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.

Gentleman's agreements arise in other games I've played too, not just GW games. Flames of War being the main one to pop ino my head.

EG in that game the basic US Infantry Company can take up to 3 full artillery batteries plus an Aerial Observer to make sure you can always see what you want to splatter. But no-one wants to be 'that guy' outside of a tournament.

Or you don't spring a Tiger Kompanie on someone without prior warning lol.

My perspective is probably tempered by the fact that I've never played at a FLGS or GW, it's always been with friends or at a small wargaming club so competetiveness has always been limited to friendly banter.

And I've always been put off playing anywhere else as the chances of having to face an uber list 'o' doom increases dramatically. Sure everyone likes to win but I feel a line's been crossed when during list writing someone would think "bloody hell I'd HATE to face this list", then uses it anyway and to hell with his opponent's enjoyment.

To be fair though FoW is basically Warhammer WW2, so it's no wonder it suffers from similar problems since it's meant to be the same kind of game.

Historical games do often need some agreement especially when refighting scenarios, but those rules also tend to be more balanced so it evens out e.g. if you're refighting Thermopylae the Spartan player is going to be way outnumbered but the scenario gives him a good chance of winning.

I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

Bharring wrote:
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

I think its the level of unbalance that people have issues with.

I hope so.

I think we almost all agree that its far more unbalanced than most games. The only sticking points seem to be:
1) Some believe other games *don't* have this problem.
2) What to do about it.

Bharring wrote:
I hope so.

I think we almost all agree that its far more unbalanced than most games. The only sticking points seem to be:
1) Some believe other games *don't* have this problem.
2) What to do about it.

As for #2, House rule everything, which unfortunately wasn't possible in my case, (I rely on pick up games) so I chose to play the better balanced games instead and not reward poor rule writing that's geared more for selling models than playing an actual game.

Bharring wrote:
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.

GW has indeed abdicated responsibility for game balance. I've recently started working on a Balance Errata for 40k and the Codices. If you would like to chime in, paytest, stop on by. The more input the better! So far I have first drafts for Codes: Space Marines, Codex: Eldar Craftwords, and Codex: Necron.

Zagman's Masochistic Endeavor: A Balance Errata for 40k

 Chute82 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.

She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box )
Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got.

I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.

Akiasura wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.

She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box )
Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got.

I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.

Yes PP fixes their problems rather quickly, while GW ignores their rule problems and tell us to forge the narrative.

There's also a difference between degrees of imbalance.

If you're telling somebody you're bringing a top list in WMH or X-Wing or a game with some balance, odds are they can adjust their list to provide a chchallenge.

Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.

Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.

You bring DA army that is actualy a count as necron or penta tyrant list?

Makumba wrote:

Now try adjusting a let's say Dark Angels list when the opponent lets you know he's bringing a competitive Eldar list.

You bring DA army that is actualy a count as necron or penta tyrant list?

"Use a different army" is the opposite of proving a game's balance.

Akiasura wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I remember the first time I fielded eHaley in WMH. I was new to the game, but was derided for fielding such an OP warcaster (learned why she was OP while using her that game).

40k is probably the worst of the lot, but its problems aren't unique to 40k.

You don't see eHaley winning tournament after tournament. She is good but not that game breaking. You where new to the game and my guess was playing someone else new so that has a lot to do with your situation. Once you get a few games in against her you soon realize she dies just like every other caster.

She's not even that good if you aren't playing scenario (which, as a new player, you shouldn't have been). Good against ranged lists, but bricks with pathfinder can cause her a lot of issues. She's certainly not as bad as her sister or Egaspy against new players (And her sister comes with the new army box )
Bradigus is way worse, and even he can be dealt with after the teleport nerf circle got.

I've had a cryx player complain that skorne was OP before. It doesn't mean its true, and it doesn't mean its how the meta views it. Look at this forum, warseer, 3++, and any other, and you'll see constant complaining about the Eldar and Decurion. WMH doesn't have anything similar to that, and on the 2 occasions it did, those offending units received nerfs rather quickly.

I think one of the worst ones in recent memory was the original version of Force Wall (theme force) which didn't include some rule that basically let an ability stack up to ridiculous levels (the wording said "gained" instead of "allocated" so it could stack above what was intended). It was corrected almost immediately, I think even before the issue of No Quarter that it was in went to print (or possibly right after). If that had been GW it likely wouldn't even have been errated and could have stayed that way for months or years (if it ever got fixed at all) with players just told that they're bad nasty people who aren't playing right if they use this perfectly legal set of rules because the company fethed up on the wording.

That IMHO illustrates the difference between a company that cares and one that doesn't. GW makes mistakes (or just doesn't consider ramifications) and then shunts responsibility of fixing it on the players while empowering the "WAAC/TFG" types who can and do still abuse the rules because it's not actually fixed, just put into a scrublike "soft ban" or "hard ban" situation by players.

It's kind of like some laws when you consider it. A law that never gets used needs to be removed, because otherwise you leave open the possibility for someone to use (and abuse it) at a later date because it still exists, even if at present everyone agrees to not use it.

Wasn't that a while back? I would think the most recent issue was the triple teleport with beatback/synergy bradigus could put out. He had an across the table turn 1 caster kill that could work 90% of the time against even the toughest casters.

Akiasura wrote:
Wasn't that a while back? I would think the most recent issue was the triple teleport with beatback/synergy bradigus could put out. He had an across the table turn 1 caster kill that could work 90% of the time against even the toughest casters.

All got FAQ'd real quick.