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.

I am not sure what game many of you are playing and why it is different than the 40K I play and the major GT's seem to be playing?

Let's think of some of the major winning lists in the meta and classify them as big or small toys;
Small Toyz
1. SM Gladius
2. SM Skyhammer Annihilation
3. Nec Decurion
4. Nec Flayer Pack
5. Ravenwing
6. Super Friends
7. Renegades an heretics Artillery + spawn
8. Renegades of Vraks ZOMBIES!!!
9. Freakshow (Ld shenanigans lists w/ eldar combinations)
10. Summoning based lists (usually CD).
11. Dog Pile KDK
12. Orks biker/tank busta armies

Big Toyz
1. Imperial Knights (usually addy lance or such)
2. CWE Lynx + bikes
3. CWE Wraithknight(s)
4. Tau (may not be as true as crisis suit units look really good)
5. SM Typhon+
6. War Convocation (a single imperial knight)
7. GK nemesis dreads

Ones that are easily arguable either way
CWE Seer Council
Nids Flyrant spam
Cent Star (not even that great anymore but there seems to be a thing for centurions)

These are the lists I can think of off the top of my head that are top tier. Pretty much any other list would give the player 30% or less chance to win against the above.

Now admittedly I don't actually have a problem with the big toyz lists. They play significantly faster and thus don't make you wait 1+ hour before you get your turn like greentide or nids spawning can do however I prefer variety which if you actually list the winning lists there is a fair amount of. I also have been in the game for almost 20 years so my model collection lets me play pretty much any type of army I feel like.

A problem some people may run into is that big toyz lists tend to be popular in metas. This is due to a combination of;
1. They are fast to play. Not just turn time but the setup, transport, etc. are all vastly faster than armies without big toyz.
2. Usually cost less time, energy, and money than hordes of models.
3. Perceived strength. Many players do NOT like their toyz to "die" and thus them to have to put their toys away Big toys you have to experience this less and thus many players prefer them. One of the hardest lessons an IG army player has to learn is to sacrifice huge portions of their army so they can win the game, also how to quickly collect 50+ models off the table as casualties.
4. Look. Many people like painting the bigger models as they have more opportunity to add to the model. It is after all a larger canvas thus you can really take the opportunity to tell a story. IMO this is somewhat counter acted by the ability of squads to combine models to help tell a story but the separate bases make it hard.

Anyways sorry for the long post in what will largely end up as a flame thread but I figured the phenomenon actually deserved a real analysis rather than a simple like or hate.

Look at all those lists -- what's missing is plain vanilla no special toppings.

You know what I mean? OP has made a point about the arms race, not just SHV and GMCs.

nudibranch wrote:
How to fix this: one LoW per 1000/1500pts. Would prevent/discourage their use in small games whilst allowing them to be used in larger games where they belong imho. Also Knights shouldn't be an army unto themselves imho, just a LoW choice for IoM armies.

Limiting them in smaller games is a great idea, and as long as you're playing with folks who are decent people it should not be an issue. Talking to your opponent before a game should be enough to avoid most problems.

Like most of these threads about spamming broken units/formations it comes down to who you play with. It's a social game that requires social interaction. Talk to people and work things out and everything goes surprisingly smooth.

Ansacs That was a pretty good analysis.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look at all those lists -- what's missing is plain vanilla no special toppings.

You know what I mean? OP has made a point about the arms race, not just SHV and GMCs.

The problem is that when you have a meta, which is inevitable in a competitive game, which means people are GOING to find and exploit the most broken and capable forms of play.
Just look at Street Fighter, MK, Killer Instinct. They have tiers of characters based on certain advantages of play that some characters have.
Like innately being faster, have more damaging combos, being more "safe", and so on.
These advantages mean that you will ALWAYS see them at Fighting game tournaments.
Sure somebody might take a bad tier character (or vanilla list, do you see the comparison) but it's unlikely for them to win anything in a competitive environment.

 Mantorok wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.

Oh wow, I never thought about it, but you're right.
That is a TERRIBLE model for the game to have.
I'm not opposed to Knights, or GMC, or other Superheavies, but they need stipulations.
Hopefully they will set this in by 8th, or god forbid, release an FAQ/Errata for 7th for this.
Unbound can still exist, but GW needs to place a disclaimer beneath it stating that it is not intended for Tournament use, and should not be played outside of a casual setting with friends.

... Games Workshop's official line is that Warhammer 40,000 is not intended for Tournament use.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.

I have never seen (my own games or others) somebody actually abuse unbound. Not once. The only time unbound has come up was when people want to run goofy or to match fluff. These types of lists are rarely powergaming or looking to win.

What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.

The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.

40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.

The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.

All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.

-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?

-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?

-is someone playing with a time limit?

-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)

-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?

Talk to each other people, and you will have better games


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine a moment where a IG player and an Eldar player talk before a game - the IG mentions hey your scatterbikes are gonna shred my army to pieces, want to make it more fun by letting me add another 3 russes and see if you can still beat me?

Suddenly - better game

No, I am not tired off Mechwarrior 40k. I am trying to play 5 Imperial Knights and trying to make Titan Hammer a thing.

Just a tournament were only SHV and GC are allowed.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.

The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.

40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.

The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.

All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.

-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?

-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?

-is someone playing with a time limit?

-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)

-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?

Talk to each other people, and you will have better games


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine a moment where a IG player and an Eldar player talk before a game - the IG mentions hey your scatterbikes are gonna shred my army to pieces, want to make it more fun by letting me add another 3 russes and see if you can still beat me?

Suddenly - better game

Unless, you know, you disagree on things.

I mean, when I hear that patronising advice repeated again and again, I start to get the impression that some groups have developed a hive mind.

They apparently never reach an impasse with, for example, some players wanting something in the game (flyers, super heavies, fortifications or somesuch), and others wanting rid of those things. All you need to do is say you don't like something, and the entire group will immediately agree and accede to remove that thing from their lists.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.

The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.

40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.

The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.

All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.

-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?

-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?

-is someone playing with a time limit?

-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)

-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?

Talk to each other people, and you will have better games

This is an excellent sentiment, but I've rarely seen it actually implemented successfully.

First, many people do like thinking of their opponent as faceless and crushing them. They're not interested in changing their list and if asked to they just attribute it to whining.

On the other hand there's "Casual at all Costs" which regards practically everything as broken and will try to can nearly everything that can beat them.

I've seen Marine players outlaw anything AP3/2 because he felt the Ap mechanics of the game were hugely unfair and if he paid 15 points for his models he should get his armor save.

I've seen people deriding others as "not man enough to play a real game" when they didn't want to fight 3+ knights or other top tier nonsense.

The best bet is simply to play around the power level of the local club meta.

It's fine. It will all get fixed in Age of the Emperor. You can field endless units of boyz without points costs vs those stompy mechs.

On a serious note: I hate formations and the big kits in 40k. I know some people like them, but those people had the option to play apoc. I no longer have the grounds (without being kind of a jerk about it) to say "Sorry, no formation. No gargantuans.", since they are part of the core rules now.

And what happens when the Eldar player says "come on dude Russes are totally broken, my Scatbikes can't even hurt them and you beat my armor save and wound on 2s! Don't be a whiner dude I paid for every one of these shuriken cannons, they cost points the same as your stuff"

I guess it mostly depends on your local meta.

In mine, while we have some people who routinely attend tournaments and sometimes want to try some "nasty" lists, they're usually considerate enough to issue a warning in advance. Most of the time we restrict ourselves to somewhat thematic lists, I don't mean exactly super-fluffly lists but at least lists that make some kind of sense, and not designed to win at all costs. So it varies from player to player but, in the case of Tau, more than a single Riptide per side is a rare sight.

Actually, the fact that some guys are tournament players has some beneficial effects. Since the tournaments they usually attend employ a mix of restrictions and house rules, we tend to apply those rules changes as well, so no Lords of War, Invisibility only grants Shrouded + Stealth, etc.

Even with all these self-restrictions, the game is still a mess though, and only bearable thanks to its social factor.

It always weird me out when people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.

If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's always wierded me out how people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.

If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.

It's also ironic that a game which apparently isn't designed for tournaments nevertheless features only symmetric, tournament-style missions - as opposed to asymmetric, narrative ones.

Let me let you in on a little secret. 40k is a soddy excuse for a game. shhhh, don't tell anyone. Join the rebellion. Demand Age of Calgar be made.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

... Games Workshop's official line is that Warhammer 40,000 is not intended for Tournament use.

That makes me throw up in my mouth.
Grandfather Nurgle would be pleased.

 Filch wrote:
No, I am not tired off Mechwarrior 40k. I am trying to play 5 Imperial Knights and trying to make Titan Hammer a thing.

Just a tournament were only SHV and GC are allowed.

My IK and my friends Eldar are in.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. Playing with the Leviathan detachment in 30k has taught me that most superheavies (at least in that ruleset) have significant weaknesses which can be exploited.

The general problem is the army around them.

Well, all those models have Vehicle rules, which means that they can actually take damage from your usual weapons - Even an Autocannon can take a dent into a Baneblade... But try doing that to a Wraithknight.

But beside the blatant rule favourization towards Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures, my point is that big and over-the-top models have so much focus put unto them, to a degree that there haven't been new regular vehicles and tanks the last many updates, and the last one to be added (Wyvern, if I recall), is pretty OP against mobs, who, from the start, already had it tough.

That right there is your entire problem. Even the souped up forgeworld dreads like the dorito aren't that deadly. There is a gross rules imbalance in favor of monstrous creatures that should be one of the top priorities for the designers in terms of what needs fixing. If monsters gradually lost combat power as they shed wounds, similar to age of sigmar, then we would be in a much better place. Additionally, making grav have no effect on non-skimming vehicles (or immobilize for one turn without removing a hull point, lets say) but buffing it's effect against Monsters (+1 to wound, or automatically ground FMC on an unsaved wound, or both) would help turn that around.

Snipers need to be made more deadly against monsters as well. As it is there are buckets and buckets of dedicated anti-tank weapons, but anti-monster weapons are quite limited, or not very effective outside of grav. That needs to get changed around, maybe by allowing snipers to cause multiple (D3) wounds.

 vipoid wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's always wierded me out how people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.

If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.

It's also ironic that a game which apparently isn't designed for tournaments nevertheless features only symmetric, tournament-style missions - as opposed to asymmetric, narrative ones.

Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games? Also, there are plenty of Altar of War etc. missions that are entirely narrative based and non-symmetrical.

I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.

I would definitely be fed up of Mechwarrior 40k if I'd ever got in on it. As far as my opponents go, we have 1 riptide between us (mine) and nothing any bigger than that.

As far as GW's insistence on continuing to release bigger and stupider monsters though, yes I am completely fed up of it. I would have much preferred it if GW had say, released a new plastic set of warp spiders and/or done a new range of phoenix lords instead of producing the idiotic wraithknight (don't even get me started on the zero armed wonder known as the stormsurge). I play 40k for the infantry and the heroes, not the gigantic monsters/super heavy vehicles. I want my dire avengers to have a cool fire fight with my opponent's tacticals, not remove both units with a shovel because a gigantic gun with no business being in the game one-shotted them. I remember a game where my red scorpion assault marines got into a combat with a squad of sluggas, and after a long and drawn out fight, one assault marine clawed his way out of the mass, victorious. He then proceeded to fly across the field irritating my opponent with his refusal to die. I decided he would be promoted to veteran sergeant of the squad for the next game. I play 40k for that, not for my plucky assault marine and his squad to get wiped from the face of the earth by a nameless artillery strike.

Luckily my opponent pool is pretty small and we can agree on what we want to play, so I don't have to deal with the 'new' 40k, but I feel sorry for those who aren't in that situation.

I don't even like that they added fliers let alone super-heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures

When I started playing 40k, a land raider was feared and nobody wanted to face terminators. These days both units are seen as sub-optimal.

This why I'm thankful that there are very few of the big stompy things at my LGS. There is a grand whopping total of 2 knights (total) at the store. And one of those is a lovingly converted and painted ork knight that one of my friend built for fun (he loves kitbashing and converting). He's only used it one time in an actual game. And that was at a tournament.

 clamclaw wrote:
I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.

The reward is that a balanced game can at the least be easily turned into a narrative game. 40K is neither a good tournament game nor a good narrative game.

I'd advise you to take a look at 30K rules as an example of how a game can have a balanced rule-set while retaining its thematics.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:
I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.

The reward is that a balanced game can at the least be easily turned into a narrative game. 40K is neither a good tournament game nor a good narrative game.

I'd advise you to take a look at 30K rules as an example of how a game can have a balanced rule-set while retaining its thematics.

Guess my opinion is wrong for thinking 40K was a good narrative game, thanks for clearing that up!

FW does a stellar job of writing rules, I love the stuff they do. But also take into account 30K is balancing a more limited game. The game originally worked around MEQ's in larger numbers, and then slowly worked in Solar Auxilia and Mechanicus. It's a very smart and effective way to write an internally and externally balanced ruleset, but not something GW can do with 40K proper at this point.

If you really wanted to get down to it a D6 game is never going to be that well balanced. D20 frees up so many stats and options for better variation, but I can't imagine GW ever making a change that integral to the game.

 clamclaw wrote:

Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games? Also, there are plenty of Altar of War etc. missions that are entirely narrative based and non-symmetrical.

I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.

The creator of the Gif said its pronounced Jif, and I don't give a feth what he says either.
The GW of today is not the same GW that created 40K in the first place, and their opinions should not be taken seriously.

Edit: removed GW hate rant. It wasn't relevant to the thread, at least not really. Sorry.

Also doesn't 30K only have like 6 or so armies?
With one being titans, and the other Questoris Knights?
That's waaaaay less than 40K.

 clamclaw wrote:

Guess my opinion is wrong for thinking 40K was a good narrative game, thanks for clearing that up!

np

FW does a stellar job of writing rules, I love the stuff they do. But also take into account 30K is balancing a more limited game. The game originally worked around MEQ's in larger numbers, and then slowly worked in Solar Auxilia and Mechanicus. It's a very smart and effective way to write an internally and externally balanced ruleset, but not something GW can do with 40K proper at this point.

Sure they can. It'd take a lot of work, but it's certainly possible for a company with millions of dollars at its disposal to hire a competent team to write a well-designed game.

Will they? No, because Games Workshop doesn't care if their rules work so long as people continue to buy models, but this discussion is in the context of the hypothetical, and it's certainly hypothetically possible to make a balanced game that also lends itself to narrative play. Plenty of other wargames have done it. Even WHFB was fairly close to being a sensible rules-set before they fethed it up in a bid to sell more models.

I totally agree with OP. I began Tau in 5th edition and they were primarily a mixed mechanized infantry force. The army felt futuristic and believable. They did have vaguely mecha-like Battlesuits, but they were only to give the army extra flavour and options. By contrast, nowadays Tau are all about gimmick Mecha monsters. It has been almost 10 years since Tau got a new ground vehicle. Worse, the existing vehicles and infantry did not get any new rules or stuff in the new codex (with exception of Breachers).

Pretty much same was done to Tyranids. When I began 40k, I was intrigued by their multitude of options and hordes of infantry. Now, they're just another monster of the week-army. We always say how we're living in HeroHammer era, or TankHammer, or InfantryHammer. Now, we're on MC Hammer era. (groan)

There is another aspect to it, and it comes down to game mechanics. When you shoot a vehicle, number of things can happen: it may lose a weapon or get immobilized. When it is destroyed, it may blow up, or very least leave its burnt-out wreck behind, possibly hindering your other units. These are all believable options based on real life incidents. Similarly, when you shoot an infantry unit, lots of stuff may happen: the unit probably suffers casualties, gradually whittling down its fighting power. You may lose some special weapon or piece of wargear and you now have to do without. The unit might even panic and retreat. Again, all this is intriguing, realistic and provides many tactical dilemmas.

But when you shoot a monstrous creature, what happens? Nothing much. If it fails a save, it suffers a wound. There is no other damage or effect. The monster never panics, it is never stunned and never loses one bit of combat efficiency. It can never blow up, no matter how much flammable fuel or ammunition the 'monster' was carrying according to lore. When it loses its last wound, it is simply removed from play. It doesn't leave a smoking crater, or even a corpse, no matter how gigantic the creature was. It just vanishes without any ado or ceremony. Not only this is very unintuitive and illogical, it is so damn BORING.

 clamclaw wrote:

Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games?

I don't recall saying they were mutually exclusive with casual games.

But no, you're right. If you're going to do a narrative mission, what you really want is a game where the objectives are utterly generic and have no relevance to either race. Also, both races deploy at basically the same time - like they just happened to stumble onto one another. I guess we're constantly forging the narrative of the two races with malfunctioning radar who just blundered into each other and are now trying to capture random pieces of debris to pretend that there's actually reason they're fighting at all.

I mean, who's want to have one race defending a stronghold until reinforcements arrive, or trying to stop an enemy convey? Nah, better to have something much more generic and devoid of fluff.

To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.

But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.

But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.

Except for the legion of the damned codex.