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.

^this. There is a reason narrative campaigns tend to do much better over here then tournaments. One thing that I keep seeing is the ability to have 3000pts in "options" for a campaign, that you choose from for a basic scenario. So if you spend a majority of that on Super heavies, good luck when the mission is in Necromunda level terrain placement

The way you can avoid my 6 Baneblades or whatever coming against your 6 Meltaguns is by talking about it beforehand.

I know it gets repeated in every 40k thread but seriously, I routinely play leviathan detachments in 30k and 40k games replete with superheavies, and no one in any of the three cities I've lived in for most of my like has batted an eyelash.

Because I mention it before the game, talk with them, learn their name, make friends, buy them a drink or whatever, and then roll some dice.

The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.

you came to the wrong place for non-biased info.

Honestly, you don't NEED any of the things you listed to play unless you want to go into the larger-scale tournment scene. I played with a usual CAD all throughout 7th, and still do (even though I mainly play 30k). Honestly, some of the most fun I've had in 7th was playing "non-balanced" games (1,500 vs. 2,500), custom missions, and generally had fun. But in bringing this up to dakka (or most online forums) where there is a loud vocal minority who dislike, and up to dispise, the game is like going to a ford dealership and asking about dodge cars. Expect quite a few people praising every other game system, whining about price, and how "warhammer was better back when I was 12! .... what rose tinted goggles?"

Honestly, it's my one complaint about this community (and most online communities, for that matter) is all the whining (yes, I know I'm whining ), mainly since the people content with the game aren't usually the ones commenting on these types of posts.

Talking beforehand is the objectively correct way to do it, since it takes both sides opinions in mind and creates a good experience. But the problem here us that the "norm" is to make a list with no knowledge of what you are fighting. I've gotten death glares for asking what army they are using before, let alone list compensation. I also hate taking lots of anti armor, so even a lemun ruas army can chap my hide when all I want to play is cultist revolution xD

autumnlotus wrote:
Talking beforehand is the objectively correct way to do it, since it takes both sides opinions in mind and creates a good experience. But the problem here us that the "norm" is to make a list with no knowledge of what you are fighting. I've gotten death glares for asking what army they are using before, let alone list compensation. I also hate taking lots of anti armor, so even a lemun ruas army can chap my hide when all I want to play is cultist revolution xD

Well, I think GW is trying to kill the competitive meta by forcing people to talk in order to enjoy themselves. I hope the idea of "secret lists" dies with it.

My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?

They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up

Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?

No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.

autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up

You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?

No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.

autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up

You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.

Yeah, I see it, but no list modifications can be made at that point.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?

No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.

autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up

You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.

Yeah, I see it, but no list modifications can be made at that point.

Why not? Just go over to your opponent and be like "I saw you have 15 Wraithknights in your list - would you mind only taking, say, one? Or zero? I know it's a lot to ask, but I can't deal with what you have here and won't have fun. If you can't change, I'll look elsewhere."

Because that's the meta. It is what it is. No one tones down anything for BA. In fact, there is a lot of peer pressure to table me ASAP.

Martel732 wrote:
Because that's the meta. It is what it is. No one tones down anything for BA. In fact, there is a lot of peer pressure to table me ASAP.

That's not "the meta" that's "a meta" among many. Go elsewhere. I know people that drive as far as an hour and thirty minutes to the FLGS where I live rather than play in their own meta because of people doing stuff like what you describe.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So what is the threshold for balance, then?

You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.

There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.

Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.

One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.

The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.

Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.

Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.

In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.

Lore =\= good gameplay.

I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.

I've never heard of secret lists and that seems like a very shady thing to do. Your opponent should have full access to your list, rules and codex/ dataslates. Anything less than that leads to confusion and gotcha moments at best and at worst the ability to cheat.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So what is the threshold for balance, then?

You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.

There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.

Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.

One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.

The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.

Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.

Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.

In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.

Lore =\= good gameplay.

I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.

I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've never heard of secret lists and that seems like a very shady thing to do. Your opponent should have full access to your list, rules and codex/ dataslates. Anything less than that leads to confusion and gotcha moments at best and at worst the ability to cheat.

I'm assuming secret lists means that the lists are devised in secret. Meaning, I make my 1500 point list, you make yours, and we fight.
We don't design two lists by committee and see how they work on the table.

I could be wrong, but it's always been the policy of competitive wargames that the enemy can 100% see your list. If they couldn't, outflanking units would sky rocket in power, as would deep strikes.


Edit;
Unit1126PLL,
That is a bad comparison. Games like DnD are cooperative games that have no winner and loser, no sides contesting. If they did, the GM drops a deity on you using Rule zero and packs up within 4 minutes easy.
40k has a clearly defined winner and loser, and no GM equivalent (although it used to). It's really not the same at all.

Because by default chaos marines are weaker then space marines. It takes a lot of deliberate handicapping on the space marine players side to make that game fair. Sure wraithknight are an issue, but the eldar codex as a whole is better then most optimised builds in the game. So unless that eldar player has fistfuls of guardians to use exclusively, you will be outmatched. That's the issue: the game is not even close to balanced, meaning casual games suffer just as much as WAAC games

If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.

autumnlotus wrote:
Because by default chaos marines are weaker then space marines. It takes a lot of deliberate handicapping on the space marine players side to make that game fair. Sure wraithknight are an issue, but the eldar codex as a whole is better then most optimised builds in the game. So unless that eldar player has fistfuls of guardians to use exclusively, you will be outmatched. That's the issue: the game is not even close to balanced, meaning casual games suffer just as much as WAAC games

That isn't an issue at all. I have seen Chaos and Eldar play at my FLGS with my own eyes and saw both players having fun. The Eldar player self-nerfed, yes, it's true, at the Chaos player's request, but the power disparity was mitigated by both players working together to make the game fun, and it worked out.

Well that's surprising to me. What does the eldar player use? I ask because unless they avoided all psykers and most of the aspect warriors it sounds bizarre that it works well there. Does the chaos player just not care about the imbalance?

autumnlotus wrote:
Well that's surprising to me. What does the eldar player use? I ask because unless they avoided all psykers and most of the aspect warriors it sounds bizarre that it works well there. Does the chaos player just not care about the imbalance?

*Shrug* The Eldar player had the Falcon formation full of DAs, the Guardian warhost, two units of Windriders (though he kept the heavy weapons to 1 in 3) a Farseer, three Howling Banshee ladies in another Aspect formation, and I think either two fire prisms or two nightspinners - they were hiding out of LOS when I walked by most of the time so I suspect nightspinners.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.

If 40k is the only game you ever play, this may seem fine and normal to you. The game already takes 3-4 hours at 2k points (assuming both players know the rules), what's another hour to hash out two lists that work?

The problems arise when the following occurs;
1) 40k is not the only game you play.
Other games, like WMH, don't require any discussion behind "Steam Roller?" and "50 points?". All of the really OP models/tiers (tiers are like formations in a way) are getting nerfed, and the weaker models are slowly being brought up. There are bad matchups, but unless you know your opponents list before hand its hard to tech for it. Most WMH players design a 2 caster pair and decide what to drop into it, removing all need for any cooperative list building or discussion.
To be frank, 40k and fantasy are the only games I've ever needed to discuss anything in such detail, not including mordenheim or necromunda (where the plethora of house rules and lack of official support has caused the need for a discussion).

2) You and your opponent don't agree on power levels of armies or units.
There are many examples of this right here on the front page.
Let's say I'm eldar and you are CSM. My list contains Warpspiders, WK, and Hawks with a smattering of other things, all MSU.
Your list is mutilators, talons, and possessed.
What is the power difference in our units? I feel it's huge and require a list construction from both of us. You might think it's minor and we can play the game. Or you want a point handicap. Or I want to edit mutilators to have fleet or +1W. Or you want to remove flicker jump.
Or or or or the list goes on. This is why there are official rules after all.

3) You own a limited collection.
If all you own or brought with you is stationary tanks (say you are SM, Guard, or BA) and all I brought was 9 mutilators and oblits, we are not going to have a fun game. But I didn't bring my 10k points from 4 armies, and you didn't bring 5k points with you.
This isn't so bad if you play at home (personally, most of us keep our models at a friends house) but if you play at a club this can be a big deal.

4) You want to get 2 games in.
Co-op list design can take a long time if you have any issues. Getting 2-3 games of 40k in a full day is already hard. You had 2-3 hours of discussion into the mix, say with strangers, and you are probably getting 1-2 games in max. That's a big drop in gameplay.

I don't think it takes an hour to come up with a list. Additionally a lot of this can be mitigated by bringing three or four premade list that vary on power.

I agree that the book power disparity is an issue but one that is slowly being taken care off. All the 7.5 books play well against each other both competitively and casually for the most part. The problem is that half the books arn't there yet and many haven't aged well.

Akiasura wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.

If 40k is the only game you ever play, this may seem fine and normal to you. The game already takes 3-4 hours at 2k points (assuming both players know the rules), what's another hour to hash out two lists that work?

The problems arise when the following occurs;
1) 40k is not the only game you play.
Other games, like WMH, don't require any discussion behind "Steam Roller?" and "50 points?". All of the really OP models/tiers (tiers are like formations in a way) are getting nerfed, and the weaker models are slowly being brought up. There are bad matchups, but unless you know your opponents list before hand its hard to tech for it. Most WMH players design a 2 caster pair and decide what to drop into it, removing all need for any cooperative list building or discussion.
To be frank, 40k and fantasy are the only games I've ever needed to discuss anything in such detail, not including mordenheim or necromunda (where the plethora of house rules and lack of official support has caused the need for a discussion).

2) You and your opponent don't agree on power levels of armies or units.
There are many examples of this right here on the front page.
Let's say I'm eldar and you are CSM. My list contains Warpspiders, WK, and Hawks with a smattering of other things, all MSU.
Your list is mutilators, talons, and possessed.
What is the power difference in our units? I feel it's huge and require a list construction from both of us. You might think it's minor and we can play the game. Or you want a point handicap. Or I want to edit mutilators to have fleet or +1W. Or you want to remove flicker jump.
Or or or or the list goes on. This is why there are official rules after all.

3) You own a limited collection.
If all you own or brought with you is stationary tanks (say you are SM, Guard, or BA) and all I brought was 9 mutilators and oblits, we are not going to have a fun game. But I didn't bring my 10k points from 4 armies, and you didn't bring 5k points with you.
This isn't so bad if you play at home (personally, most of us keep our models at a friends house) but if you play at a club this can be a big deal.

4) You want to get 2 games in.
Co-op list design can take a long time if you have any issues. Getting 2-3 games of 40k in a full day is already hard. You had 2-3 hours of discussion into the mix, say with strangers, and you are probably getting 1-2 games in max. That's a big drop in gameplay.

1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.

2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.

3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.

4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.

If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.

That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.

While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.

There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.

I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.

As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So what is the threshold for balance, then?

You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.

There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.

Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.

One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.

The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.

Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.

Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.

In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.

Lore =\= good gameplay.

I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.

I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?

That's a huge false equivalency you're trying to sneak in under your skirt there.

RPGs are a collaborative endeavour. Wargames are an oppositional one. I'm sure role playing a group of Marines mowing down rank upon rank of oncoming Xenos makes for a fun role playing scenario if you're the Marines. I'm not sure a wargamer fielding an army of those Xeonos and trying to win a game against the same sort of imbalance of power is going to have much fun.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.

Bolt Action
A take all comers list can be made and it will do just fine in a PUG.

We play with blind lists alot of the time, and several of us even like to play that your opponent doesn't know what's in a Dedicated Transport until the unit isnide disembarks.

But we're fluffy players for the most part who trust each other not to be DBs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The way you can avoid my 6 Baneblades or whatever coming against your 6 Meltaguns is by talking about it beforehand.

I know it gets repeated in every 40k thread but seriously, I routinely play leviathan detachments in 30k and 40k games replete with superheavies, and no one in any of the three cities I've lived in for most of my like has batted an eyelash.

Because I mention it before the game, talk with them, learn their name, make friends, buy them a drink or whatever, and then roll some dice.

The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.

As others have said that works fine if and this is a big if, we both brought/own extra models. But say that list is all I own, do you really want to never play your ideal of 6 bane blades? IF so at that point how is it any different than if you were not allowed to. The only way it is different is not you are grumpy with me because I never let you use your toys. Talking about stuff ahead of time is all well and good, until I've sunk a bunch of money and time building an army no one wants to face. Now I need to shelve units I like, and/or buy new models just to play. Which is essentially why I have only played 2 twice in the last year and a half, I just don't enjoy the game as the mess it has become. Occasionally it can be fun, but I don't want to need to either throw down imbalanced lists/spend tons more money/take tons of time to set up a game on a regular basis when other games have proven more enjoyable on a regular basis. I still have my models and would love to use them if the game was better, but when I can expect to face multiple superheavies on a regular basis, or invis-stars, or Tons of ignores cover shooting etc, my pre-game discussion would be me asking too much from my opponents to be any fun. Plus it narrows the field of opponents (in an area with relatively few already) Most super casual people don't come out to open gaming, so I never see them. Those that do at least half are somewhat competitive and as such want to tourney practice a good amount of time, so pre game conference ammounts to not playing, or playing against top level stuff. So that leaves me with mostly newer players, who often already have games set up....

master of ordinance wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.

Bolt Action
A take all comers list can be made and it will do just fine in a PUG.

I was talking about 40k. And no, I actually asked if it was possible to get a PUG with Bolt Action using the new all-tank supplement and got told to play someone else who brought the same supplement.

Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So what is the threshold for balance, then?

You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.

There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.

Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.

One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.

The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.

Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.

Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.

In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.

Lore =\= good gameplay.

I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.

I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?

That's a huge false equivalency you're trying to sneak in under your skirt there.

RPGs are a collaborative endeavour. Wargames are an oppositional one. I'm sure role playing a group of Marines mowing down rank upon rank of oncoming Xenos makes for a fun role playing scenario if you're the Marines. I'm not sure a wargamer fielding an army of those Xeonos and trying to win a game against the same sort of imbalance of power is going to have much fun.

You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative. It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, or not be, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!



i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.