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.

As a solid 99% of you know, list building is a major factor in how your game of 40k is going to turn out. You brought nothing but dark eldar wyches? Have fun facing that scatterbike list. You brought lascannon spam? That's going to struggle against this green tide, but you'll show those Knights what for! Generally, people have an inclination to make lists more powerful, either because they're hardcore tournament players trying to milk every last point for all it's worth, or because they simply want their casual list to do well and not get crushed by a bad matchup. Sometimes a player will end up collecting a bunch of subpar models that struggle to win games, but they generally quit learn how the game works a bit better and then adjust their list at least slightly so that it's reasonably competitive for their local meta. So even a relatively relaxed meta, players still have a tendency to build their lists to be relatively efficient. You're running a list themed around Fuegan and his Fire Dragon entourage? That's probably not going to be a monster of a list, but you're also probably going to back it up with some scatter lasers or something else that can add weight of fire to your anti-tank capabilities. You brought sternguard? Sure, why not? You probably put a certain amount of thought into which weapons they're equipped with though, right?

This got me thinking about list optimization in general. I know that I don't enjoy playing against tournament lists very often because it homogenizes the lists you tend to see and requires you bring a similarly powerful list to have a good game. But do even "normal" lists that have been optimized to a point have that same effect on a lower level? Would those of us who don't enjoy tournament-level power actually have more fun if we and our opponents specifically played "bad" lists? Thousand Sons and Warp Talons aren't well-loved by Chaos Marine players, but if you know the worst your opponent is going to be bringing against them are some devastators and assault marines, maybe you don't feel actively penalized for bringing them. Normally, I fall into the camp that says, "You basically just want to be on a similar power level to that of your opponent," but might there actually be something to be gained from artificially forcing players to aim for an abnormally low power level? On one hand, it would make it possible to field units that are normally too subpar to be fieldable. Non-optimal upgrades would be more feasible to include in a list, and everyone would, theoretically, be relatively well-balanced against one-another. On the other hand, more powerful builds would be unplayable. Obviously scatter bike spam, skyhammer, etc. wouldn't be usable, but lists that are good without necessarily being over the top might also fall into this camp.

Assuming there was a way to enforce a low power tier on lists, would you be interested in playing such games? Or would knowing that a more powerful set of options wasn't being taken drive you crazy?

Disclaimer: This post assumes that players are interested in playing against lists of similar power levels. It's also not particularly aimed at tournament players for obvious reasons.

100% depends on who you are playing, the setting or type of game, and your local meta.

Wyldhunt wrote:
On the other hand, more powerful builds would be unplayable. Obviously scatter bike spam, skyhammer, etc. wouldn't be usable, but lists that are good without necessarily being over the top might also fall into this camp.

And there's the fatal problem with your idea: you're assuming that weak units are more fun to play with than powerful units, which is an absurd idea. You don't solve anything by replacing "you can't play with {weak unit}" with "you can't play with {powerful unit}", you just change which units are excluded. In fact, you've probably made the situation worse since you've replaced strong incentives to use particular units with explicit requirements and bans. You can no longer say "this is a bad idea, but I'm willing to take it anyway", you don't get to use that unit/army at all.

I think he is mixing up two things. Having fun from playing the game and having fun with a person. Last year I was with a friend in germany working durning the summer. Hard work on the fields, but we had stations next to each other and talked all day while working. It was kind of a fun to work besides each other, the work itself was not fun.

Same with w40k. If someone has fun with friends, then playing the game probably doesn't matter much. But it doesn't mean that suddenly w40k is fun to play.

It's not that good lists make for bad games, it's that certain match-ups make for bad games. I do not find it fun to play a Baneblade and Knight Errant with some light AM backup against most opponents because it's just not enjoyable, regardless of power level or lack thereof. If you don't like playing against tournament lists, then set up other games where that is clearly communicated to your opponent. Generally, I find that the thing most people dislike about tournament lists is that they're fundamentally non interactive. A 2++ rerollable save is not interactive. Drop pod spam is not interactive. Facing an overwhelming foe is not rewardingly interactive.

However, if you face an overwhelmingly powerful foe with your own overwhelmingly powerful army, then the game becomes meaningfully interactive again. That's part of the drive towards list efficiency.

I don't think so. I think the game is more fun when armies try to actually take all comers rather than just skew. Skew is obnoxious because it removes all interaction with an opponent and reduces the game down to list checking.

"I brought double Skyhammer with 3 drop pods."

"Oooh, that's rough, I brought green tide, we might as well not even play"

"Yep, luckily this list auto-wins more than it auto-loses. If it were the other way around I wouldn't have any fun."

"Yep I'll find another opponent. I've got green tide, you want to play?"


"Oooh, five flyrants, I guess you lose."

"Drat! That puts a dent in my auto-win percentage!"

"Does anyone want to make lists with a bit of everything so we can roll dice and play?"

"Dice?"

No. 2 players not on the same page make a bad game

 kronk wrote:
No. 2 players not on the same page make a bad game

I totally agree. If two people want to be as competitive/cheesy as possible, why shouldn't they? Same goes for less competitive lists. People stop having fun when one is a super serious 'win at all costs' kinda guy, and one isn't. (at least for the most part.)

But the problem is almost exclusive to GW games. Only in their games there is a huge gap between all armies.

Makumba wrote:
But the problem is almost exclusive to GW games. Only in their games there is a huge gap between all armies.

Eh...I think you may pay attention to the Internet about 40k too much, and not enough about other games.
There have been times in the magic tourney scene where one deck or theme has completely dominated. Onslaught-era goblins were terrifying, even pulling out 40-50% win rate against RW control, a deck specifically tailored to beat them while having crappy matchups elsewhere. Mirrodin affinity was similar, and caused plenty of people to leave the tourney scene.

Everquest necromancers were amazingly good, and the top ones could solo some raid bosses that normally took 50ish players.

D&D online has artificers and warforged casters who can easily solo elite group quests at level.

Speaking of D&D, Wizards in 3.5 pen and paper could create their own dimensions and rewrite reality while the fighter smacks you with his 2d6 damage greatsword.

In video games, abusing final fantasy 8's limit breaks could literally carry you to the final boss. In tactics, a calculator could cast tons of spells for free instantly with board-wide range while mages had to have a much shorter range, a cast time delay, and an mp cost.

There are game imbalances, some of them pretty insane, everywhere. even StarCraft still regularly patches to try and bring their three armies closer in line.

I only play a few people, so I prefer to just house rule crappy stuff so it works better, and not field tournament stuff because I don't enjoy it.

Theres no perfect hard and fast way to fix the game, but using a gentleman's agreement and fixing crap units means the end result is games that are fluffy and enjoyable, at least in a very small 'meta' like mine

Edit: I regret to say I abused the FF8 limit break thing more than once. Really did not do such a great game justice

Makumba wrote:
But the problem is almost exclusive to GW games. Only in their games there is a huge gap between all armies.

Believe it or not, in Warmahordes the gap between a "random stuff" army and a top tier competitive army is actually WIDER than in 40k.

There are lots of unwinnable matchups.

I play WM, with a very limited collection. I never felt as bad playing cygnar as playing IG. Besides we are not talking about random stuff. The only random stuff codex that is good in w40k is probably eldar and that is it. I seen people play mercs and have fun in warmachine, even when they faction is underpowered compering to other.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
On the other hand, more powerful builds would be unplayable. Obviously scatter bike spam, skyhammer, etc. wouldn't be usable, but lists that are good without necessarily being over the top might also fall into this camp.

And there's the fatal problem with your idea: you're assuming that weak units are more fun to play with than powerful units, which is an absurd idea.

The fatal problem with your idea here is that you fundamentally don't understand the concept that winning the game is not all the enjoyment in it

If you'd ask me whether I'd take my Russ+Mech list with Pask Executioner death, melta spam and Vendettas for the umpteenth time or a more interesting list with only Basilisks, Destroyers and my infantry company, which is far and below the worse of the two lists, I will always say the latter, only sometimes the environment of play, e.g at a tournament, constrains me to the former. I've gotten bored shitless of playing the former list because it is so optimised, it is monotonous to play with, when I come up against a non-optimal list I'm giving my opponent a rather crappy game, in my mind it seems fluffier - it resembles a German Panzer-Grenadier regiment (e.g the WW2 era Gross-Deutschland regiment, which was composed of mechanised infantry and had self-propelled gun support) instead of just a bunch of slapped together units from different places that only exist to complement each other in terms of effectiveness.

Playing a weaker army can pose unique challenges and open up playstyles. By your logic, noone in their right mind would ever play an Aircav list because it just isn't competitive. That by no means implies it would never be more fun to play than some list purely designed to score victories.

since you've replaced strong incentives to use particular units with explicit requirements and bans.

Its called playing to a theme. It is fun and does make the game more enjoyable.

Sore losers/bad winners make bad games.

There are good lists like Warbikers + Tankbustas in Trukks which have very strong synergy with each other. Then there are things like Skyhammer or Decurion which dump tons of free power onto the base stats of a unit. A well composed list (theme or just good synergy) are fine and the hallmark of good list building. The power formations/detachments loaded with power units are a symptom of bad game design. The problem is how poorly GW attempts to balance the game (at this point can we even bother to claim that they try?) and not so much about making good lists. You can't really blame a person for taking the tools available to them and trying to best solve the problem of "how do I set up my army to be successful on the battlefield".

That being said this is a social game and because GW is so inept at balance (or puts rules writing for profit over game integrity) that we as players need to adjust our army strength to match that of our opponent's. Also it could be fun to play theme over function lists but not every player has enough spare models to fully make a theme army. Also theme armies can greatly differ in strength (Biel Tan theme army compared to Blood Axe Kommandos + Stormboyz.)