listed here be unduly punished? These sort of things really turn me off from the idea of playing 40k again every time that I think about starting, because any army I build would be much closer to the ones here than the kind of crap you tend to see discussed, and I don't want to start playing the game again if I'm going to get steamrolled every game because of it.

Mustela wrote:
I think Peregrine's explanation of why 40K is fair is much better than mine.

I don't entirely agree with Peregrine's breakdown, as I feel its a little sterile and ignores the practical reality players have to deal with, but I can't really disagree with it either. The logic is sound though.

For the record Blacksails, I think that all armies being equal is ideal and would be in the best interest of GW. Unfortunately that's not the way it is. The main thing I wanted to get out is that one possible solution to this problem is to redefine how you enjoy the game.

Well I'd be surprised and confused if you didn't think having all forces being roughly equal is in the best interest of everyone. I'm aware that's not the way, but I don't think redefining how to enjoy the game is needed, just finding the right people to play with. Small distinction perhaps, but I can continue to play the way I like to with the army and lists I like given some opponents enjoy playing at roughly the same power level.

 Blacksails wrote:

Mustela wrote:
I think Peregrine's explanation of why 40K is fair is much better than mine.

I don't entirely agree with Peregrine's breakdown, as I feel its a little sterile and ignores the practical reality players have to deal with, but I can't really disagree with it either. The logic is sound though.

For the record Blacksails, I think that all armies being equal is ideal and would be in the best interest of GW. Unfortunately that's not the way it is. The main thing I wanted to get out is that one possible solution to this problem is to redefine how you enjoy the game.

Well I'd be surprised and confused if you didn't think having all forces being roughly equal is in the best interest of everyone. I'm aware that's not the way, but I don't think redefining how to enjoy the game is needed, just finding the right people to play with. Small distinction perhaps, but I can continue to play the way I like to with the army and lists I like given some opponents enjoy playing at roughly the same power level.

I can respect that.

it really peevs me off because armies like Eldar and Necrons, (eldar especially) were not in dire need of a buff, and really only needed rebalancing, did Eldar really need an overall buff to jetbikes, no. Did Eldar really need an extravagant decurion style detachment, making the entire codex that much better, no they did not.

And then armies like BA and Orks get the short end of the 7th edition stick with a nerf to both fluffy lists (and in the Orks case) a nerf to the overall codex. (yes I know, the orks codex was the first 7th edition codex, and suffers from balancing issues, just like the Dark Angels, but thats not an excuse)

Its almost like GW got REALLY lazy and was just like "f*ck, after the next round of balancing, well buff the others"

If every codex was like the Space Marine codex (although not a perfect example, still fitting enough), everything is about equally useful (with exceptions such as terminators, assault cents. and to an extent hunters), but not overpowered. But the new eldar book especially, its easy to make a ridiculous fluffy list, with very few weaknesses.

But frankly, 40K, and TTWG are about exploiting those weakness, and when their are very few weaknesses to exploit, its down to listbuilding, and not every army has those options.


thats just my $0.02, happy wargaming.

-Mikey

Why did everybody put up with being lectured for 18 pages by somebody who doesn't know what ratlings are and thinks they and defilers are OP? This is 18 pages of why GW is failing.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Why did everybody put up with being lectured for 18 pages by somebody who doesn't know what ratlings are and thinks they and defilers are OP? This is 18 pages of why GW is failing.

I guess we were holding out hope that 100 people all contradicting him with the same points might sway his opinion that his way is the only way to play 40k, and he is the one true messiah of what is fair and balanced. Sadly, we were all wrong.

Lol, fair enough.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Lol, fair enough.

Some men just wish to see the world burn. Everyone Loses At All Cost... ELAAC!

Hey guys what's going on in this threa-

*backs away slowly*

This thread is an awesome example of idealism meets logic.

Both groups are ultimately confused yet sure of their being correct.

Well, it was fun and at least found understanding of where all this was going.

 gummyofallbears wrote:


If every codex was like the Space Marine codex (although not a perfect example, still fitting enough), everything is about equally useful (with exceptions such as terminators, assault cents. and to an extent hunters), but not overpowered. But the new eldar book especially, its easy to make a ridiculous fluffy list, with very few weaknesses.

Most of the SM codex is pretty much underpowered in a competitive environment (captains, command squads/honor guard, assault marines, dreadnoughts, predators, devastators... even tactical marines are kinda poor).

I for one am really hoping the faction gets a buff with the new codex (and not just a point decrease). Re-roll power armour saves! Boltguns have shred! Free FNP 6+!

I dunno, they really do need something to set them apart (aside from ATSKNF).

About 4 pages back I posted this,,,
''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.''

I believe this to be a fair assessment of the current situation.Does any one disagree?

If you do disagree please tell me why, and what facts you have to support this conclusion.

Lanrak wrote:
About 4 pages back I posted this,,,
''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.''

I believe this to be a fair assessment of the current situation.Does any one disagree?

If you do disagree please tell me why, and what facts you have to support this conclusion.

That's a fair assessment.
When I played 40k with my twin or nephew, we had fun. But we were playing our own version of 40k.
For Pick Up Games it was a mess that left me with more frustration and bad feelings than fun.

Edit. Example.
I played a guy who used his "toned down" necrons list that he thought was perfectly fair.
I conceded by the end of turn 2 because all I had left was a squad and a half and my HQ.

Lanrak,
While I agreed with your assessment of blame, as I previously posted, I disagree with the rest of the blanket statement.

For many groups, it is accurate. The "Epic Gamers", it certainly applies to.

A meta of "Casuals" actually *can* have fun with a "casual" meta without spending the time and effort to make it happen. Mine has and does. It just kinda evolves that way, invisible-hand style, with no need for central planning.

So I would say, for some players, your statement is true. But not for everybody. I more agree than disagree, but not entirely.

Bharring wrote:
Lanrak,
While I agreed with your assessment of blame, as I previously posted, I disagree with the rest of the blanket statement.

For many groups, it is accurate. The "Epic Gamers", it certainly applies to.

A meta of "Casuals" actually *can* have fun with a "casual" meta without spending the time and effort to make it happen. Mine has and does. It just kinda evolves that way, invisible-hand style, with no need for central planning.

So I would say, for some players, your statement is true. But not for everybody. I more agree than disagree, but not entirely.

So if a new guy that never played in your group came to play, he could just play without being told your group house rules? If not then Lanrak is right in his statement.

People have joined and moved away, obviously, over the last few years.

Somehow, it works.

Noir wrote:
So if a new guy that never played in your group came to play, he could just play without being told your group house rules? If not then Lanrak is right in his statement.

That could happen (and has) in the group I generally play with. I was one of those guys when I joined the group. No "rules of engagement" were handed out. Has not been an issue. We play 1 particular night a week at a local store so it is not like it is a closed group or by invitation or anything either.

There aren't any "house rules" to distribute. People seem to naturally be able to fit the meta.

Bharring wrote:
There aren't any "house rules" to distribute. People seem to naturally be able to fit the meta.

Or maybe the meta fits the people? I'd argue the latter since we have measurable record of a declining GW since their foray into random a la 6E/7E. People are picking up their ball and going home... To play something else.

The wargames sector is growing and GW is declining. Building a PvP game based upon forged narratives, 4+'ing it, and house rules is probably not a sustainable practice thanks to the modern globalization; the ability to make a competent wargame is of a fraction of the cost it was when GW became king. RPGs work because of their cooperative play. A little unbalanced wonky stuff can be hand waved by a good GM and books come cheap versus the cost of rules plus minis for most games. You can play several different RPGs for the cost of even the most cheapest army in 40k,WMH, Infinity, Malifaux...

Times are changing. GW isn't. The first step would be to axe codices all together followed by burn every random roll in the game... But that's IMO.

I've not lost a game to Eldar in 10 years and I play them quite regularly.

Even now my CSM-demon army still wins every time.

As a brief run-off I usually end up with a core of Nurglings, Bloodthirster, Abaddon, Termies, couple CSM units in rhinos, two defilers and three obliterators.

Rest of the pts in a 2k game I mix and match.

Perhaps i'm just lucky and always go against poor players? Or get really lucky? I've been played against with a ton of different strategies and builds though. But meh.

Semper wrote:
I've not lost a game to Eldar in 10 years and I play them quite regularly.

Even now my CSM-demon army still wins every time.

As a brief run-off I usually end up with a core of Nurglings, Bloodthirster, Abaddon, Termies, couple CSM units in rhinos, two defilers and three obliterators.

Rest of the pts in a 2k game I mix and match.

Perhaps i'm just lucky and always go against poor players? Or get really lucky? I've been played against with a ton of different strategies and builds though. But meh.

Sounds like you need a new play group.

It comes full circle back to what the actual topic of the thread is.
Communication. The OP had the opinion that 2 or more players can use this to decide what type of game they are wanting to play. A hardcore destroy the enemy and grind them into dust game or a funny story driven one where they are just looking for something to do while kicking back with a few beers (or whatever your drinking) with no care who wins so long as you get to play the game. Or to use communication to determine the "power level" or what is reasonable to use in a series of games or whatever.
The OP and those who agree with the fully understand and agree that this will not always work for public games with strangers.

The issue of the thread is that many disagree that this is possible and are ridiculing, making fun of and name calling the OP and anyone who agreed with him because they believe that he does not have the right to have that opinion or to post it in a polite manner. As someone else said earlier, supporting the right of human beings to have opinions and voice them according to the rules of the site may indeed be tilting at windmills, but it is a windmill that i think we should ALL be tilting at instead of just a few of us.

List building is indeed a part of the game. Without having had the pre-game communication you need to go into the game with winning in mind. As in a "real war", you need to try to bring something the enemy cant handle while countering what they bring. Unlike a real war however, you both have an equal amount of resources to draw from. This make the list building crucial as to who wins.
The thing is, when building the list, there are things you need to consider even without that pre-game communication. These can include....
1. Who you are playing and why. Take for example, your teaching a child how to play the game and are trying to keep them interested and optimistic about the game. Will you bring the "OP spam" list and just crush them as an easy notch on your pistal butt or put on the kidskin gloves?
2. Tournament- Usually this means no holds barred because the person paired with you has to play or else forfiet and there is a prize and prestige involved.
3. Are you part of a league? if you are and you constantly go above and beyond what they do, you may find yourself put out of the league.
4. Is it against the normal guys at the shop? if so, it might depend on exactly which one it is and the "politics" of the shop. You may soon find yourself being "that guy" (not tf necessarily tfg) that no one wants to play against and you can find getting games in harder and harder.
The list goes on but I think you see what i mean. There is a world outside the game we all live in and if you dont take it into consideration, it can affect your playing. But then again, this is just my opinion. take it or leave it.
Those who propose going for the jugular every game no matter what, are free to your opinion and I wouldnt dream EVER of denying you your right to the opinion that it is right. I only ask for the right to have and voice my opinion as well. I dont care a whit if you disagree with my opinion. As ever, I only care if you deny it to me.

I want to see pictures of this mythical all ratling army. Were you able to paint it in such a way as to not have it look boring with just multiples of the same models or did you convert in other models, convert "hq" models and so forth. i ask because you can find OP spam list army pictures all over the place because they are so common. I have yet to ever see an actual spam list like this and am anxious to see it.