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.

 Blacksails wrote:
Already did, and already did, but this is more of you dodging points.

Your comments are perfectly understood. If mine were too complicated for you, I can re-explain them to you.

If you don't want to discuss it, just say so.

Nothing I'm saying is elitist. Yes, you have the option to play 40k however the feth you want, provided that you can find like minded opponents. If Galef wants to spam scatter bikes and wraithknights and his opponents like to play, e.g., a white scars gladius with grav cannon spam or flyrant spam, and that's their idea of a good time, then so be it. If that's their thing, then that's their thing.

However, if you are concerned about the fact that there are massive internal and external imbalances, and if you find that you keep racking up unfair wins by exploiting them, then the solution is simple:

STOP DOING THAT!

It's not rocket science.

If you don't like the fact that you keep stomping your opponents with scatter bike spam, then stop using scatter bike spam.

GW isn't forcing you to do that. The decision to do that is on you.

That's the only point that I'm making.

Yeah, to be clear, the imbalances are the fault of the designer, but the players are left to solve the issue in many ways. Those ways include politely declining matches because one or both parties feel it'd be a slaughter one way or the other, tweaking one or both lists, agreeing to some sort of bonus for the weaker army, or just playing anyways and seeing what happens.

In the end, player attitude will always be one of the more important factors in game enjoyment. However, a poorly balanced match detracts from that experience (potentially for both parties), while a better balanced, close match typically enhances the enjoyment.

Simple stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:


That's the only point that I'm making.

You make it incredibly poorly with terrible analogies and with an attitude that comes across as distinctly elitist.

 Blacksails wrote:
Yeah, to be clear, the imbalances are the fault of the designer, but the players are left to solve the issue in many ways. Those ways include politely declining matches because one or both parties feel it'd be a slaughter one way or the other, tweaking one or both lists, agreeing to some sort of bonus for the weaker army, or just playing anyways and seeing what happens.

Yes.

I'm not saying anything substantially different from this.

You make it incredibly poorly with terrible analogies and with an attitude that comes across as distinctly elitist.

Oy vae.

That's it. I'm assigning you homework.

Aristotle, Physics II.3.

Have a 1 page summary in my PM box by midnight tomorrow.

Not helping with the elitist thing there.

Peregrine wrote:Alternative answer: help them change their list. Why should the winning player have the entire obligation to do something different?

A couple of points:

1. How is this substantially different from telling me: "Oh, you don't like AK-47s? Let me show you where you can find AK-47s on the map. They're great."

Ex hypothesi, I don't want to play with AK-47s.

2. Again, context is everything. The OP is complaining that he keeps stomping his opponents, and he's ultimately blaming codex imbalance for it.

That's just wrong. Codex imbalance isn't to blame for his unfair advantages. He has codex options which wouldn't provide him unfair advantages.

Codex imbalance likely isn't to blame for his wins.

Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

 Traditio wrote:

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

And when someone counters your point, counter what they said instead of going back to your topic. They proved you wrong, but yet you keep going back in circles. Rebuttal the countered point. Then maybe you can prove your point instead of you just going in circles where I am not even know what your original point is now.

Ne_Streets wrote:
So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines.

All of these codex have ridiculously imbalanced options that will give you easy wins.

They also have balanced options that will give you fair wins.

They also have terrible options that will make winning very difficult.

 Traditio wrote:

Davor wrote:
Oh here we go again someone who is trying to debate and say they are right but when countered, they can't talk about the counter point but talk in a different direction instead of what is actually being countered.

Literally the only point that I am making is that you can't blame rules imbalances for bad games. You want balanced games? Then set up balanced games by not using imbalanced rules.

Which would be much easier to do if GW actually supplied balanced rules.

You can't expect players to self regulate to create balanced games. I still have disagreements with one of my mates on how to balance our 5th edition WHFB armies, he argues some of his units are underpowered, I argue that he's not using them properly

It is beyond the scope of a couple of players to create a balanced game, it takes work, research, testing... the sort of work, research and testing that one expects from a multi million dollar company releasing rulebooks at premium prices.

I think it's a bit silly to blame players for not being able to craft a good ruleset from a crap ruleset. When someone has a bad time playing a bad video game I don't blame the player for not being able to turn the bad game in to an enjoyable experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:
So what do people consider the "top tier" codices?

Eldar, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines.

All of these codex have ridiculously imbalanced options that will give you easy wins.

They also have balanced options that will give you fair wins.

They also have terrible options that will make winning very difficult.

So who decides which units are the balanced units? What if you think some options are terrible but I think they're balanced or even over powered and you just don't know how to use them?

I think it's a pretty universal thought that 40k has crap balance, but that doesn't mean it's a trivial matter to balance it.

Which would be much easier to do if GW actually supplied balanced rules.

I don't deny this for a moment. Going back to the video game example, if the AK-47 were properly balanced against the shotgun, then the shotgun would be a more viable option.

But so what?

Nobody is forced to take the AK-47.

You can't expect players to self regulate to create balanced games.

Yes, I can.

That's the great thing human beings being free, rational agents.

Sure, there are always going to be minor points of dispute, but there are obvious things that are clearly imbalanced which players can mutually agree not to use.

There's an entire list. There's even threads upon threads on dakka complaining about them.

Then there's always the "intent" check. If you tell me that you're running x because it's an unkillable blob of death, then you think it's unbalanced, and if we're self regulating, you shouldn't be running it.

I still have disagreements with one of my mates on how to balance our 5th edition WHFB armies, he argues some of his units are underpowered, I argue that he's not using them properly

It is beyond the scope of a couple of players to create a balanced game, it takes work, research, testing... the sort of work, research and testing that one expects from a multi million dollar company releasing rulebooks at premium prices.

The internet exists.

You understand that the internet exists, yes?

I think it's a bit silly to blame players for not being able to craft a good ruleset from a crap ruleset.

Again, how difficult is it?

"Hey, the AK-47 is unreasonably good." "Yeah, man, I agree. It's just unfair." "Yeah...hey, why don't we agree not to use AK-47s?"

When someone has a bad time playing a bad video game I don't blame the player for not being able to turn the bad game in to an enjoyable experience.

You've never played a fighting game, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:So who decides which units are the balanced units? What if you think some options are terrible but I think they're balanced or even over powered and you just don't know how to use them?

I think it's a pretty universal thought that 40k has crap balance, but that doesn't mean it's a trivial matter to balance it.

Communal consensus/public opinion.

In the SM codex, storm shields, bikes, grav, drop pods, librarians and white scars chapter tactics (and Khan) are considered auto-takes. As are formations.

Auto-take, for optional selections, usually equates to "imbalanced and OP."

Don't run those things if you're self-regulating.

 Traditio wrote:

Communal consensus/public opinion.

In the SM codex, storm shields, bikes, grav, drop pods, librarians and white scars chapter tactics (and Khan) are considered auto-takes. As are formations.

Auto-take, for optional selections, usually equates to "imbalanced and OP."

Don't run those things if you're self-regulating.

I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much. You said that, because the internet exists, it's easy to come up with a universally balanced game, but you also said that what people consider balanced is different from player to player.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to balance games yourself, but if the state of the tabletop competitive portion of the game is in such disarray it isn't the onus of the players to fix the problem. It really should be the creator's responsibility to make a game playable and balanced if it is meant to be even slightly competitive.

Ne_Streets wrote:I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much.

Like what? Provide examples.

You said that, because the internet exists, it's easy to come up with a universally balanced game, but you also said that what people consider balanced is different from player to player.

There's disagreement about what would make scatter bikes balanced. There is broad agreement that scatter bikes are imbalanced.

There's disagreement about what would make the necron decurion balanced. There's broad agreement that it's imbalanced.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to balance games yourself, but if the state of the tabletop competitive portion of the game is in such disarray it isn't the onus of the players to fix the problem. It really should be the creator's responsibility to make a game playable and balanced if it is meant to be even slightly competitive.

I'm not disagreeing that GW should balance the bloody game. They most certainly should.

However, given the fact that it's not, it's the player's prerogative to deal with it.

If that means not running storm surges or riptides, then that means not running storm surges or riptides.

You cannot control what others play and what others like.

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ). So what is the purpose of a game if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill. In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached. You have figuratively reached across the table and moved your opponents models for him. How is it that by preventing what your opponent can and cannot do, you have made his decisions for him? Why it is out of necessity. The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.


The rules need to make certain that armies and units are not absolutely advantageous in comparison to others, as the game is then essentially limiting itself as well.

 Traditio wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:I doubt it's that easy. Some things are important or auto-take because of how integral they are to certain key aspects of an army. There's not a lot you can do if a core aspect of your army is considered OP, as you would have to change too much.

Like what? Provide examples

I can only speak for the army I have been looking to use, because I'm new. That said, there are plenty of things I basically have to take to remain competitive against an opponent with any kind of strategy.

Units that have markerlights are essential. Otherwise, Tau are just IG. Other than that, I would assume things like formations and Commanders with Signature Systems would be more or less essential in most armies. General things, sure, but they go a long way in making the army unique.

If unique rules are imbalanced then you're just advocating for a Space Marine vs. Space Marines flavored like Necrons, or Tau, or what have you.

 Traditio wrote:
If that means not running storm surges or riptides, then that means not running storm surges or riptides.

Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You cannot control what others play

Except, that's the beautiful part of playing a game. Playing a game is a communal endeavor which is heavily based on mutual agreement and social custom.

I am fully entitled to say: "Alright. Either you cut out the wraithknights and scatter bikes, or find yourself another opponent."

And you, in turn, are entitled either to agree, or else, find a different opponent, or else, just not play.

Isn't that just wonderful?

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ).

Yes. There's nothing problematic about this. Your opponent dictates what you can and cannot do every single time you play a game, if only by saying: "Hey, would you like to play a game of warhammer 40k with no house rules?"

Had he asked you to play monopoly, you would be doing very different things.

So what is the purpose of a game

To provide amusement and leisure.

if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill.

Net-listing doesn't equate to intellect and skill. Sorry, buddy.

In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached.

In a microcosmic way, by asking to play monopoly instead of warhammer 40k, I have made a choice for my opponent and thereby perverted...

You understand how silly this is?

The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

Ignoring for a moment the existence of non-competitive games, I could easily grant what you are saying, but I only add the caveat: "Within the structure of any rules, whether official rules or house rules, written or unwritten, which may be in place."

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.

Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ne_Streets wrote:I can only speak for the army I have been looking to use, because I'm new. That said, there are plenty of things I basically have to take to remain competitive against an opponent with any kind of strategy.

The 40k community is absolutely schizophrenic on this point.

On the one hand, 40k players love to complain about game imbalances.

On the other hand, those same 40k players insist that they are correct to play with their imbalanced rule-sets in the name of being "competitive."

Do you want to be competitive or do you want to play fair?

If you want to be competitive, then there is no discussion to be had.

If you want to play fair, then see my comments. There is broad public agreement on the most egregiously OP things.

Units that have markerlights are essential.

Markerlights in and of themselves aren't game-breaking. Markerlights + riptides, stormsurges or death-stars are game-breaking. Don't bring those if you want to self-regulate.

Otherwise, Tau are just IG. Other than that, I would assume things like formations and Commanders with Signature Systems would be more or less essential in most armies. General things, sure, but they go a long way in making the army unique.

If you want to self-regulate, you may:

1. Only bring CADs (whether one or several is a matter of indifference).
2. Not bring death-stars or otherwise use combinations that exploit force multipliers.
3. You also may not bring riptides or SHCs or GMCs.

If you want to win by tactics, then win by tactics. Don't bring the win buttons.

If unique rules are imbalanced then you're just advocating for a Space Marine vs. Space Marines flavored like Necrons, or Tau, or what have you

Horus Heresy is broadly agreed to be much more balanced than 40k, with the exception of the non-marine factions. This is an indisputable fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

Both are viable options. Equally viable is me and my opponent simply not playing each other.

 Traditio wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You cannot control what others play

Except, that's the beautiful part of playing a game. Playing a game is a communal endeavor which is heavily based on mutual agreement and social custom.

I am fully entitled to say: "Alright. Either you cut out the wraithknights and scatter bikes, or find yourself another opponent."

And you, in turn, are entitled either to agree, or else, find a different opponent, or else, just not play.

Isn't that just wonderful?

When you tell someone what they can and cannot use, you also begin to dictate what your opponent can and cannot do (as coming from the utility that such a unit may employ).

Yes. There's nothing problematic about this. Your opponent dictates what you can and cannot do every single time you play a game, if only by saying: "Hey, would you like to play a game of warhammer 40k with no house rules?"

Had he asked you to play monopoly, you would be doing very different things.

So what is the purpose of a game

To provide amusement and leisure.

if not to determine who can win based on their individual intellect and skill.

Net-listing doesn't equate to intellect and skill. Sorry, buddy.

In a microcosmic way by limiting what your opponent can use, you have made a choice for your opponent and thereby perverted the game away from any natural end it may have otherwise reached.

In a microcosmic way, by asking to play monopoly instead of warhammer 40k, I have made a choice for my opponent and thereby perverted...

You understand how silly this is?

The spirit of all games is that of competition , whether that competition is friendly or not is irrelevant, the game is there to be won and thus naturally each player is drawn to the use of whichever tool most effectively allows him to meet his goal.

Ignoring for a moment the existence of non-competitive games, I could easily grant what you are saying, but I only add the caveat: "Within the structure of any rules, whether official rules or house rules, written or unwritten, which may be in place."

all games are about winning and thus everyone is going to be in some way or another drawn toward victory. There is intrinsic value in playing, but when an extrinsic reward presents itself, it replaces the original motivation. It is only human nature to then gravitate toward what allows you to win.

Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

Sledgehammer wrote:What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

I agree, but so what? I'm not disagreeing that GW has consistently dropped the ball on this.

What I am saying is that, given that GW has dropped the ball, there's nothing stopping us from self-regulating and having fair matches anyway.

In video games (e.g., Super Smash Brothers), this is even a part of the rule set.

Do you want random drops or no? You can turn that off if you want. That's up to you.

 Traditio wrote:
So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

Never going to happen. Getting tabled by Wraithknights is infinitely more fun than enduring the sheer misery of Monopoly. Please use a more plausible example next time?

Peregrine wrote:Here's an alternative option: don't run units that lose to Stormsurges or Riptides. Play a more powerful army that can handle those units and don't ruin the game for your opponent by losing all the time.

Both are viable options. Equally viable is me and my opponent simply not playing each other.

Well, this is certainly progress! We've come so far from the days when you insisted that the person who wanted to use the more powerful units was a WAAC TFG and guilty of serious moral sins. I'm glad you now understand that it's possible for two people to have incompatible gaming goals without one of them being an awful person.

 Traditio wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:What I am saying is that the rules end up serving no one. If a game is to played there must be those willing to play it. If the rules are in incapable of setting up an enjoyable experience without having to navigate social faux pas, then the rules have failed to do what they were intended for.

I agree, but so what? I'm not disagreeing that GW has consistently dropped the ball on this.

What I am saying is that, given that GW has dropped the ball, there's nothing stopping us from self-regulating and having fair matches anyway.

In video games (e.g., Super Smash Brothers), this is even a part of the rule set.

Do you want random drops or no? You can turn that off if you want. That's up to you.

I'm all for self regulating , but there must be a consensus for such acts to even take place. Generally the task of outlining the social agreement within a game, is placed upon the rules. When one challenges the rules and usurps them, there is a question as to where the new authority lies. Instead of dealing with the unknown, players tend to side with the devil they know.

Sledgehammer wrote:I'm all for self regulating , but there must be a consensus for such acts to even take place.

You mean, like, mutual agreement prior to a match? "Hey, want to play 40k?" "Sure, on condition that: 1. we both run only CADs, 2. we play at such and such a points limit, 3. that we do not use SHVs or GMCs...and by the way, what codex are you using? Tau? Yeah. No riptides."

This is less of an army issue and more of a player issue for me.

I haven't played Tournaments in years so all of my games are friendlies. And I generally expect the other person to be a gentleman when it comes to his army builds; basically nothing too dickish, but not a pushover either. I also don't care very much for winning either, more for the actual playing of the game (playing mostly "evil" factions help, since I can act like a saturday morning cartoon villain).

However if I meet someone who intentionally brings power lists and gloats after every win, that's when I whip out my own WAAC list (usually some combo of gargantuan creatures, superheavies or combo of broken units), table him in three turns, then never play him again.

Yes, I do bring a WAAC list on hand just specifically for this. No one bites me with impunity.

 Traditio wrote:
Therefore, if you're spamming OP bull gak, you should understand and agree with the decision of everyone else to refuse to play with you. Because by not playing with you and doing something else instead, I have gravitated to doing what allows me to win.

So, if you say: "Hey, I have these wraithknights and scatter bikes," be not surprised when your opponent says: "And I have this copy of the monopoly board game. You got 45 minutes to spare?"

On the other hand, those same 40k players insist that they are correct to play with their imbalanced rule-sets in the name of being "competitive."

Monopoly takes a lot more than 45 minutes, and, to be honest, I would rather play against an army with a 1000pt imbalance than play that game. A nitpick.

Markerlights in and of themselves aren't game-breaking. Markerlights + riptides, stormsurges or death-stars are game-breaking. Don't bring those if you want to self-regulate.

Markerlights are the distinguishing factor that puts Tau shooting above average. A single Riptide is a strong unit, but it can't ruin a game's balance alone. You need either number of Riptides or an opponent who wants to try an infantry-only IG squad to see it fall into the game-breaking category.

1. Only bring CADs (whether one or several is a matter of indifference).
2. Not bring death-stars or otherwise use combinations that exploit force multipliers.
3. You also may not bring riptides or SHCs or GMCs.

If you want to win by tactics, then win by tactics. Don't bring the win buttons.

I honestly don't believe in the "I win button" units. Even with my very limited experience, it seems like on a basic points cost versus value economy, you more or less get what you pay for. It's far too expensive to run a Riptide Wing or several Stormsurges in a standard 1500 point game.

Riptides don't auto-win games. They are a strong unit in an apparently strong codex, but they don't destroy game balance simply by being placed on the field.

Horus Heresy is broadly agreed to be much more balanced than 40k, with the exception of the non-marine factions. This is an indisputable fact.

Yeah, sure, but does that matter at all? We're not talking about Horus Heresy. It may be more balanced for every army to more or less have the same units and rules, but that eliminates all variety.

Ne_Streets wrote:Monopoly takes a lot more than 45 minutes, and, to be honest, I would rather play against an army with a 1000pt imbalance than play that game. A nitpick.

I have in mind one of the recent Dark Souls III videos by the Game Grumps. Apparently, if you play "by the book" and don't use house rules, it's supposed to be a 45 minute game.

Markerlights are the distinguishing factor that puts Tau shooting above average. A single Riptide is a strong unit, but it can't ruin a game's balance alone. You need either number of Riptides or an opponent who wants to try an infantry-only IG squad to see it fall into the game-breaking category.

Riptides have more durability, fire power, mobility, etc. than can be justified by their points cost. Therefore, they are OP, and if you want to play a fair game, you should not play them.

It's that simple.

Riptides don't auto-win games. They are a strong unit in an apparently strong codex, but they don't destroy game balance simply by being placed on the field.

Yes, they do. Insofar as you are fielding a model that has more durability, fire power, etc. than can be justified for its points cost, you have put me at a disadvantage and have imbalanced the game.

No riptides if you want to play a fair game. Not even one. Not even half of one. No riptides.

Again, read my lips:

"No. Riptides."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Well, this is certainly progress! We've come so far from the days when you insisted that the person who wanted to use the more powerful units was a WAAC TFG and guilty of serious moral sins. I'm glad you now understand that it's possible for two people to have incompatible gaming goals without one of them being an awful person.

1. The two claims are not incompatible.

2. I'd prefer to speak less of moral sins than of WAAC TFGs having serious personality defects, insofar as any donkey cave has a serious personality defect or defects.

What I initially said is basically self-evident. If I want to have a fair game, and you run wraithknights and scatter bikes, then we have 3 options:

1. You stop using that.
2. I run something that can beat wraithknights and scatter bikes.
3. We don't play.

All three of those are viable options.

The question of whether or not you are a WAAC TFG if you refuse to do 1 is another question entirely.

That said, I do seriously question the motives of a space marine player or a Dark Angels player who refuses to downgrade his battle company to a CAD.

What other motive could he have than "I am a donkey cave who would prefer to win rather than have a fair game"?

What motive could a Necron player have not to downgrade his decurion to a CAD?

 Traditio wrote:
I have in mind one of the recent Dark Souls III videos by the Game Grumps. Apparently, if you play "by the book" and don't use house rules, it's supposed to be a 45 minute game.

Which is still 44.5 minutes longer than it should take. The best way to play Monopoly is to throw the game in the trash and forget you ever had such a terrible idea. I stand by my claim that even the worst game of 40k is better than playing Monopoly.

Riptides have more durability, fire power, mobility, etc. than can be justified by their points cost. Therefore, they are OP, and if you want to play a fair game, you should not play them.

It's that simple.

Alternatively, Riptides are balanced, some other units (some of which you may wish to use) are too weak for their point cost, and if you want to play a fair game you should only play things that can compete with Riptides.

Insofar as you are fielding a model that has more durability, fire power, etc. than can be justified for its points cost, you have put me at a disadvantage and have imbalanced the game.

No, YOU put YOURSELF at a disadvantage by taking bad units and imbalancing the game. Perhaps if you want a fair game you should stop doing this?

What other motive could he have than "I am a donkey cave who would prefer to win rather than have a fair game"?

"I'm playing a reasonable list, why should I have an obligation to change my army? Change yours if you want the game to be fair."

"The units I want to use don't fit in a CAD, why don't you take a powerful formation yourself instead of crippling yourself before the game begins?"

"I love the awesome special rules these formations give my units, why should I give them up just because you refuse to do your part to make the game fair?"

I'm pretty sure that you're overreacting when you say Riptides are unfair. Strong units aren't inherently unfair. Maybe you wouldn't play with them, and that's fine.

Just another example of a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by simple player deliberation. If one party, especially one who advocates players coming to their own terms, won't even support a core codex option that's not even a LoW, how can a typical group deal with this sort of disagreement short of referring back to the rules?

Some things can be fixed. Some things can't. People with strong opinions on what is and isn't fair aren't going to be open to others bringing the units and models they want to bring, even if they are totall correct.

Peregrine wrote:Alternatively, Riptides are balanced, some other units (some of which you may wish to use) are too weak for their point cost, and if you want to play a fair game you should only play things that can compete with Riptides.

Balanced is a relative term. If Riptides and a select few other units are "balanced," and everything else is imbalanced, then it's pretty much self-evident that you've incorrectly assessed which units are and are not imbalanced.

Alternatively:

Shall I start another poll? I have no qualms about starting another poll.

No, YOU put YOURSELF at a disadvantage by taking bad units and imbalancing the game. Perhaps if you want a fair game you should stop doing this?

You're arguing over semantics. Because, once again, this is all relative. If I only spam OP bull gak and my opponent only spams OP bull gak, assuming that the bull gak is equally OP, then we'll have a balanced game, relatively to each other.

The assumption is that most things in the game are not OP bull gak.

Thus my comments:

You have two options:

Either you wish to use OP bull gak or you do not wish to use OP bull gak.

If you don't wish to use OP bull gak, then no riptides. OP bull gak doesn't cease to be OP bull gak simply because you only took one.

I assume you wouldn't be impressed if I told you that I only took a single free rhino in my gladius strike force. I mean, it's just 35 free points. Surely, that's not OP or game breaking. Right?

"I'm playing a reasonable list, why should I have an obligation to change my army? Change yours if you want the game to be fair."

Which, to my mind, translates to:

"Because I am a giant, stinking donkey cave who cannot bear the thought of having a fair fight."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ne_Streets wrote:
I'm pretty sure that you're overreacting when you say Riptides are unfair. Strong units aren't inherently unfair.

By definition, all strong units are unfair. The way that "strong" is usually used is: "By using this unit, I get a disproportionate advantage relative to the points cost I am paying."

By definition, that is unfair.

Also, this isn't just my opinion. If I made a public opinion poll right now, I can guarantee you that at least 50 percent of voters would agree that riptides are unfair.

Just another example of a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by simple player deliberation. If one party, especially one who advocates players coming to their own terms, won't even support a core codex option that's not even a LoW, how can a typical group deal with this sort of disagreement short of referring back to the rules?

Common public opinion. Again: the internet exists.

Apart from WAAC TFG tau players (note that I'm not saying that all tau players are WAAC TFGs), it's commonly agreed that riptides are OP.

Don't use them if you expect to make friends.

 Traditio wrote:
Balanced is a relative term. If Riptides and a select few other units are "balanced," and everything else is imbalanced, then it's pretty much self-evident that you've incorrectly assessed which units are and are not imbalanced.

This is not true at all. If I've decided that Riptides are the benchmark in creating new units then the fact that some 3rd edition leftovers don't compete well means that they need to be buffed up to Riptide level. The only way you can say that Riptides are overpowered is if you assume that the designers are using something else as the benchmark, and you don't know that.

Alternatively:

Shall I start another poll? I have no qualms about starting another poll.

Yes, we all know you enjoy abusing polls. Please don't.

The assumption is that most things in the game are not OP bull gak.

Yes, we all know that you assume that everyone plays (or should play) an army just like yours. This is part of the problem.

I assume you wouldn't be impressed if I told you that I only took a single free rhino in my gladius strike force. I mean, it's just 35 free points. Surely, that's not OP or game breaking. Right?

No, actually I would be impressed and would have much less of a problem with it than with the guy who took 10 of them.

Which, to my mind, translates to:

"Because I am a giant, stinking donkey cave who cannot bear the thought of having a fair fight."

You're right, that's exactly what you're saying. Stop taking weak units and making the game unfair for your opponent.