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.

Salous wrote:

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

Have you ever considered your approach is equally annoying?

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.

I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.

I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.

I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

Salous wrote:

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

Have you ever considered your approach is equally annoying?

Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.

I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.

I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...

Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?

This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".

Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?

it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.

Salous wrote:

Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?

If the manner in which you constantly repeat it, yes.

In other words, telling people to just 'git gud' and 'stop bitching' is not productive and as annoying, if not more so, than the people raising very valid points that you struggle to counter.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.

I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.

I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...

Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?

This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".

Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?

it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.

When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

Not as offensive as my codex is to me.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.

So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.

I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.

I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...

Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?

This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".

Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?

it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.

When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

So, this answers the question how?

Salous wrote:


40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.

Besides, a balanced ruleset, that is built for tournaments benefits everyone. Not just these apparent spawn of Satan tournament players, it also benefits these casual players. Why do you think this massive disparity in power between lists only exists in 40k? There is a reason for that, and that reason is the slapdash approach to the rules.

 Grimtuff wrote:
According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set

Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set

Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.

Re-reading what I put (and I can't edit as you quoted it! ) I should clarify I'm including 5th in that statement. It sounds like I'm only referring to RT through to 4th.

5th only got bad towards the end when Grey Knights appeared.

5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Decurion and WK/Scatterbike catch aggro from casual players because the skill floor is very low.

I mean, CD/CSM are one of the strongest tourney builds around but because they're challenging to play they don't collect rage in the same way.

Martel732 wrote:
5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.

If you say so. IMO SW were fine. They were in the A tier of codexes, powerful, but not game breaking. GK's however were only an utterly different level to the rest of the game they were the single S tier codex of the edition that could stomp everything and make Daemons pointless to to take against them.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.

If you say so. IMO SW were fine. They were in the A tier of codexes, powerful, but not game breaking. GK's however were only an utterly different level to the rest of the game they were the single S tier codex of the edition that could stomp everything and make Daemons pointless to to take against them.

SW were on an utterly different level when they dropped as well. Drop podding huge amounts of firepower into peoples faces and then daring them to charge them. Yeah. Real fair against those 3rd and 4th ed codices that were still in use by most armies. Even other 5th ed lists like space marines were completely inferior in every way at the time.

Grey Knights were codex: psyammo. Once that was taken away, they became just another marine rip-off army with a smaller body count.

Then IG came out and were tabling standard marine lists in 3 turns. The 5th ed IG were the proto-Tau/Eldar.

Salous wrote:

When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments.

That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.

You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

Right, you don't have to.

However, you don't have control over what your opponent wants to play however if you aren't willing to just pass on playing them. I've seen no suggestions on how to use many of these lower tier armies to engage many of these higher end armies, even if they're not spamming gobs of the most powerful things.Even in casual settings, a lot of armies don't have to bring anything near their most powerful units & abilities to absolutely dominate some of these weaker armies.

Your only response when challenged on the "well just get gud" count has been, ultimately, to ask players of high-power armies to bring weaker lists or just deflect onto "well you're playing the game wrong". That's not really answering anything.

40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments.

The problem is that it's not really built for anything. It's bad for tournaments. It's terrible for pickup play. It's not even particularly good for narrative play because of the vast power disparities and the fundamental nature of the mission, setup, and deployment rules that are still fundamentally built around a "competitive' foundation but with nothing to really build on them. There's very little in the way of narrative supplement support the way other games like Battletech had, or the way Flames of War has, or Infinity, or RPG's like D&D do, what little narrative 40k material there is largely boils down to "here's some formations you can use anywhere and some minorly changed rulebook missions, take anything you want and go at it, oh and there's no campaign structure outside of a simple linear pre-determined story"

40k's first edition was really what you're talking about and was really far better built for casual/narrative play, but also really advocated having a 3rd party GM.

There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

And now you are deflecting off onto an entirely different point without answering any of the above questions.

Martel732 wrote:
5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.

5E *very* definitely had its issues, and one can probably fairly point to each book that came out in that edition and note that it probably had a fair proportion of balance issues (SW's being SM's/CSM's+1 with ALL THE MISSILE SPAM, IG with 130pt Vendettas, BA's with "we can spam ANYTHING", GK's with 5pt psybolt ammo and dirt cheap fire support units and their absurd Purifier abilities, SM's with "ALL VULKAN ALL THE TIME", etc).

5E wasn't perfect by any means. It was however wayyyyy better than what we have now, and far more functional as a basic pickup game.

It's impossible to have a "casual" game against codex:eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
It's impossible to have a "casual" game against codex:eldar.

I dunno, depends how much you're into masochism really...

My BA are largely powerless against even the run-of-the-mill Eldar units. Much less the really good ones.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.

There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.

Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.

There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.

And those are fair points, and when I bring up tournament results I generally try and avoid specifics and focus more on trends (e.g. X army consistently places highly in every major tournament while Y army doesn't appear anywhere near the top in any event, etc).

Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.

To be fair, their forums also make places like Dakka look like havens of civility and ivory-tower intellectual discussion. I remember Blizzard forums, but nothing positive.

That said, large, consistent complaints on forums usually ended up getting addressed (eventually) as there was usually a reason for their existence.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.

There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.

And those are fair points, and when I bring up tournament results I generally try and avoid specifics and focus more on trends (e.g. X army consistently places highly in every major tournament while Y army doesn't appear anywhere near the top in any event, etc).

Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.

To be fair, their forums also make places like Dakka look like havens of civility and ivory-tower intellectual discussion. I remember Blizzard forums, but nothing positive.

That said, large, consistent complaints on forums usually ended up getting addressed (eventually) as there was usually a reason for their existence.

That's true. I remember at the release of wow, people were very upset about the strength of paladins and how weak the other tanks were. Warriors in particular, which I played, were viewed as incredibly difficult to level and not really worth it. Its a far cry from where the game is today. Really, WoW has evolved quite a bit (though I haven't played in years), and even though I don't play many blizzard games, they have done an excellent job and are a model company. Riot is also similar in how it responds to complaints. I don't play LoL or any of their games, but from what my family tells me, the forums are toxic but the balance is mostly good (I think the draft pick system has a lot to do with this, but that's purely speculative).

GW used to listen to customers a bit. I remember when I got into fantasy, my second army was dark elves. Which, like many of my armies, was bought 2nd hand from a man getting married. I didn't realize how bad the book was until I started going through it, and going to druchii.net. It got so bad, that the website managed to produce a fan made dex that was fairly balanced and widely accepted (similar to the living rulebooks that exist for the specialist games). Eventually, GW released a document adopted many of their changes without releasing a new army book. This was huge and got people really excited.
Why they don't do things like this anymore I'll never understand. I remember how excited a lot of fantasy players became, especially ogres and dwarves, since they suffered from being ignored quite a bit at the time.

Tankman131 wrote:
LVO: goes to tyranids
BAO: goes to a daemon/CSM army
Adepticon: goes to daemons
Nova: goes to space puppies

I doubt you can say daemons Or nids are the best codex with a straight face and the furries just got their classic wuffstar.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap
http://www.torrentoffire.com/6866/adepticon-army-breakdown-stats-stats-stats
Armies that are considered gimped at times succeeded while armies that are considered overpowered are beaten or aren't as successful as the "sky is falling" predictions seen on forums so often said. Yes, eldar did well in tournaments, they are popular right now and have some pretty hard to beat armies. Yet tof shows Orks were successful at adepticon, one of the weakest army lists. The tournaments show that a codex may make it possible for a weaker player to do a little better, but more than that it shows that skill in playing the game is a greater determiner.

If this was TLR, the main gist is Get gud and stop complaining. Take it as a challenge worth facing and have fun with it.

Daemons are the best Codex,
There, I said it, and I believe it.
Well, Daemons / Eldar. SM and Crons are close 2nds.

Especially under most tournament rules which restrict D-Weapons / Superheavies/GMCs, daemons are an effective counter to everything that is good against non-daemon forces. They are fast, resilient in combat, and the standard ~20 warp charge lists used are sufficiently flexible to summon whatever is needed to deal with the current opponent. The things that Daemons aren't particular good at dealing with (massed high armor, walkers, d-weapons) are generally bad things to take against most other armies. The things which are good to take against most other armies (eg Grav, haywire) are neutered against daemons as they really only have one target type in the army (T4 2W 5++ or better save).

Simplifying an issue down to looking at 'one of X codex placed in the top 10 in Y tournament' is pretty silly as you really need to look at which builds of those armies did well. Competitie nids, for example, are building armies around 4 models in the codex and ignoring every other choice. Orks are doing alright with the Green Tide (+ void shield?) build, but again you're not seeing 90% of models.

The problem with the 'state of 40k', or the 'get gud' attitude, is that so many people either don't know what those good 10% of models are or are unwilling to purchase another $1000 worth of models to be on a level playing field with an army they ostensibly already own. Or be told 'the best way to play Dark Eldar is to play Eldar instead...'
If two equally skilled player went and bought everything they thought looked cool, one from C:CSM and one from C:Eldar, and tried to play a game, the CSM player would get brutalised. And assuming they both progress at the same level of skill, the CSM has to continue buying better and better units until he's left with Nurgle Bikers and Helldrakes, while the C:Eldar player can still be trotting along with whatever he bought the first time, and the C:CSM would still be barely able to hold their own. God forbid the Eldar player decides to play a 'fluffy' Saim Hann or Iyanden force...

Salous wrote:
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.

Salous wrote:
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.

Salous 665308 8167770 wrote:

When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

Because when armies cost so much, people build theirs based on random or bad models and not the best there are. And if they want to buy more then 1500pts they don't go for another good 1500pts army, but for more of bad or random units from the first codex. And the feeling of wasted money someone gets after losing one game after another is just nothing. Just like the knowladge that reselling the army is impossible, because no one willl buy an army GW decided to nerf. At the same time the fun an eldar player has from winning every edition is nothing too. For sure he is not having fun, because he wins. No winning is bad, and people should be ashamed about it. He feels good, because of the 50+pages story he wrote for his army, in rhyme .

i can't wait for GW to Sigmarize wh40k. No more argument about competitive play. No more neck beard know it alls.

And with the huge benefit of free rules.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Salous wrote:
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.

Salous wrote:
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.

I see players who don't play anymore still bitching because they don't have the necessary personal skills to create a gaming group that nurtures fun, competitive matches without WAAC lists.

That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.

Salous wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Salous wrote:
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.

Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.

Salous wrote:
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.

I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.

I see players who don't play anymore still bitching because they don't have the necessary personal skills to create a gaming group that nurtures fun, competitive matches without WAAC lists.

Yeah, cos as it happens I consider having to build a community to be a massive negative when it comes to getting into games...
Who doesn't?
Does anyone want to have to find not just people interested in the game, but are interested in playing the game you think it should be played?

Also fun is subjective etc, etc, and thanks for the insult..